Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives

As you might have noticed from my other reviews, I am a pretty big fan of the Friday the 13th series, despite logic and good taste (typically) being on my side. Now, the last Friday didn't actually feature Jason Voorhies as the film's killer; instead, it was some random joe and it was implied that Tommy (who, played by Corey Feldman in Part IV, killed Jason as a tween) became a killer at the end of the movie.  Fast forward a bit and you arrive in the future when this movie takes place (by my math, I'd say that this 1986 movie takes place in roughly 1992, judging on Tommy's approximate age).

Tommy (Thom Matthews) is still a head case, but he and a friend escape their psych ward or whatever and head to Jason's grave.  The plan is to dig up Jason's corpse and burn it, because "Jason belongs in Hell.  [Tommy's] going to make sure he gets there."  Keep in mind that Jason has been dead and buried for at least five years at this point.  And that's another thing...who the hell buried Jason freaking Voorhies in a cemetery with a marked grave?  Certainly not his mother, and I'm pretty sure the state would have cremated his poor ass.  I guess Crystal Lake has a mysterious benefactor who wanted to preserve the memories of senseless slaughter.  Anyway, Tommy digs up the grave and finds the worm-eaten corpse; he must have been wearing coveralls in between scenes, because he's pretty clean when it comes time to kill Jason's corpse deader.  How is he going to re-kill Jason?  With a metal spike that he tore from the cemetery fence, of course.  He dug up a corpse and apparently planned on using whatever tools he had on hand to send the damn thing to hell.  Again.  Well, as he was digging, a lightning storm started.  No rain, just lightning.  Tommy stabs Jason and the metal spike is hit not once, but twice in a row by lightning, which causes Jason to open his eyes, regenerate his body tissue, and punch the heart out of Tommy's friend before Tommy escapes to safety.  Thank goodness Tommy brought Jason's mask with him; Jason reborn now has moderately not disgusting clothes and his favorite hockey mask.

Jason was buried wearing his very best...jumpsuit?

Maybe you can guess where the film goes from here.  Maybe not.  Tommy runs to town (where Crystal Lake has changed its name to "Forest Green") and goes to the police.  Shockingly, they don't believe a mental patient who claims that someone who has been dead for years has come back to life and is murdering people.  Stupid cops.  They lock Tommy up and, sure enough, Jason lumbers back to town and starts with the murderdeathkills.  The big difference in this movie is that Jason seems drawn to the lake where he drowned as a boy, and the camp by the lake actually has children in it this time.  Who will save the children?!?

I would like to take a moment and point out that Jason wanted to return to the lake where he drowned as a boy.  Granted, this is the first film with Super Zombie Jason, a being that is obviously superhuman and basically death-proof, but...isn't the whole point of Friday the 13th Part II that Jason didn't drown in the lake?  He was living as a hobo with a bag over his head for all those years, which explains how a dead child could turn into a killer linebacker.  Am I nitpicking?  Absolutely.  Do I really care about the continuity in this series?  Absolutely not.

It's hard to tell whether Alice or Jason isn't worthy here.

Let's take a moment to look at the cast in this movie.  It's not the strongest in the series.  You might recognize Thom Mathews as yet another Friday alum who went on to co-star in Return of the Living Dead.  Seriously, that movie is like the Kevin Bacon of this series, which is odd when you consider that Kevin Bacon was in the first movie.  One of the ill-fated paintballers went on to have a supporting role in the Heroes television series.  Ron Palillo, who played Horshack on Welcome Back, Kotter, had a small part.  Probably the most successful actor in this film is Tony Goldwyn, at least in part because IMDb doesn't list this movie in his "Known For" credits.  Despite the lack of A, B, or even C-list talent, the acting in Jason Lives isn't as awful as you might think.  Well, okay, it's pretty bad.  But it's the right amount of bad.  Director Tom McLoughlin apparently knew that this was a pretty ridiculous movie, so he directed it as such.  No, the acting and directing aren't very good, but they're not half bad for a movie that is obviously at odds with both logic and the film series it is continuing.

"Huh.  That's never happened before."

Jason Lives is all too ready to give up on being a scary movie, but it is still pretty entertaining.  One of the reasons for this is some intentional humor.  The opening credits spoof James Bond with Jason walking across the screen, framed by a hockey mask eye hole, only to stop and slash at the camera.  That's kind of funny.  A lot of the kills are pretty humorous, too.  One victim gets his head smashed into a tree, leaving a bloody smiley face behind.  At another point, Jason cuts off three heads with one machete swing.  One victim even tries to avoid Jason entirely because she has supposedly seen enough horror movies to know not to mess with dudes in masks.  This movie also shows off the playful side of Jason; he likes to hide and surprise some victims, and takes a certain amount of pride in (sometimes) arranging his victims in unusual ways.

Obviously, being the sixth entry in a horror franchise, the movie is not without its flaws.  Remember Part V?   You know, the one where Tommy was going to assume the killer role in the series?  Yeah, it turns out that nobody liked that idea, so the filmmakers kind of just pretend that movie never happened.  There is nothing but awful logic and reasoning used by the characters throughout the film, and I'm pretty sure that Jason's resurrection is medically unlikely.  Despite a decent number of kills (sixteen) and victims that were uniformly annoying, this Friday manages to skimp on one of the series' staples: gratuitous nudity.  If you're willing to overlook the stupidity of the characters and the story, this is a reasonably entertaining cheap slasher film, but if things like "plot" and "continuity" bother you...this one is a headache.

When you look at this film as part of the series, it stands out for a few important reasons.  It is the final installment of the "Tommy Trilogy," so the next film doesn't have the baggage of explaining how a character keeps not dying in this franchise.  It is also the first appearance of Super Zombie Jason.  No longer a mere unstoppable mortal killer, this Jason is impervious to bullets and can take an outboard motor to the face with few consequences.  This is also the first movie that made a big deal about returning Jason to Crystal Lake, a theme that would pop up in at least one other movie.  Perhaps the most important element this movie adds to the series is a sense of humor.  The Friday the 13th series became a typical slasher series almost immediately and, as such, was never really that scary after the first couple.  While this isn't a hilarious movie, it does have humor and the humor adds to the overall film.  Some of my favorite moments in later Fridays involve humor (the sleeping bag scene from Jason X stands out in my memory), and this is the movie that made it okay to laugh with (as well as at) these movies.  While it certainly isn't a great film, I thought it was pretty enjoyable.

Here is Alice Cooper's mind-bogglingly cheesy video for "He's Back (The Man Behind the Mask)," which served as the theme song to this movie. I think my favorite part of the movie is the squares shaking their hands, as if to say, "No thank you, Mr. Cooper, I have been hard-rock-synthesizered enough for one night."

Thor

I'm a pretty big fan of Norse mythology.  Part of it is due to my Swedish ancestry and part of it is because Norse myths are basically set up like The Dirty Dozen; yes, the gods are all pretty bad-ass, but they all know that they're on a suicide mission called Ragnarok.   When I heard that Marvel Studios was going to be making a Thor movie as part of their announced Avengers franchise, I was a bit skeptical.  Sure, I've enjoyed the movies the studio has made so far (the Iron Man films and The Incredible Hulk), but Thor is a different type of character entirely.  This wouldn't be about making a fantastic character down to Earth, it would be about telling a story about a foreign god that most Americans are fairly unfamiliar with and turning it into a superhero movie.  There are a LOT of ways to do this story wrong.  Hell, even the comics only get it right every five years or so.  Now, I will admit that I read comics and have a decent collection of classic Thor issues, so I am definitely approaching this movie as a bit of a fanboy.

This issue was, in all seriousness, awesome.

That said, I entered Thor with high hopes and dreadful fears.  Would this join the ranks of awesome Marvel Comics movies, like X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man 2, or would it be an incomprehensible mess, like X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, and Daredevil?

Right off the bat, the film makes a wise choice by (more or less) starting the film in Asgard, home of the Norse gods.  The King of Asgard, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is preparing to pass on the mantle of king to one of his sons, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), when there is a security breach within their castle.  Some Frost Giants, the immortal enemies of Asgard, managed to sneak in unseen and almost stole a weapon of great power before they were terminated with extreme prejudice by Odin's deadly sentry, the Destroyer.  Thor's immediate impulse is to take the fight to the Frost Giants, but Odin forbids any acts of war; he reasoned that this was an act made by a few, and they have been appropriately punished.  Thor seethes, but does nothing.  That is, he does nothing until he is baited by his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston).  Thor decides to go to Jotunheim, home of the Frost Giants, with his partners in crime, Loki, Sif (Jaime Alexander), and the Warriors Three (Fandral, Hogun, and Volstagg).  Why does he go?  Ostensibly, to get an apology from the Frost Giant king, but he's really there to fight.  And fight they do.  The Asgardians beat the living hell out of several dozen Frost Giants, but they are outnumbered and do not have any back-up.  A royally pissed-off Odin arrives and manages to keep the peace, but he punishes Thor by banishing him to Earth, without his godly powers.  Odin also takes away Thor's signature hammer, whispering an enchantment to it that more or less states that whoever can lift the hammer will have the power of Thor.

Most of the rest of the film follows Thor on Earth as he adjusts to not being a god.  Naturally, a brawny blonde that claims to be the god of thunder showing up right around the time and place that an unmovable hammer arrives garners some attention from all sorts of people, including scientists and the military.  However, the humbling of a god does not answer one key question.  How did those Frost Giants sneak into the supposedly impenetrable Asgard and set these events in motion?

One of the more interesting aspects of this film's production process was the decision to hire Shakespearean expert Kenneth Branagh to direct the movie.  As far as his Shakespeare films go, Branagh is one of the best in the business, both as an actor and as a director.  As for his other movies, well...Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was pretty godawful.  The man definitely has a good touch with his actors, though, as anyone working with (mostly) plays must have.  I thought he did a pretty solid job with Thor.  The action scenes (which he hasn't directed before) looked good and, in some cases, were pretty awesome.  The characters that had more than a few lines were all acted quite well by the cast, and I was particularly impressed by the lead performances of Thor and Loki by two unknown actors.  Branagh does not have the lightest touch when it comes to cinematography (I hope you like lopsided camera angles), but his choices all make sense.  All in all, I think Branagh did an adequate job with making the film look good and a very good job with the cast.

Speaking of the cast, I was alternately very impressed and depressed by Thor.  Chris Hemsworth was great in the lead role, capturing the arrogance of the character wonderfully.  His character could have been a little deeper, but Hemsworth more than delivered with what was given to him.  I was also impressed by Tom Hiddleston's Loki; Loki is a great character in mythology (and Neil Gaiman's fiction), and Hiddleston took a character that could easily just be evil and made him mischievous, cunning, and emotionally desperate.  This is definitely my favorite performance of a Marvel villain since Ian McKellan's Magneto.  I was surprised to see Anthony Hopkins giving a solid performance as Odin, since he has been mostly just mailing in his work for the past decade.  He wasn't spectacular, but he seemed regal and cold, which fits the part well.  I was far less impressed by Natalie Portman's role as Jane Foster, an astrophysicist that develops a romance with the thunder god.  She should be a pretty important part of the story, but aside from being a decently strong female character (read: she argues with the men-folk), she doesn't do much.  I'll give her credit for being more than just another damsel in distress, but that's not enough to stack up against the gods.

The rest of the supporting cast is similarly underwhelming.  Jane Foster's friends, played by Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings, are likable enough, but never get past generic stereotypes.  Thor's Asgardian buddies have a similar problem, although they are less endearing.  Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Josh Dallas (Fandral) and Jaime Alexander all seem like they should have more depth, but they are surprisingly bland.  Aside from Volstagg's appetite and their general appearances, these four warriors are interchangeable in the story.  Colm Feore, who seems to get cast in big budget movies more for a willingness to wear extensive makeup than anything else, was mediocre as the king of the Frost Giants.  You would think his character would have a little more depth, or at least a few wicked moments, but I guess it's okay, since he's essentially a red herring.  Clark Gregg was okay as the agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., but he is certainly no Samuel L. Jackson.  You might be surprised to see Rene Russo in a small part, since her last role was six years ago.  You might not be surprised to hear that she doesn't do much of anything in the movie.  On the other hand, the requisite Stan Lee cameo was handled pretty well.

There was a minor controversy when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall, the gatekeeper.  Personally, I don't have a problem with casting against type, and I think Elba has some serious potential as an actor.  He did good work in a small part here, and that should be where the controversy begins and ends.

What, he doesn't look Swedish?

This is a superhero movie, though --- the acting can only take it so far.  The action is, in parts, pretty entertaining.  I thought that most of the fight scenes were great, especially the ones on Earth.  I would have preferred the battle to be in a place where more stuff could be destroyed, but whatever.  The battle that opens the film had some inconsistent special effects, which distracted me, but the rest of the movie looked very good.  Actually, this movie is fairly action-packed, with far less time devoted to character development; that is a sharp change from the recent Marvel movies (aside from the horribad Wolverine flick), and not necessarily a bad one.  The story slows down significantly and takes on a more humorous tone when Thor is on Earth, so the movie feels a bit uneven at times.  And how much time passes in this movie?  The events in Asgard seem to take place at one pace, while the Earth storyline might have only covered about two or three days, which seems like a pretty compact amount of time for a character to learn a life lesson.  Still, the fight scenes were pretty sweet and I thought the off-Earth scenes were handled quite well, on the whole.

Thor is different from every other superhero movie that has come out because it is more than a superhero tale --- it has to be mythic.  While it doesn't get everything exactly right, I think this is a pretty entertaining action movie with some impressive fantasy elements in it.  The well thought-out work that was done to bring Asgard and Jotunheim to life helps elevate this movie above some of the more mediocre elements in its makeup.

What would have made this movie better?  A more well-defined Frost Giant king, either differentiating between Thor's war buddies or cutting some of them from the script, and a love interest that could go more than two minutes without mentioning the possibility of Thor being crazy.  More epic special effects in the flashback battle would have helped, too --- or, since it was a story, maybe animating it like an old story.  Thor is still pretty entertaining, and the lead actors were fun to watch.  It's just not up to the level of, say, an Iron Man.

Demolition Man

I love science fiction movies that can teach me about my nation's past.  Remember the epidemic-level gang wars in Los Angeles in the mid-1990s that resulted in the notorious Simon Phoenix annexing a large portion of the city as his own fiefdom?  Good times, man.  What about the time we cryogenically froze Jeffrey Dahmer instead of sticking him in prison to get beaten to death by a broom handle?  Or the massive earthquake of 2010 that devastated Los Angeles and somehow lead to the remains of the city melding with San Diego to create San Angeles?  You don't remember that?  Me neither.  You would think the merging of two cities that are 120 miles apart would have been newsworthy, but it must have flown under the radar; I definitely recall the awful attempt to merge Chicago and cheese heads into Chicaukee.  Lake Michigan was green, yellow, and red that summer.

Of course, I have all this knowledge of our past thanks to the historical document Demolition Man.  Back in 1996, LA police bad-ass John "This Is" Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) performs a one-man raid on the headquarters of Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes), a homicidal sociopath that was holding a busload of civilians hostage.  Because sending in a one-man SWAT team is standard protocol for the LAPD.  Well, Spartan manages to kill off Phoenix's evil henchmen and capture Phoenix, but he blew up the entire building complex in the process.  Spartan performed a body heat scan on the complex before entering and found only a handful of people; the handful accounted for Phoenix and his men, so the hostages must have been kept somewhere else.  Or were they?  In the wreckage of the building, dozens of bodies were recovered; Phoenix attested that Spartan blew up the building knowing that the innocents would die.  And because the 1996 LAPD put their trust in known terrorists, Spartan was arrested, tried and convicted of a few dozen counts of manslaughter.  His sentence is to be cryogenically frozen for seventy years (that sounds like an inexpensive solution); Phoenix is to be frozen forever, which seems rather silly to me.

..and the award for "Least Amount of Effort in an Album Cover" goes to...Sting!!!

Fast-forward to 2032.  The city of San Angeles has been devoid of crime and violence for so long that nobody can even remember such things.  Except for the people who are old enough to remember.  Because, seriously, it was less than 36 years ago, at the absolute longest.  This utopia is run by Dr. Cocteau (Nigel Hawthorne), who has decided what is good for society (unthinking, unquestioning compliance) and what is bad (spicy and other unhealthy foods, curse words, sexual intercourse, etc.).  However, Cocteau's San Angeles has its disgruntled citizens, too.  Edgar Friendly (Denis Leary) is the leader of a literally underground society that lives in the sewers and cherishes personal freedom, although at the risk of starving to death.  For some reason, Simon Phoenix was thawed out for a parole hearing, despite his eternal sentence; even stranger is the fact that he knew voice commands to free himself from his restraints.  Phoenix proceeds on a murder spree, something that the SAPD are not equipped to handle.  So, how do they catch Phoenix?  By thawing out the man who did it last time, John Spartan.  Explosions and fish-out-of-water jokes ensue.

I make fun of Demolition Man, but it's because I care.  Most movies like this are shallow, boring, and predictable.  At the very least, this film is not boring.  As far as action movies go, there is a lot to like here.  Things go boom, there are some pretty sweet fires, and they even manage to incorporate freezing as an action device --- and not in a way that directly rips off Terminator 2.

In this dystopian future, the "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" dog never went away.

The movie is actually kind of cute, too.  I won't say that it's terribly funny, but there are a lot of clever ideas in the script --- Taco Bell being the only restaurant in the future, high fives not requiring physical contact, and toilet paper giving way to three seashells, for starters --- and you rarely hear "clever" being used to describe a Stallone movie.  I also liked that Sandra Bullcock's character takes her name from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.  The film is by no means perfect, but it's funnier and smarter than most action movies, even if the ultimate point of the story is simple enough to insult a child.

Now, as far as the acting goes...well, it goes.  Sylvester Stallone does his typical thing; he's barely monosyllabic, but he looks pretty good when he's shooting and punching stuff, so I'm not going to judge the man too harshly.  I thought he handled the humor in the script pretty well, even if he never spat out the marbles in his mouth.  Wesley Snipes was extremely entertaining as the supervillain of the film; he out-overacted most comic book villains, but I'll be damned if he didn't do it just right.  If absolutely nothing else, his fashion sense should be applauded.  Not just anyone can pull off pirate pants, you know.

"Eyes to see you." - not actually a quote from this film.

Sandra Bullock is surprisingly likable as the clueless but friendly sidekick to Stallone.  It wasn't a hard part to play, granted, and she doesn't really bring anything special to the part, but this is a nice, simple, and uncomplicated performance of low-key comedy.  Pre-nose job Benjamin Bratt has a small supporting role as a typically wimpy SAPD officer; he's kind of wooden, but being the straight man is a thankless role, so I'll let him off the hook.  If you're familiar with Denis Leary from his work on Rescue Me or his frequent interviews on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, his performance here might be a little on the raw side; on the other hand, if you remember his work circa-No Cure For Cancer, then you should know what's in store for you --- rants, namely.  I actually don't mind him here, but his rants are only "edgy" if you're still stuck back in 1993.  Despite having a few lines and a pretty visible character, Rob Schneider is not credited in this film at all, which is especially strange since he was on Saturday Night Live at the time and this is probably my favorite film role for the guy.  You might recognize a number of other minor characters in the movie, as well.  Jesse Ventura, Toshiro Obata (Shredder's sidekick in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies), and Billy D. Lucas (famous for being Schwarzenegger's stunt double) all play Cryo-convicts, like Simon Phoenix.  Jack Black has about two seconds of screen time as one of Leary's henchmen.  MTV alum Dan Cortese and Lara Harris (not the one from Mulholland Drive) are both background characters in the Taco Bell scene.  Bill Cobbs (the guy who takes all the "wise black man" roles that Morgan Freeman turns down) and Grand L. Bush (one of the Agent Johnsons from Die Hard) play the same character, thirty-six years apart.  You will definitely recognize Glenn "Otho" Sadix as an effeminate assistant.  And last, but not least, Bob Gunton does his typical thing as a jerk authority figure.  Are any of these supporting performances particularly revelatory?  Not at all.  Everyone plays their part (sometimes, they even over-play it) pretty well, making this a surprisingly well-rounded movie, acting-wise.

I never played it, but I assume that the lack of physical contact made this a waste of quarters.

One of the mysteries of Demolition Man (and there are several) is exactly what happened to director Marco Brambilla after making this film.  He has only three more credits on IMDb, and none of them are what I would call career-killers, even with an Alicia Silverstone movie under his belt.  Whatever the reason for his retirement (forceful or otherwise), I think Brambilla made a perfectly acceptable action flick, designed to entertain and make you crave popcorn.  Was his direction subtle?  Hell, no.  But who is looking for subtle in a Stallone action movie?  The action looked good, the plot made a decent amount of sense, and none of the jokes were wasted (even the lame ones).  That's not a bad job for a big budget action movie.

Do tough guys wear berets just so they can punch anyone who smirks?

All in all, Demolition Man is darn near perfect for what it is meant to be.  It could be more intentionally funny, sure, and it could certainly be more unintentionally funny, but those are two flaws I think most eighteen-year old action movies would be willing to live with.  As a legitimate movie, I think the balance of solid action with remedial satire deserves

 ...and yet, I enjoy this movie on so much more than a legitimate level.  I encourage you to watch this movie again (perhaps with some booze?  Side note --- don't do drugs, kids!) and laugh at the more ridiculous moments.  Demolition Man more than earns the Lefty Gold rating of

For some reason, when I did a Google Image Search for "Demolition Man," I came across this screenshot from Pulp's "Common People" music video.  I have no idea why, but I love Pulp and felt obligated to include it here.

The Towering Inferno

I've never been a huge fan of disaster movies.  Sure, I get a kick out of big things going boom, but these movies are usually pretty dumb (2012, I'm looking at you) and cliche-ridden (that's you, Independence Day).  Thanks to those tendencies, I tend to only watch the newest disaster flicks; if I'm going to watch a special effects extravaganza with no story, I might as well see the cutting edge technology, right?  Well, I recently realized that I have completely omitted seeing any disaster movies from their prime in the 1970s, the "Decade of Disaster."  For the record, that's not an official nickname for the 70s, that's just what I like to call it for so very many reasons.  Anyway, I thought I'd give a classic disaster film a shot, and I opted for the Academy Award-winning one, The Towering Inferno.

The world's tallest building, the Glass Tower, is having its public dedication in scenic San Francisco.  The ribbon will be cut, and a few hundred people will head up to the 138th floor penthouse for a fancy party with tuxedos, slinky dresses, and (probably) cocktail shrimp.  During a routine systems check before the dedication, one of the electrical boxes on the 81st floor starts a small fire.  The sprinklers don't go off and the fire alarm doesn't sound, though.  For the dedication, they turn on every light in the building to show off just how tall and bright it can be; that turns out to be a bad idea with an electrical system that is already having problems, and things get worse from here on in.  Power malfunctions and skimping on building materials lead to the warning systems going off far too late, and pretty soon there is an inferno working its way up to the party on the 138th floor.

Aren't they a little too happy for a disaster flick?

In a movie like this, the spectacle and special effects are bigger stars than the cast.  And that is really saying something, because this cast is star-studded.  Paul Newman and Steve McQueen co-headline as the world's bravest architect and fireman, respectively.  While this isn't either actor's finest moment, they're both very likable and charismatic, so it's easy to ignore that their characters lack depth.  You can argue that McQueen's character is too preachy and bland, but he does make a pretty good hero.  On the flip side of things, William Holden is solid as the accidentally villainous cost- and appearance-conscious owner of the building; Richard Chamberlain was far less impressive as the corner-cutting businessman whose shoddy materials caused the fire --- I won't say that he's MWA-HA-HA evil, but the man should have had a mustache he could twirl.

The rest of the cast has much smaller and less important roles, but many of the actors are instantly recognizable.  Faye Dunaway is Newman's love interest, and the pair are pretty together.  O.J. Simpson is a security guard who saves a cat.  Fred Astaire plays an ineffective con man, earning a "you've been overlooked for your whole career, so here's acknowledgment for a far lesser role" Academy Award nomination.  Jennifer Jones made her last film appearance here, and it is fairly memorable, if only for her final scene.  Robert Wagner has a small role as the idiot who turned on all the lights, because the city of San Francisco is going to ooh and ahh over a building with electric lights like it's a 138-story Christmas tree.  Stupid.  Robert Vaughn, who I always seem to catch in roles where he plays a jerk, was surprisingly likable as a US Senator (the political kind, not the sports kind).  Mike "Bobby Brady" Lookinland has a small part as a Bobby Brady-age kid.  No, he doesn't die.  Oh, and you might recognize Susan Flannery as a soap opera actress.  Or not.

But, like I said earlier, the cast is largely inconsequential next to the spectacle of this fire.  Without CGI to enhance it, I was a little skeptical as to how good this disaster would look, but I needn't have worried.  They did this the old-fashioned way, through misdirection and real fire.  I thought the movie looked great, especially for one made forty years ago.  There is a lot of smoke, a lot of debris, and (of course) a lot of fire.  What I liked about this fire is that it was obviously dangerous from a very early point.  While the fire started at the thirteen-minute mark, it didn't kill anyone for another forty-five minutes; the characters that died were, surprisingly, not just some random scrubs, but a recognizable actor with a subplot in full swing.  So, the fire is apparent early in the film --- which is important in a movie that clocks in at over 160 minutes --- and deadly to characters that you expect to hang around a while.  That's awesome!  Fire is so rarely shown as dangerous in films (it's more of a cool backdrop most of the time) that this approach feels almost novel.  Pair the dangerousness of the fire with the old-school special effects that actually used fire (and lots and lots of smoke), and this is a pretty believable disaster.  And that's the whole point.

Check, please!

Does that mean that this is a marvel of modern filmmaking?  Not exactly.  I thought John Guillermin did a decent job directing the dramatic parts of the story; there are far too many characters for any of them to be compelling, but he keeps things interesting.  In an interesting move, Irwin Allen is given credit for directing the many action scenes in the film, and I thought these scenes were largely enjoyable...I'm not sure why he gets a directing credit, though.  Maybe they didn't have action choreographers in 1974.  Despite the pretty solid directing, the story is a little shallow and underdeveloped.  That's not shocking for a movie with such a large cast and a plot device that seems to kill cast members at random, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.  With such shallow characters, some moments that are meant to add levity or warmth to the story fall short.  Why, for instance, is Jennifer Jones apparently happy to learn that Fred Astaire is a con man?  Accepting, or even mischievously knowing, I can buy...but she's pretty ecstatic.  And there's a pre-coitus moment between Faye Dunaway and Paul Newman where she tells him that he's "all protein."  Eww.  I understand that these are just snippets used to add the illusion of depth to these characters, but they're pretty odd moments for two of the deepest subplots in the film.

On a quick side note, am I the only person who finds it hard to believe that Maureen McGovern's song, "We May Never Love Like This Again" A) is the theme to a disaster movie B) was performed by her, in a scene, and yet we never see her character's ultimate fate and/or C) won an Academy Award?  Man, the seventies were a strange time.

On the other hand, I like when big things go boom.  While this isn't a flawless movie, it is pretty entertaining, despite a long run-time.  For the most part, I think the movie is surprisingly plausible (except for that stupid helicopter explosion), which is a nice change of pace for a disaster flick.  Newman was good, McQueen was above average, and the largely recognizable cast made for some unexpected fodder for the flames.  I would have liked it better if Newman and McQueen weren't such know-it-alls, but it is kind of nice to have a disaster with obviously culpable parties.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why does Bogart have a different haircut in this movie than he has on this poster?

Who says remakes are always a bad idea?  The Maltese Falcon is the third film adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's classic novel of the same name, and the third time is definitely the charm.  I haven't seen the other two versions (one has the same title and the other is a comedy, titled Satan Met a Lady), but only this one is widely regarded as a timeless classic, so I think it's safe to assume that this is the best version to date.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now.  I am a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novels and am a fan of any movie that chooses to adapt his work.  I am also a big fan of Humphry Bogart, at least in part because I've only seen him in his classic roles; I'm sure the man made some flops in his time, but history tends to gloss over those mistakes in favor of his more famous work.  I am also a big supporter of director John Huston.  And if none of that convinces you that this is going to be a great viewing experience, it was in the inaugural class of movies chosen for preservation in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry.  If you're still hesitant to check out this movie because it's black-and-white or because it's old or because you only like movies with talking animals in them, my advice is simple.  Man up and get some culture.  It is significantly awesome.

The private detective firm of Spade and Archer consists of three people: the secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan).  One day, a new client hires them to track down her sister, who has run away from home with an undesirable man named Thursby.  The client, Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor), doesn't tell a very convincing tale, but she waves around a lot of money, and that's enough for the detectives to take her case.  Liking the looks of his sexy new client, Miles offers to be her proverbial white knight, boubie, and track down this Thursby himself.

Did Miles Archer influence the character of Ellis from Die Hard?  Surprisingly, they're pretty close.

That night, Miles is shot and killed.  Sam gets the call, heads to the crime scene, and promptly leaves to clear his head.  When he gets home a few hours later, the police are right behind him; Thursby had just been gunned down in the streets, so the cops naturally assume that Sam killed the man who killed his partner.  He didn't, but his alibi is basically "wandering around aimlessly in the streets," so Sam Spade has to solve the case to clear his name.  Besides, it's good business to avenge the death of your partner.  Sam quickly finds himself in complex web of lies and deceit as he tries to discover...well, I suppose he's trying to solve the murder of his partner and simultaneously cover his own ass, but he doesn't seem to concerned about that.  Instead, Sam seems to genuinely enjoy the game of deception as he and three other interested parties converge on the object that ultimately caused all this trouble, the Maltese Falcon. 

Bogart, about three seconds away from giving you a facial burn for laughing at his toy bird.

Admittedly, the story isn't terribly special.  A detective manages to get entangled in a mess of lies?  You could pick my jaw up off the floor.  It's handled very well, though.  The pace is brisk, the plot is murky enough to keep you guessing while Sam Spade puts all the pieces together, and the ending scenes are great, appealing to many demographics (romantic, cynical, heart of stone, tough guy, etc.) and somehow never losing its bad-ass edge.

The acting and directing are nearly flawless.  This is one of the two films that helped Bogart become a star in 1941 (the other was High Sierra) and was his first significant non-gangster role.  What can I say?  The man was born to play tough guy detectives.  His timing with dialogue is perfect here, managing to be funny, witty, and sadistic --- sometimes in all in the same line.  As someone who has read dozens of hard-boiled novels and seen many film noirs, I can state that Bogart's portrayal here is the archetypal noir hero.  That might seem like a "no duh" in retrospect, but consider just how many classic actors from Hollywood's golden age tried similar roles; it's a great performance, but it's even more impressive when you realize how many other actors fail to live up to it.

So that's where they got the hair idea for There's Something About Mary...

The supporting cast was nearly as good as Bogart.  Mary Astor's femme fatale, while a little melodramatic by modern standards, still holds up pretty well today.  She's mean and nasty, but vulnerable and magnetic, the very epitome of a dangerous lady.  The other women in the film play their parts pretty well, but Gladys George (Archer's wife) and Lee Patrick can't hold a candle to Astor's performance.  Peter Lorre does a great job as an effeminate criminal; the interactions between him and Bogart amuse me so much, especially when Bogart is mocking an armed Lorre.

Well...that's phallic.

This was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut (and the first of nine movies with Peter Lorre) and his performance is especially impressive for a rookie; as the main villain in the film, he managed to be sneaky, powerful, and humble in quick succession.  Perhaps my favorite supporting performance in the film (although it is hard to beat Lorre) comes from Elisha Cook, Jr. and his part as the gun-toting arm of Greenstreet.  I've always liked the idea of a character that plays tougher than they truly are, but I think Cook really nailed that idea on the head with his performance.

The writing gave these performers a lot of great lines, but John Huston did a wonderful job directing them all.  The timing in each scene was impeccable, the pace is fast but you never get lost in the details; these are important elements in any crime story, but are essential when the dialogue needs to crackle with wit.  Huston also did a good job with the cinematography; there is a lot of symbolism in this movie and there are a lot of interesting (and, thankfully, meaningful) camera angles used.  Even though this was his first film, it must have been apparent from the start that John Huston was a master director.

When you add all that up, what do you get?  In short, probably my favorite movie of all time (although Raiders of the Lost Ark is another good choice).  It has great direction, a better script and a delightful cast.  Is this an action-packed movie?  No, but the story moves quickly enough to make you think otherwise.  That might be the key to this film's longevity; even though times have changed, everyone loves the guy who outsmarts the competition and mocks his enemies.  It's the American Way in (a slightly cynical) film format.  In other words, in a genre --- this is vintage film noir, in case you hadn't realized it --- of tough men, dangerous women, and hazy morality, there is nothing better than The Maltese Falcon.