Luther Movie Review

How refreshing to see a movie where following the Bible and a love for Christ are shown without irony or humor. Or a “look at these strange creatures” detached feeling. Or a hip “ain’t God cool” vibe. Luther is just a straight story about one of the most significant lives in history.

Joseph Fiennes is Martin Luther. We first see him panicking in a thunderstorm and vowing to become a monk if he lives. He becomes a brilliant but guilt-ridden monk. He is sent to Rome on some business and sees that Rome has become "a circus" as a couple of different characters say. Then other events take place that send Luther toward his rebellion against abuses in the Catholic Church which the Church, needing money, will not admit are abuses. To be fair, there are those in the Church hoping for reform, but many of them consider Luther to be going too far in his criticisms. Things begin to spin out of control as people begin to believe they are oppressed politically as well as spiritually. Luther must live with the consequences of his writings and actions. One wonders, if Luther hadn't been away for a year in the castle, could he have prevented the Peasant Revolt?

The viewer gets a vague sense of the dangers individuals faced making choices, but probably there is no way to adequately show how much risk there was to every word or move for some. One does get a sense of the confusion and difficulty faced by those in power.

The movie moves pretty quickly and it’s hard to get a sense of the time passing. Luther spent almost a year in Wartburg Castle, but that is not understood just by watching the movie. I guess Martin Luther deserves an HBO miniseries like John Adams.

Peter Ustinov is fantastic as Fredrick the Wise. Frankly, I wish the movie had been made 30 years ago with Ustinov as Luther.

For some background on Luther, read Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Lutherby Roland Bainton or just the Wiki article.

Luther (the film) is not as great as A Man For All Seasons, but not many films are. However, it is very well done and certainly worth your time.

Luther, directed by Eric Till, written by Camille Thomasson and Bart Gavigan, starring Joseph Fiennes, Jonathan Firth, Peter Ustinov. 123 minutes. 2003.

Burn After Reading Movie Review

Joel and Ethan Coen have an unusual and dark view of the world that they brilliantly project through a variety of genres. And they use much more swearing than is really necessary. In fact Burn After Reading is rated R for “pervasive language” among other things. I’ll talk a little more about that later.

Osborn Cox (John Malkovich) is an analyst working for the CIA who gets demoted so he quits. He decides to write a memoir. His cheating wife (Tilda Swinson) decides to divorce him and the lawyer tells her to get all his financial information. She copies his files including his memoirs. When the disk is found in the ladies locker room at a gym called Hardbodies, Chad (a hilarious Brad Pitt) thinks he’s found some top secret documents worth some “reward” money. He and Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who wants several body sculpting surgeries, decide to try for the money. Cox is a jerk however, and instead of just telling them they don’t have anything, he causes them to think they have something really important and valuable. Somehow George Clooney figures into all this, first as the man Mrs. Cox is cheating with, then he is with Linda. It all gets tangled up Coen Brothers style and there is no “happily-ever-after.”


Why do the Coens find excessive swearing so invigorating? John Malkovich basically spends the movie saying “WTF?” Only he doesn’t abbreviate. However, Malkovich does a fantastic job of being a jerk and the swearing seems like something his character actually would say, not something forced into the script for humor or shock like Pappy O’Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Basically everyone in this movie is a moron, but that could be expected as it’s in Washington, D.C. Burn After Reading is slow paced and not the best Coen Brothers movie, but it is funny and a fully enjoyable black comedy if that’s your thing.

There, now I’ve written a review of a Coen Brothers movie without using the word “quirky” other than in this sentence, of course.

Valkyrie Movie Review

Valkyrie Directed by Bryan Singer, written by Christopher McQuarrie & Nathan Alexander. Starring Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson. 2008. PG-13 120 minutes.

Valkyrie is a good World War II movie and fits well with the many World War II movies made in the 1960s and 1970s. It’s not a “great” Oscar-bait type movie, but Singer tells the story well and the acting is superb.

The story of Valkyrie is about the famous assassination attempt on Hitler by members of his own high command. Previously, I had known that there was a bomb in a briefcase that got placed too far under a table and only slightly wounded Hitler, but I did not know all the story around it and how it went farther than just an assassination attempt, but also a coordinated attempt to take over the government. There are quite a few important men involved in the coup and it is far from a neat single-minded group. However, they consider the cause to be greater than anything, even endangering their own families.

Tom Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who was seriously injured in North Africa and could have sat out the war in a comfortable position in Berlin. Instead, he becomes a “traitor,” as he willing calls himself, to save the honor of his beloved Germany. Country above party or current leader. They also show von Stauffenberg as the committed Roman Catholic that he was.


Tom Cruise is a Movie Star. And I say that as someone who isn’t really a Tom Cruise fan. He holds the screen anytime he is on, his charisma captivates you. But, he is a good enough actor to sink into the roll and not overwhelm it, as several top actors/actresses of the 1970s have taken to doing. Many of the other actors show the complexity and conflicts of their characters.

Valkyrie is rated PG-13, but except for one word could have been PG. Patton has more swearing and The Guns of Navarone has more violence. My 13-year old son wanted to go, but I don’t trust the ratings system. After seeing it, I should have taken him, in fact, my 10-year old will probably watch Valkarie when it comes out on video.

Gilda Movie Review

Gilda, directed by Charles Vidor, written by E.A. Ellington (story) Marion Parsonnet (screenplay) Jo Eisinger (adaptation) Ben Hecht uncredited. Starring Rita Hayworth, Glenn Ford, and George Macready. 1946, 110 minutes.


If you want to see some fantastic acting, watch Gilda. Rita Hayworth is simply fantastic. Flirtatious, vindictive, scared, fearless, and flirtatious. Did I mention flirtatious? She has one of the best introduction scenes in this movie of any actress ever. Her face is vivid with emotion. Glenn Ford is as good as ever. I’ve only recently come to realize just how good an actor Ford is and why he was such a big star in the 1940s and 1950s. If you need to catch up on some of his movies, watch 3:10 to Yuma, and The Big Heat (See my review of the Big Heat).


Gilda is about one woman and two men, much like Casablanca, but different. Ballin Mundson (George Macready) runs an illegal gambling house (like Casablanca!) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford) is his right hand man. When Ballin goes out of town once, he comes back with a wife, Gilda (Rita Hayworth). Johnny and Gilda have a history (like Casablanca!) and Ballin is suspicious. Johnny and Gilda love and hate each other tremendously. Johnny does his best to stay loyal to his boss and see that Gilda does also. Three broken people in such a tight grouping makes for explosive emotions. It doesn’t help when illegal activities are also part of the scene.


Rita Hayworth is smoldering, smoking, simmering, and sensuous. In addition, there is some great dialog, which is always appreciated. Gilda: "If I'd been a ranch, they would have named me The Bar None." -- Johnny Farrell: "Doesn't it bother you at all that you're married?" Gilda: "What I want to know is, does it bother you?" -- While Gilda is dancing with an Argentine, he asks where she comes from, she says "America." He replies, "Isn’t this America?" South America is of course part of America. She smiles and says "I mean New York." Yes folks, New York is America, even in the 1940s.

The DVD has been beautifully transferred and looks fabulous. The sound quality is also exceptional for a 1940s Film Noir. The bonus features includes a short history of Rita Hayworth’s film career that ends very abruptly. I highly recommend Gilda.

The Big Heat Movie Review

The Big Heat. Directed by Fritz Lang. Starring Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, Lee Marvin. Screenplay by Sydney Boehm from a serial story in the Saturday Evening Post by William P. McGivern. 1953, 89 minutes.


What a great thriller. Boy, they used to know how to make a tight well-told story. If The Big Heat were to be remade today it would be 2 ½ bloated hours, not 89 minutes (less than 1 and-a-half hours!).

Glenn Ford is Dave Bannion, a homicide detective assigned to file the report on a cop who committed suicide. What he figures is a pretty standard open-and-shut case to file gets him into trouble when a barfly calls him up and questions the suicide. Bannion’s not quite sure what to make of this and follows up, looking for the truth. Then the barfly turns up dead. This plunges him into a mess of corruption and misery.


Lee Marvin is so believably sadistic that one wonders how he got any dates after this movie. Gloria Grahame gets all the good lines in The Big Heat. Bannion is no wit, but he is methodical, honest, and pissed. The DVD has some of the old advertising posters and trailers for The Big Heat, The Lady from Shanghai, and Suddenly, Last Summer. The Big Heat is one of the top Film Noir movies, so be sure to buy it or stick it in your Netflix queue. Today.

Quantum of Solace Movie Review

Quantum of Solace Directed by Marc Forster. Written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade. Starring Daniel Craig, Judy Dench. PG-13. 106 minutes.

Was this a Bond movie? I think the writers forgot what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie. There were no gadgets, no “shaken, not stirred,” no “Bond, James Bond.” This was just a normal spy/revenge movie with M and a moody Felix Leiter. It’s like this movie is more character set-up. You don’t use the second movie for more set-up, you get into some action. Well, I guess there was action, but you couldn’t tell what was going on during most of it. Perhaps a worthy opponent would have been good. Or a plot that indicated a large magnitude of danger. I don’t know. I do know that I only go to the theater once or twice a year and I expect better.


Daniel Craig is great and tough and the kind of guy they need for 007, with an exception. James Bond has no class in this movie. No suave demeanor, just gruffness. Once again, any spy can be tough and gruff. I can watch Jack Baur without paying $16.00. Judy Dench as M is really ideal. I wasn’t sure I would ever warm to her when she was introduced, but she fits the roll wonderfully. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter has potential, but all he allowed to do in Quantum of Solace is pout. He was much better in Casino Royale. The car chase that opens the movie is pretty cool and Bond is driving an Aston-Martin. The final big explosion scene is almost over-the-top stuff and was one of only three times I felt like I was watching a Bond movie (the other two being the car chase and a dead girl in bed). That is about as positive as I can get.

What really ticks me off is that the directing and/or editing is so awful. I can forgive a lot in a Bond movie but I think I’m going to quit watching all action movies until they decide that cutting a fight scene in a confusing manner is really a simpleton’s way of avoiding decent camera work. Even during the non-fight scenes, the amount of cuts and the speed of the cuts are ridiculous. At one point in Quantum of Solace I was counting how long between each cut. One-to-three seconds unless one of the main two men were on the screen. Then it was up to seven seconds. That is bad news for a filmmaker. Anytime the audience is so distracted they are taken out of the movie, the director has screwed up. Oh, and Quantum of Solace is a horrible name for a movie. Go watch Dr. No and wait on the DVD.

I just joined Netflix

I’ve just joined Netflix. I waited a couple of years to this, I’m glad I did cause the price has come down, but man, I wish I'd done it sooner. I love it! I love old movies, and Netflix has them by the truckload. We don’t have cable or satellite, and living in a small town limits your video store options severely.

We got 3-movies-at-a-time (16.99 a month) and we set it up with 3 different “queues.” I have a queue, my wife has one, and the kids have one. When my wife sends back one of hers, (usually an old TV show) they send the next movie (or TV show) from her queue. When I send one back, they send the next one in my queue. We also have Netflix send the movies addressed the name of the queue. So, my movies come addressed to Robert Lindsey, the kids movies come addressed to Kids Lindsey (I’m serious), and my wife’s come addressed to Hot Mama Lindsey (I’m kidding, but they should).

They have educational shows (we homeschool so this is great), documentaries (this too), concert videos, TV shows, and best of all, old movies. And you don't have to return them across town, just drop them in your mail box. I didn't realize just how convenient that is until we started doing this.

If you have a fast internet connection, many of the movies can be watched online or downloaded to your computer (I don't really know much about this part as we are on dial-up, but my brother watches them like this all the time). These instantly watched movies don't count against your 3-at-a-time (or whatever).

The reason I chose Netflix over Blockbuster is that Netflix has more movies, especially classics. Plus every place I looked online that compares them said Netflix was better.

The one thing that could be better is the "recommended movies" they give you when you log in. They just keep showing the same movies over and over, though they say they have "about 104 suggestions" in a particular category. So, why show the same movies over and over on the intro screen? Rotate them a little. Small quibble.

I’m a nut, I have 153 movies in my queue (that doesn't count the Kids or wife). It’ll probably take me a couple years just to get through what I have in my list now. I'll keep adding though, it is so much stinkin' fun. Try it out, you’ve got 30 days, if you don’t like it, cancel, but I’m guessing, you’ll be addicted like I am.

Mercy Streets Movie Review

Mercy Streets (2000) Rated PG-13, Directed by Joe Gunn, Written by Jon Gunn and John Mann Staring Eric Roberts, David A. R. White, Stacy Keach, Robert LaSardo.



Blows Facing the Giants out of the water. While the dialog isn’t particularly witty, Mercy Streets is ably directed, well acted, and has an interesting story. Yes, if Ridley Scott had directed it would have been more intense, but as a “Christian movie” it is the best I have seen.

The story is about twin brothers (David White plays both), one who is going to become an Episcopal priest (Jeremiah), the other is fresh out of prison (John). The convict accidently (but without regret) gets his brother involved with Rome (Eric Roberts), who forces the soon-to-be-priest to participate in a counterfeiting scam. John takes on the life of a priest for a while and shakes things up for all those Jeremiah knows.




This movie is rated PG-13, which shows there is something very wrong with the ratings system. There is no way that the violence or intensity of this movie matches something like The Two Towers. It is more on par with National Treasure, which is only PG. Some reviewers have complained that there wasn’t any cussing, which made it unbelievable. Perhaps I watch too many black-and-white movies, but swearing doesn’t make a bad guy bad, his actions and vibe do.

Eric Roberts has screen presence. David White does a good job with the two roles and Stacy Keach makes a great one scene appearance. Netflix has it, or you can buy it. I recommend Mercy Streets for a nice clean show.

King Kong vs. Godzilla and Son of Godzilla Movie Review

Boy these are awful movies. But awful fun at the same time. The plots are so full of holes I won’t bother to point them out. Even my preteen kids were trying to figure out how to patch the holes. The acting is generally horrible. You know what though? Every time Godzilla gives his trademark roar, I’m an 8-year-old boy again and all is forgiven.

In King Kong vs. Godzilla, Godzilla returns to Japan and starts destroying things. At the same time (zeitgeist?) a television executive with ties to a pharmaceutical company (or is it a pharmaceutical executive with ties to a television company ?) decides to go get King Kong to boost his ratings. Someone comes up with the idea to put them together an let Kong and Godzilla fight it out. The general hope is that King Kong will win. When I was a kid I had heard that the Japanese version had Godzilla win at the end, but that is not true. Godzilla came to Japan on his own and started going destruto, so Kong was always the “good guy.”



The Son of Godzilla shows the giant lizard’s paternal side. Some scientists are on an island trying to figure out how to control the weather. An giant egg hatches and Godzilla comes to take care of the critter. Also, there are giant praying mantis for no apparent reason. Not as much destruction in this one.

Fun to watch and the kids can enjoy them, just don’t expect too much in the way of story.

No Reservations DVD Movie Review

Director: Scott Hicks, Writers: Carol Fuchs & Sandra Nettelbeck, Stars: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Aaron Eckhart, & Abigail Breslin.


Wow, the most romantic movie I’ve seen in a long time. No Reservations is not a romantic comedy, it’s too heavy for that, though there is humor. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Kate, head chef in a small fancy restaurant in New York City. Her single-mother sister dies leaving Kate a ten-year old girl to raise. When she returns to her restaurant after some time off to adjust, Nick (Aaron Eckhart also in The Dark Knight) has been hired on. She is an obsessive, uptight, perfectionist. He is, of course, a more relaxed personality, but not a slob.

Though you pretty much know how the movie is going to end, you wonder how they are going to get there. That’s the fun of romance movies, right? Fireworks don't necessarily fly between the leads, but that makes it seem even more real-to-life. He is interested in her, she is satisfied with the life she has, but two adults grow fond of each other and make it work.

Wonderful acting all around, especially by Abigail Breslin as Zoe, the ten-year old. Thankfully, she isn’t precocious and annoying showing the adults how it’s done.

The camera work was interesting. Lots of medium- to long-shots instead of the constant medium-shots to close-ups we seem to get currently. I guess if you were shooting Catherine Zeta-Jones, showing the whole body would be a desirable thing to do. Some of the shots still felt claustrophobic though (perhaps because of the long shot), especially inside her apartment. The make-up was good too. A few scenes where Kate is worn to a frizz, she looks it. She's not still glowing but just walking head-hanging and slope-shouldered as stars frequently appear.

For those of you concerned about morals in your movies, there were only a few minor cuss words and other than implied pre-marital sex, there really isn’t anything to offend.

I fully recommend this movie, though be aware there is a strain of sadness running through it with the death of the sister and the effect that has on her daughter. Dare I say, that is more realistic than to just ignore the pain and loss.

God, Man & Hollywood and Politically Incorrect Movies

I'm a member of The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and they have a great collection of books they publish. One recent title includes God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema from The Birth of a Nation to The Passion of the Christ, by Mark Royden Winchell. I'm not real sure what God has to do with Winchell's list of movies, he seems to focus more on the politically incorrect part. I don't think of Blazing Saddles as having anything to do with God myself. Winchell has a blog called God, Man and Hollywood (clever, huh?) where he is listing the movies, one a day. Great idea. Some of his picks are just dead wrong, (Crash? Being There?) but many are good choices to warm a conservative heart. Take a look. Buy the book.

The Dark Knight Movie Review

Finally! A second Batman movie that isn’t lousy. Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher both put out an entertaining Batman movie followed by a stinker. Christopher Nolan has followed Batman Begins with The Dark Knight, an intense, fast-paced, incredible movie. The villains in this movie are the Joker (Heath Ledger) and Two Face, A.K.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Heath Ledger is fantastic and fully embodies the roll. The ability to take an iconic roll and make it his is rare and his death is a great loss to Hollywood.

Unlike the Tim Burton movie where Batman appears fully formed and we see the beginnings of the Joker, in the Nolan series we see the beginnings of Batman and the Joker appears fully formed. The Joker gives various stories of his background, but they conflict. This Joker is just plain evil. And scary. Nicholson’s Joker was sociopathically evil, but Ledger’s Joker is sadistically evil. The difference being, a sociopath kills without caring, a sadist enjoys inflicting pain and death. Both seem a far cry from Caesar Romero’s simply greedy Joker from the TV show.



Going into the show, it’s good to remember the last scene of Batman Begins. Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) warns of escalation. He fears Batman has upped the ante, and there will be an even bigger response from the bad guys. Things escalate quickly in The Dark Knight. The body count is astounding. The writing is fantastic. The screws keep tightening and everything that happens, appears a natural result of what just took place. Even surprises. In fact, what I thought was the end of the movie was only the beginning of act 3. And the screws got still tighter.

I tend to not be fond of over-the-top death plans such as the killing parade in Burton’s Batman. Even the nerve-gas vapor of Nolan’s Batman Begins pushes the limits. In The Dark Knight, there is mass chaos, but it’s pulled off in a completely believable way. Not to say there aren’t some over-the-top events; it is a comic book movie.

Two worldviews collide with Batman and Joker. Batman believes in the innate goodness of people. The Joker is out to prove people are rotten inside, and revels in bringing that rottenness out. Both are proven right.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhlemed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.
- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago

We each have good and bad, and too many times we let situations dictate which way we go, when we should always strive to do the right thing. Harvey Dent experiences a traumatic event and he decides to give up and relinquish his decisions to chance. He becomes Two Face. Sometimes though, it’s hard to know what the right thing is. Batman makes hard choices. People get torqued. He is willing to make the sacrifice of his reputation and to live with his choices. A true hero.



The only minor complaints about the movie: The Dark Knight didn’t have as much humor as Batman Begins. With this much tension, a few laughs would have improved the overall experience. Also, much of the fighting is so quickly cut and is so closely shot that the audience can’t really tell what is going on. I know this is real popular, but I’m not a fan of this style. It is very visceral, but it seems like a cheap way to avoid choreographing a real fight scene.

Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox is great. He’s not in the film a lot, but he really carries scenes he’s in. Maggie Gyllenhaal as the new Rachel Daws is much better. The Dark Knight is one fantastic move experience.




The Shelf has a really good review.


Technorati Tags:
Batman, Movie Review

Desk Set Movie Review

Directed by Walter Lang, starts Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Gig Young, Joan Blondell, written by Phoebe Ephron and Henry Ephron from the play by William Marchant

Old maid librarian lands old bachelor computer geek. That wasn’t the tag line for Desk Set (1957), but perhaps it should have been. Many critics at the time thought that Spencer Tracy at 57 and Katherine Hepburn at 50 were too old for these rolls. But really, are you ever too old for love?

Shot in CinemaScope, so be sure to see this in wide-screen format, as the pan-and-scan is really annoying. Plus you miss out on some great acting outside the frame.

The story begins as a television station reference/research/library department is studied by “efficiency expert” Richard Sumner (Spencer Tracy). The department is run by Bunny Wilson (Katherine Hepburn). Wilson has been strung along romantically for seven years by her boss, Mike Cutler (Gig Young), but she seems OK with that as no other man seems interested. Sumner has designed a computer (you won’t believe the size of this thing) that the librarians fear will take their jobs. The fact that Sumner was sworn to silence doesn’t help. However, gradually, grudging mutual respect grows between Sumner and Wilson, and, as Cutler pussyfoots around, respect grows into something more.

The relationship between Wilson and Sumner develops naturally and both actors are completely believable in their respective roles. Tracy is particularly good as the half absent-minded brilliant engineer. Joan Blondell is fantastic and believable as a New York kinda gal. The ending is a little contrived: “What is the weight of the earth?” “Why that’s the kind of thing that could take months to research!” Of course, now we have the World Wide Web and the answer can be found in .3 seconds, but I bet someone had the answer in a physics or astronomy reference book in 1957. But that’s not what you care about anyway, you care about the connection between Sumner and Wilson. The chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn is great, the scenes they have together are magic, like the rooftop lunch and after they get caught in the rain. Desk Set is a great show, especially for librarians and computer geeks.





Tags:
Desk Set Movie, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Movie Reviews,

Evan Almighty DVD Movie Review

I've posted a review of Evan Almighty at my other blog.

No Country for Old Men: DVD Movie Review

I am not going to echo the line on the cover of the No Country for Old Men DVD: “Instant Classic!” If you liked Fargo, you will probably like No Country. I’m a huge Coen Brothers fan, but these two critics’ favorite movies have been my least favorites. I liked parts of both movies, and I prefer No Country, but it’s not the best work the Coens have done. The acting is top notch, the cinematography is outstanding -- as usual – and the mood is perfect. But something was missing and didn’t close the deal for me.

A bleak movie with a high body count. That’s the long and the short of it. Two people are graphically killed in the first 5 minutes, and that doesn’t count the eight or so bodies from the drug-deal-gone-bad. Thankfully, we don’t see every person killed who gets killed, though the Coen Brothers are not squeamish about on-screen blood. I didn’t keep track of the number of deaths, but No Country for Old Men probably rivals Scarface: Shame of a Nation or even Rambo : First Blood Part II.

It’s nice to see a movie with Men in it. Granted, none of them are hero-types, but they are all tough, tough-minded, and good at tracking and surviving (for the most part). They know what they want and they work hard to get it. Each one is very competent. Josh Brolin as Lewellen Moss is outstanding. Javier Bardem plays the sociopath as a person, not as a zombie, as so many other actors would have (see Fargo). The one disappointment here is Woody Harrelson as Wells, a bounty hunter. I’m afraid I don’t buy him being that kind of guy. But it was the best performance he’s given since Cheers. It’s a great scene when he tells Moss that he’s in over his head and I love the discussion on welding.



Some reviewers have said something about “quirky” Coen Brothers are back, but this film isn’t quirky, it’s just dark. It is anti-climatic and there is no lead character, so I suppose some people would call that “quirky.” I suppose they were trying to say something about the pointlessness of violence, or how things have changed, or something.

Tommy Lee Jones plays sheriff Ed Tom Bell. He is always just one step behind Chigurh when he even comes close. Sheriff Bell is depressed at how violent things have become in his sleepy corner of Texas. The drug trade and the careless violence of Chigurh are more than he can take. He marvels that there were sheriffs in the past who didn’t carry guns. Mr. Jones carries the burden in his eyes like few actors can.



There is a very little of the trademark "quirky" Coen humor, though some of it is buried. The darkness overwhelms the lightness. There aren’t any scenes like Fargo’s Japanese man with the Minnesota accent. This is probably the most serious film from the brothers since their debut, Blood Simple. Miller's Crossing was also pretty serious, but it had some outrageousness to it that kept it from being straight-ahead serious.

Perhaps it would help if I read the novel, but I didn’t quite understand everything that was going on.

SPOILER ALERT!

Some Mexicans show up a couple of times, but we don’t know anything about them, or how they tracked Moss down to his first motel room, or tracked down his wife, or even how they know that Moss is the one they are looking for.

Why does Chigurh kill the two guys who show him the drug-deal-gone-bad? Aren’t they his “partners” or fellow employees or something? So who is he working for? Or is it that he is working for the guy that hired Wells, and is upset that anyone else was brought in? What happened to the drugs?

Carla Jean Moss had it right when she refused to call the coin toss. She had a chance to save herself, but with nothing to live for the principle was worth standing up for. Chigurh had the choice. He really didn’t have to do it. But, being a sociopath, he just killed her. I’m glad we didn’t see that one. It was actually more powerful showing him checking the bottom of his boots as he left the house.

SPOILERS OVER!

I didn’t get much out of the discussion between Sheriff Bell and his cousin. Or maybe it was his uncle. Either way it was the always-great Barry Corbin, and he does a fantastic job here. Not as stereotyped as he can sometimes be. Anyway, that scene seemed to be one designed to send the “message” of the film, but I think the Coens generally do a better job of showing, rather than telling.

I guess I am saying that there are too many questions and loose ends for this to be an “Instant Classic!” I doubt I’ll watch it again as my wife hates these kinds of movies and I rarely have a chance to watch them. So I have to use my time wisely, and a second viewing of No Country for Old Men doesn’t strike me as a wise choice. I enjoyed the one viewing, especially watching the actors work their craft, but I believe something vital is missing from the story.

Update: Someone agrees with me.




Tags:
DVD Reviews, Movie Reviews, No Country for Old Men, Coen Brothers

The Thin Man Series

Sequels are nothing new in Hollywood. But some things have changed. Where are the stars of today? William Powell and Myrna Loy are so perfect in these roles as Nick and Nora Charles, they command the screen. The level of wit in those movies is really something. Even with thin plots and some of the actors are less than A-list, the writing is sharp and the way the two leads deliver a line is something. Not just the lines, but the looks (and that is what makes stars). In one of the movies Nick tells Nora he likes their son, “We should do that again.” Nora replies, “Anytime, dear.” William Powell’s expression says more than any double entendre most modern screenwriters could accomplish. I love the way the banter just rolls from them, like it’s natural for a married couple to have fun. The wit may remind one of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, except they don’t hate each other in the beginning. And instead of a romantic comedy, Nick and Nora solve mysteries. Their dog, Asta, steals clues.

The Thin Man really shouldn’t be the name of the series, as it applies only to the case in the first film in the series.

Many people think that old movies are safe for the whole family; that may be true. Nick and Nora are a married couple crazy about each other, they don’t swear, and they sleep in separate beds. However, In the Thin Man movies William Powell is just short of an alcoholic, in fact in the first one, I say they both are. And many things they say are suggestive in a way that is clear to most adults, but goes over the head of kids. As a woman is walking away from their table, Nora says mentions the woman’s earrings. Watching the woman walk away, Nick says “Yes, quite beautiful.” “The earrings are higher.” Nora points out.



After the Thin Man is not very good. In the second film in the series, the first 40 minutes are wasted trying to set the story up, when really, there isn’t much story to set up. Too many sets are allowed to go on for too long, looking for that extra laugh that never comes. The mystery is OK, but the banter is weak and the wit is not as sharp. One of the most clearly suggestive items is a very clear “infidelity” on the part of Mrs. Asta, the (insert a word for female dog). This is kind of amusing, but it is carried too far and goes on too long. I’m surprised there were more Thin Mans made after this one. If there is any reason to watch, it’s the lovely Myrna Loy (especially in her New Years Eve dress) and a very young Jimmy Stewart in a role you may not expect. Another adult moment comes when a microphone is discovered in the one-room apartment of a woman seeing several men. When she realizes the eavesdropper could hear “everything,” the camera goes close-up on her wide-eyed face as she gasps, “Golly!”

I once heard that the 1930s could have been the 1960s in permissiveness if the depression, followed by World War II, had not happened. People tend to go conservative when the world goes out of control. I have no idea how accurate this is, but watching some of these early 1930s movies causes one to wonder.

I will review the rest of the series soon.



Tags:
The Thin Man, Movie Review

Reviews

I will probably do some reviews of movies, books and CDs, but don't expect them to be current. I rarely see a movie in the theater, or read a book right as it comes out. I think the last CD I actually bought was 10 years old when I got it. I have to decide I really like them now that my finances are devoted to things other than me. I used to buy about one new album/CD per week, so I have quite a collection of music from the 1980s and 1990s with a good bit of 1950s, 1960s and 1970s thrown in.

Anyhow, I did see Batman Begins at the theater. Wow, what a movie. As I was sitting there, almost tearing and choking up, all I could think was "What is it that makes this thing so spectacular?" I don't know that I've seen anything that affected me that way before. As I look back I don't remember anything in particular that caused my strong reaction. Anyone have any ideas? Perhaps it is the fact that I don't see the Big Screen very often.