Movie of the Week: The Passion of the Christ

   

 

    Movie of the Week (3/31/13-4/6/13): Today is Easter and we all know the meaning of this holiday because it has been told to us throughout our lives and have seen it on film. There are many films that have been about or have been centered around this moment in history. But, the one that describes and shows it in the most graphic of detail is The Passion of the Christ from writer and director Mel Gibson. However, this film is not a biography like many other films about Jesus are, it is about the last twelve hours of his life, but it is not told in chronological order.
    From the opening scene we are really hooked into this powerful drama as Jesus is tempted by Satan in a scene titled "Agony in the Garden." In this opening sequence, which spans the first fifteen minutes, Jesus prays, is tempted, betrayed, and then arrested. With this much drama going on in the opening minutes it is really hard not to turn away.
    The telling of this well known story is done by virtually unknown actors. The only known actors are Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci who plays Magdalen. The rest of the cast is unknown to most people, but that does not mean that the acting is not good. Caviezel gives a wonderful performance as he was forced to show so much emotion in his role, during the torture scenes, and does it very well. Monica Bellucci also gives us a fine performance as she also expresses an unbelievable amount of sadness. Just because I only mention these two actors does not mean that the rest of the cast did not do a great job because they did. This is a movie full of great performances from many small roles that makes the movie that much more powerful to watch.
    Although this story is well known it did have to be written into a screenplay. Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald wrote a great screenplay that converses well with all the Gospels. They mix up a few a things from each of the Gospels and put it into one movie and it really mixes well together, although some historians criticized it for being inaccurate. Gibson himself also directed this picture and another great job he did.   
    Gibson depicts the crucifixion of Jesus in a very graphic manner, so graphic in fact that many viewers cannot watch the film, although it does have a re-cut version out it is still rated R. But he chose to depict it this way to show as much detail as he possibly could, to show the real amount of pain that Jesus went through. Back in that time there were a few different ways of crucifixion and Jesus got the worse kind and it was very common then too. Along with making the film very bloody and graphic, Gibson also chose to shoot the film in Latin and Aramaic dialects with English subtitles, which gives the film more realism I believe. So, you have to read a lot during the movie.
    The score of the film, by John Debney, is also very powerful in many ways and is used very well throughout the film whether it be times when it does need music or times when it does not. It is used wonderfully at the end I might add. Simply put, this film is a great film, although number one on the list of the most controversial movies of all time. We see the crucifixion of Jesus in graphic detail with flashbacks of scenes like when Jesus was a young boy, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaching the Twelve Apostles, and the Last Supper. All of which are mixed in well and fit the timing when we see them well. This is a very well done, beautifully shot, scored, written, directed, and emotional film with a very powerful ending that well not be forgotten anytime soon. 3.5/4 Stars.        

Movie of the Week: A Few Good Men

  
    Movie of the Week (3/24/13-3/30/13): There are many courtroom dramas out there and many of them have been nominated for multiple Oscars. The thing about these courtroom dramas is that they have to be dialog driven, be able to create tension with not much camera movement, have a good director, and have great actors that display a lot of emotion and are capable of doing it. A Few Good Men has all of those aspects, which makes it one of the best movies of 1992.
    As I said, these movies need to be written very well and have great dialog. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who got snubbed for Best Adapted Screenplay, wrote a wonderful script that creates so much tension at times, your hands are sweating. The courtroom scenes are obviously the best because that is all they do is talk and the dialog switches back and forth between each character so well that it is hard not to get bored. The thing that makes this movie special are the monologues that were written for the characters, they are so powerful and expressed with so much emotion that you want to go back and watch them again as soon as you finish them.
    But, without the proper director those scenes would probably turn out much different. Rob Reiner helps put Sorkin's screenplay on film. As I said, to make a good courtroom drama you need to be able to create a lot of tension with very little camera movement. Reiner does this in more of an old fashion way in that he uses multiple cameras and switches back and forth between characters when they speak with no special angles, just the classic straight shots. He also uses one camera with wide shots or the camera follows the characters around the room in several spots for a short time, he then zooms in slowly during the monologues, which creates the best tension in the film. There is not much camera movement and that is what creates the tension in the scenes.
    But, what is tension in scenes without great actors and actresses to create it for you. This film has an outstanding cast, there is Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, and I could go on and on. Tom Cruise does a fantastic job as a cocky Navy lawyer defending two privates who are accused of murder, but claim they followed orders. Demi Moore as another lawyer representing one of the privates being accused. Kevin Bacon plays a Marine on the other side of the courtroom trying to convict the privates and Kiefer Sutherland as a Marine put on the stand to testify whether or not he was responsible for what happened.
    But, the best role in the movie would have to be Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup. We already know that Nicholson is a great actor, but he took over the movie, with the few scenes he is in, whenever he was on screen. The amount of anger and emotion he displays when delivering his monologues and his now famous line, "You can't handle the truth," is just simply mind-boggling. With the power of wonderful acting, especially Jack Nicholson, Aaron Sorkin's amazing screenplay with fantastic monologues, and Rob Riener's direction this is one drama that will not be forgotten any time soon. 4/4 Stars.        

Review: Olympus Has Fallen

   
    Going into this I really didn't know what to expect. Was it going to be cheesy beyond all belief? Was the CGI going to be very dual? Was it going to just be a hostage situation with no plan and be up to one guy to save them all? Well, yes and no. Olympus Has Fallen  has a fairly simple premise, North Korean terrorist plan an attack on the White House that is successful and they take the President and some of his staff hostage. Why you ask? Well is not for money, one of the first times that has happened, but for a much bigger and logical reason, for the U.S. the stay out of Korea. But of course I don't want to spoil anything so you'll have to go see it if you want the rest of the details, which are good and reasonable ones.
    The cast in this action packed thriller is great. We have Gerard Butler, finally getting back into the action genre, Aaron Eckhart, Dylan McDermott, Melissa Leo, and Morgan Freeman. Gerard Butler plays the hero Secret Service agent left alone in the White House, and it is up to him to stop the terrorists. Aaron Eckhart plays President Asher taken hostage along with his staff. Dylan McDermott plays a fellow Secret Service agent with a twist and Melissa Leo as Secretary of Defense Ruth McMillan. Since the President and Vice President are being held hostage the Speaker of the House is the acting President, and who better than Morgan Freeman to take control.
    This great cast really does a great job especially Gerard Butler, who needed a career booster. Aaron Eckhart is hard to picture as President, but really delivers well even if some of his speeches are a little cliched. McDermott's character is developed a little fast, but he is able revive it with some good scenes where his anger is shown or trying to hide something. This is not Melissa Leo's best performance, I mean it is hard to beat The Fighter, but I liked what she did with her character in very crucial scenes that are important to the plot by displaying a good amount of anger. Finally, Morgan Freeman is, well, Morgan Freeman, once he is called to take control of America that is what he does, he takes control of most of the dialog throughout the movie with great fashion.
    From the beginning to end it really is almost nonstop action, although we do get some time to be introduce to characters, which doesn't take long, so the pacing is not hurt too bad. The attack scene on D.C. and the White House is probably the best part of the film because, even though you know it is coming, it is shocking to see and it is done well. The writers wrote a very good attack plan that is edge of your seat action with an attack from the air and disguised terrorist on the ground. Most of the CGI work in the movie was in the attack scene and it was not disappointing. It was just enough to make it feel real along with enough real explosions that were not CGI, a very good mix of the two.
    After the attack scene the rest of the movie takes place inside the White House, which is where Gerard Butler takes over. During those scenes, thanks to director Antoine Fuqua who helped give us a great performance from Butler, we are put through a lot of exciting fight scenes that Gerard controls. It is dark throughout the movie because it is at night, which did make some scenes hard to see, but it was that effect that made it feel more real and enough lighting to tell what exactly was going on. The editing was also very good during the attack scene and the very fast paced fight scenes, which helped the movie a lot.
    However, the score is not the best, mainly during the fight scenes though, because it does not give the movie anymore power to it, except for some deep and fast drums during the attack scene, which does help it out. This is not the most original movie because it is, in the end, essentially Die Hard in the White House, but as I said earlier it is not about money, it is about something more. With a great performance from Gerard Butler, although his Scottish accent slips out a few times, this is a very good action film and will, for the most part, not leave you disappointed. 3/4 Stars. 
      

Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

   
    We all know the story of Dorothy and her trip to Oz from the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz. But, what we didn't know was who Oz truly was and why there was a good witch and a bad witch. Well Oz the Great and Powerful is that story. Now, this is a prequel not a remake, there has been some confusion about that out there, which might make people not want to see this film. This is a prequel about how the wizard of Oz became the wizard of Oz.
    The first thing to touch on would be the cast, which is an A-list cast. We have James Franco as a magician who is swept to the Land of Oz by the likes of a tornado. Next, we have Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis who play sister witches Evanora and Theodora respectively. Michelle Williams plays the witch Glinda, if you've seen the original you know who she is. We also have Zach Braff playing a CGI character named Finley, who is a monkey helping the magician, and a young and up coming actress named Joey King who plays another CGI character, China Girl, along for the ride with the magician and Finley.
    The cast did a good job overall considering that most of the time they were probably working in front of green screens. James Franco's character is a magician from 1905 so you can expect his performance to be a little cheesy several times, but that was how magicians acted back then. He does a very good job in the more serious scenes. Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams both do a very good job at taking over their roles. Rachel Weisz is probably the best performance in the movie because she is the leading witch and she takes control and Michelle Willams helps recreate the good witch Glinda in her own way that is hard not to love.
    Where we have our main problem with this movie is Mila Kunis. From the beginning you just feel like her heart was not in it at all. She delivers her lines as dual as ever and at times you are wondering whether she even wanted the role. What makes her not good in this movie is that she keeps a straight face and her voice sounds so monotone even in the emotional or angry scenes. This might not be her worst performance, but it is close to it. However there are several other aspects that help us over look her performance.
    One is two characters that we grow to love as the movie goes on. The first is a CGI monkey named Finley, voiced by Zach Braff, who is there for a lot of the comic relief. The other is another CGI character named China Girl, voiced by Joey King, who is also there for comic relief and to keep pulling us in to see what will happen because she has an important task near the end of the movie. When we first meet both of these characters they are in peril, but are saved, and from that moment on we are attached to them.
    Director Sam Raimi took on a big task when he chose to do this movie because it is all CGI and effects driven, which can hurt movies. But, the effects are great and Raimi used them well and there are not too many effects that it clouds the plot or the characters. With the movie being set in Oz effects were mandatory and were used very well, but at times you might feel that Raimi could, or should, have used less effects to make it feel closer to the 1939 film, but I don't believe it hurts it that much. Sam Raimi gives us a good family fantasy picture that will keep you entertained with a good cast, except Mila Kunis, and great effects. We also get the classic Bruce Cambell cameo as well. 3/4 Stars.
     

Review: Swing Vote

   
    Movie of the Week (3/17/13-3/23/13): Swing Vote was an underrated movie in 2008 starring Kevin Costner. This film is about a man in New Mexico who is the town drunk and continues to let down his friends and his only daughter. During the 2004 election for the President his daughter wants him to vote, which he never does, but he is late and she sneaks in to try and cast his vote for him. But, the machine fails during the process and thus the vote is never cast and that is where we have our movie. It turns out it is up to Bud Johnson, Kevin Costner, to determine the next President of the United States.
    This movie has a great cast in it, which makes it that much better. We have Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Hopper, Nathan Lane, Stanley Tucci, Judge Reinhold, and Paula Patton. Kelsey Grammer plays President Andrew Boone up for reelection and he delivers a very good performance showing moments of comedy and seriousness. Dennis Hopper plays Donald Greenleaf, who is running against Boone for President and he too gives us a more serious performance with the occasional mix in of comedy. Nathan Lane and Stanley Tucci both play the campaign managers for each candidate. These two play the more serious role overall for the movie because they both want to win and will do whatever it takes, very good performances from both.
    Judge Reinhold is the trusty friend of Bud Johnson who has his back and is there for him when things go wrong and helps him through some of the tough situations, even if it is in the tough love way. Paula Patton is the reporter who wants the "big break story" and tries to get it through Bud by using his daughter Molly, played by Madeline Carroll who gives us a great tearjerker performance. Finally, we have Kevin Costner who probably gives us one of his best performances. He really does a great job in this role and you can tell that he embraces it because the more the movie goes on the more emotional it gets, which causes it to land on his shoulders, and he carries it very well.
    From the beginning we know that the movie is about more than just an election, it's about family, friendship, and trust. During the movie the bonding between Bud and Molly is what the focus is on as she struggles to help her father become more responsible with things, even when the whole country is watching him. We get to see what the candidates are going through and what they do to win the election and we can see that it affects their families as well. We see the development of the politicians very nicely, whether it be for the good or for the bad.
    The movie also looks very good, I like to describe it as "colorful" because the cinematography brings out so much of the colors and makes the movie feel good. Even though it is a feel good movie it has a very good score, a score that helps with the mood very well in the emotional scenes and in the funny or happy scenes, especially at the end. You will know the wonderful piano rhythm when you hear it. With all of this mixed very nicely together this movie will make you smile in one scene and cry in another, which is what movies are all about. This is a well acted, scored, and emotional family friendly movie and by the end I'm sure you'll cast your vote for this film as well. 3/4 Stars.         

Review: Footloose (2011)

   
    I was finally able to see Footloose, the remake of the movie with the same name from 1984, which stars Kevin Bacon. Now, I am going to go on and say it, you cannot replace Kevin Bacon or John Lithgow, but what you can do is expand on several parts of the story that the original did not. The writers added more story scenes and details to scenes that were missing from the original. That and very well choreographed dance sequences are why this is a good remake.
    The story of Footloose is fairly simply, a young teen moves into a town that has banned all dancing, among other things, in public for anybody under the age of 18 and he eventually fights it. But, there is a little more to it than that. First, the story is expanded, by that we get more background on the characters in many scenes. This is particularly true in the opening scene where we get to experience, this time, why the town decided to introduce many laws for teenagers. Second, we get more of a background on our two main characters, Ren MacCormack and Ariel Moore played by Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough respectively, in several scenes that go into greater detail about their past.
    The cast is not completely unknown and they do a good job overall, especially Dennis Quaid, who plays Reverend Shaw Moore, the father of Ariel. Now, he can't replace John Lithgow, but in this remake the writers used his character more and is present in more scenes where he is trying to uphold the ban. There are also many emotional scenes that he does a good job in. There are many unknowns in this movie and we start with the main character, Kenny Wormald. This is one of his first roles and he does a good job most of the time although he struggles in the faster paced moments, but he does better in the slower scenes. Also, he does almost all of his own dance moves because he has a dancing background, so it was good to see that in the film.
    Julianne Hough is not the greatest actress and you can tell that she tries to hard to act like a young immature teenager, she struggles in several of the emotional scenes. However, with her dancing background as well she does a very good job in the dancing scenes and reacts with the other dancers very well, the chemistry fits her better when she is dancing. The only real problem actor is Miles Teller, who plays Willard. He also is young and this was one of his first roles too, but he had to have an accent for this role, which you can hear him go in and out of several times. He has a hard time in the emotional and the more fun and exciting scenes. With some of the actors struggling the movie does get cheesy several times, but it is made up when it comes to the music and dancing.
    Footloose is a fun movie with very well choreographed dance scenes from beginning to end. There are several throughout the movie that are entertaining and exciting to watch. With that being the case, this film also has good editing during the dance scenes making them more fast paced. Of course what is dancing without music, well that is another high point of the movie. It has a great soundtrack with the new songs and the mix of older songs from the original. However, dancing is not the only thing this movie is about, it is also about love, friendship, and trust. This is a good, not great, remake but, trust me, you won't fall asleep during this one. 3/4 Stars.

Review: Cop Land

   
    Movie of the Week (3/10/13-3/16/13): Sylvester Stallone is known for his high octane action movies and is known more as an action star by most people and gets slammed by a lot of critics. However, Cop Land, from 1997, shows that Sylvester Stallone is a very good actor. Cop Land focuses on a sheriff, Stallone, of a small New Jersey town where a lot of the cops in the NYPD live, but soon he realizes that a lot of them are dirty in trying to cover up a murder committed by one of their own.
    The first thing to start with would be the cast, which is an A-list cast at that. We have Sylvester Stallone, Harvey Keitel, Ray Liotta, Robert Patrick, and Robert De Niro. As you can see, with a cast this good it is almost impossible to not have a good movie on your hands. Robert De Niro plays the detective trying to figure out what is going on and why. Ray Liotta as a friend who messes up but tries and help. Finally, Harvey Keitel and Robert Patrick play two of the many dirty cops trying to cover up the murder by attempting to kill the cop that committed it. The sheriff, Stallone, tries to find the cop, played by Michael Rapaport, before he is killed.
    The acting is very good by Stallone and it is probably his best performance ever because it is not like the many other characters he plays. He embraces this role with much emotion and gained 40 pounds for the role to look like an older sheriff who couldn't make it in the NYPD. Harvey Keitel also does a great job, as usual, as the leader of the dirty cops by showing his ability to take control of a scene when he is in it. Ray Liotta and Robert Patrick also deliver very well in showing how determined they are with their roles, especially when they share a scene together.
    The acting is great, but what makes this movie even better is the direction and the writing. James Mangold wrote and directed this great crime drama, one of his first. You can truly tell that he had almost complete control on what he wanted to put on screen because of the pace and the feel of the movie. It is a dialog driven film in a lot of scenes, especially scenes with Harvey Keitel, who controls the scenes with his dialog. It is a well written piece of cinema that got overlooked.
    Again, this is a crime drama with some great dialog in it, so don't go in expecting a great action picture. However, that being said all of the investigation and great dialog scenes between all of the great actors leads somewhere. It leads to a great, well written but short, shootout climax between several of the main characters shown in the perspective of the sheriff, Stallone, because of a physical ailment he suffered from. You will understand once you see it. This is a well acted, well directed, and well written underrated crime drama that should be seen. 3/4 Stars.      

Review: Red Dawn (2012)

   
    This is a remake of the Red Dawn movie of 1984, the first PG-13 movie, and what we have here is an attempt to make it much better in terms of emotions and action, which is done well at times. The story is updated from Russians to North Koreans who invade America. The movie focuses on one town and a group of teenagers who call themselves the "Wolverines," after their high school mascot, who try to fight back.
    The movie was filmed back in 2009, but wasn't released until November of 2012 because of distribution issues. But because of that all the actors look much younger than their recent movies and it was filmed before they were well known. First, we have Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck who play brothers Jed and Matt Eckert respectively. Next, we have Josh Hutcherson as Robert Kitner and Jeffery Dean Morgan as Tanner, a Marine along with two others, who shows up out of nowhere, in order to receive help from the "Wolverines."
    Overall the acting was not very bad, for most of these kids this was their first big role and they did a good job considering what they had to work with. Chris Hemsworth was probably the best out of all of them, although you can hear his accent from time to time, which is hard because he is playing an American. Josh Peck also did a good job, although he struggles through some of the emotional scenes because he is use to more comedy roles. Josh Hutcherson and Jeffery Dean Morgan do a very good though, especially Hutcherson whose character develops nicely.
    If you've seen the original you know how it opens, but this one opens differently and much more faster. That is where we have the problem with this movie. Before the attack scene we barely have any time to get to know the characters, there is a football scene, a bar scene, and then the attack occurs. Within that time period we are introduced to the characters, but that is about it, we get their backgrounds slowly throughout the first half of the movie through short little stories. That is a problem because the movie is only 93 minutes.
   The length of this movie is also a problem, we know who the leader of the group is, Chris Hemsworth, because he is a marine on leave. So, naturally he is the leader and trains the other kids who have no experience with guns or fighting and we get this in a short three or four minute edit of the teenagers being trained. Right after that they are ready to fight and begin their missions of attacking the North Korean soldiers. So, the word to describe this film is 'choppy.'
    The attack scene itself is only six minutes long and happens fast, although with good special effects, which is a high point in the movie. Then the rest of the movie is just fight scene, ambush, plan attack, fight scene, and climax. They failed to include very much dialog and what happens in between those scenes. The movie was rushed too much and I felt like, at times, I was being let down on the drama that it lacked. However, this is not a terrible movie, it is a fun and fast paced action thriller but it leads to almost an anti-climactic scene that will take you by surprise if you haven't seen the original. It will make the average action fan happy though. 2/4 Stars.

Review: Apocalypse Now Redux

    I finally had the privilege to see the highly acclaimed Vietnam War movie Apocalypse Now. But, I saw the newer version of it, the version that Francis Ford Coppola, the director, wanted to produce back in 1979. That being said, this version is 49 minutes longer putting the film at a 3 hour and 20 minute epic, so it is easy to see why he chose to cut the film and make it shorter. However, this version is the only version I have seen, as of right now, but I plan on seeing the original theatrical version soon.
    This is a review of Apocalypse Now Redux, which came out in 2001. This film is a very dark and disturbing account of the Vietnam War and is a character driven film. It is about a Captain who is sent on a classified mission into Cambodia to kill a Colonel who has gone insane, made himself a god among the local tribes, and works through brutal tactics. The mission seems quite simple, take a boat up river and kill him, but it is not. What goes on in the film is not just about that, it is also about the many different events they encounter along the way.
    But, like I said this is a movie driven by amazing characters and the actors who play them. First, we have Martin Sheen playing Captain Benjamin Willard on the mission. Right off the bat, in the opening scene, we see what the horrors of war does to man by seeing his character lose himself without any dialog. As great as that scene is, it gets better as his reactions to different events grow stronger and darker. He delivers probably the best performance of his career as a Captain, of little words at times, who tells the background of the Colonel through voice over and you can hear the stress in his voice, which makes the film more chilling.

    The next character is Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall who was nominated for an Oscar. His part is small in the movie compared to the length of it, he is one of the men Willard meets on his mission. Duvall's whole character centers around him and his men clearing out a village via helicopter attack for Willard and his crew. This scene is very disturbing and graphically depicted with Robert Duvall taking complete control and does a fantastic job.

    Our last character is the mission himself, Colonel Walter Kurtz, played by the great Marlon Brando. We do not even see this character, even though he was top billed, until about 35 minutes remaining in the film. But, once we do meet him the tone of the film changes very fast, it goes from dark to darker and just plain disturbing. This is possible by the performance of Brando, he gives the audience a truly haunting and disturbed character to read. We finally see what is wrong with him once we meet him and find out why the army wants him dead. The movie is truly worth it because of his scenes alone.
    Although this is a character driven film, there are also several other aspects that make this one of the greatest movies of all time. The director, Francis Ford Coppola, digs deep into the terror of the Vietnam War in the physical and mental aspects and puts it on the screen in a great haunting fashion through the characters. We also have beautiful Oscar winning cinematography that brings out the likes of the jungle and the graphic depiction of war. Many other aspects like the editing, which is top notch, sound mixing, and the score, which makes the film feel that much more haunting, all make the film worth the watch and experience of it.
    This is one of the greatest war movies ever made, it might not seem that way as the way I have been describing it as a haunting and disturbing film. However, it is that way because of the wonderful and dark performances by the actors, especially Marlon Brando, whose performance is truly fantastic and adds more to the Redux version. A great, well acted, well directed, and long movie that you must see. I will watch the theatrical version and compare the two to see which version is better, but for now the Redux version is the version that should be seen and by the end of it you too will be saying, "the horror, the horror."  4/4 Stars   

Review: The Alamo (2004)

    Today is March 6th, the 177 anniversary of the fall of The Alamo. Since that is the case I thought I would do a full review of the 2004 film, much better than the John Wayne version, The Alamo. This was my movie of the week a year ago on Facebook, but that mini review doesn't quite get all the points across of why this is a very good, and underrated film.
    We all know the ill fated story of The Alamo, 236 Texan soldiers guard an old church, called The Alamo Mission, to prevent the Mexican army from advancing further into Texas to take it over. After a 13 day siege, the Mexican army launched an all out assault on The Alamo at night, eventually killing all of the men there. This sparked anger in people in Texas and caused them to join the Texan, then Texian, army to seek revenge. They got that revenge on April 21, 1836 at the Battle of San Jacinto where the Mexican Army was wiped out.

    The movie opens with the aftermath of the attack as we see all the bodies of the dead Texans, as the camera pans where hear this wonderful sorrow filled music. Right then and there we know that this is going to be an emotional movie. Next, we are introduced to the characters one by one. Dennis Quaid plays Sam Houston in charge of the army of Texas. He does a truly great job as he displays Houston's anger and will to win when he wants to. Quaid gives a great performance by showing the emotions and Houston's way to control a room full of men who want to fight and get revenge, the display of Sam Houston's leadership capabilities was displayed very well.

    Next, we have Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett, probably his best performance because you can tell the amount of research that went into the role. Billy Bob embraces himself in his role so much that the film is carried by him. From the very moment we meet him on screen to the end, when he is killed, we like him. There is one scene where he picks up his violin and starts playing along with the Mexican Army band, probably the best scene in the movie, and it is really a fun and moving scene to watch because it shows what kind of person Crockett was in good fashion.
     In supporting roles we have Jason Patric, as James Bowie, and Patrick Wilson, and Colonel William Travis. Both of which embrace there roles, as well, with great compassion especially Jason Patric who displays Bowie sickness very well and shows the problems he went through. Patrick Wilson, not the best actor out there, but does a good job as a Colonel who leaves his son, and just getting out of a divorce, before he was stationed at The Alamo. Overall great performances by a great cast.

    This is directed by a very good director, John Lee Hancock, who has not done as much as he should. He uses, a very detailed, rebuilt set of The Alamo very well and shows how the people lived during the siege. Simply put, the amount of detail put into this film was wonderful and an attention grabber. The production design was great because it was a real size version of The Alamo, in great detail. 

    The film is also beautiful to look at with great cinematography, used very well in the outside scenes and wide shots. We also have a truly heartfelt original score by Carter Burwell, who is almost unknown to most, by the way he uses the violin in certain scenes. The movie would not be complete without that emotional score, it adds to the film so much, you will know when you see it. The Alamo is a wonderful retelling of the brave story with near perfect acting, direction, great cinematography, production design, and a beautiful moving score. It is hurt a little by pacing at times, but it is a sad and emotional historic story done the right way.   
3.5/4 Stars. 

Review: Once Upon a Time in the West

   

    Movie of the Week (3/3/13-3/9/13): My first movie of the week review is for the western classic by Sergio Leone, Once Upon a Time in the West. This is known as one of, if not, the best westerns of all time and it is truly a masterpiece. Even though it is regarded as that it received zero Oscar nominations in 1968, probably because it is in the Spaghetti Western category, and if you look back no western in that style has been nominated. They are called Spaghetti Westerns because they were directed by Italians and filmed on cheap budgets in Europe, mostly, but were received greatly by the American public.
    Once Upon a Time in the West is Sergio Leone's best Spaghetti Western, behind The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and stands as one of the best westerns of all time. From the beginning you are hooked because it has such a long opening sequence, one of the best on film, that grabs you by the arm. It is followed by a nearly 3 hour epic story of land, greed, love, and revenge.
    The characters in this story, written by Sergio Leone, are the reason to watch this because the actors deliver such captivating performances. Henry Fonda, probably the best of them as an assassin who works for a railroad baron, puts himself in the character so well you begin to like him. We also have Charles Bronson, in his best role and performance, as a man known as Harmonica out for revenge long waited. Bronson, not the best actor there was, delivers a chilling performance in this role as we wait to find out why he is out for revenge. He best performance on screen and a very good one.
    The movie itself does take a while to get going as we are introduced to the characters slowly, which is what you get when you watch a Sergio Leone film. The long scenes that take time to develop make the movie seem drawn out at times, but makes the film worth while in the end. That being said, the plot is hard to follow and you really don't know exactly what is going on until the second hour or so. But, Leone grabs you with each scene slowly and pulls you in one second at a time, which is what we love about him.
    One final thing that makes this classic complete is the score by Ennio Morricone. It is done in such a way that it is haunting, yet relieving at times. Mixed so good together it creates the perfect atmosphere for a western. We also have the chilling playing of the Harmonica theme whenever Bronson's character is on screen and, again, gives you that irie feeling of a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. 4/4 Stars

Braveheart: Fact vs. Fiction

                                                                                            
    For my first blog post I thought I would mix my two favorite things, movies and history. I'm sure most of us are familar with the Best Picture winner of 1995, Braveheart. Most of us know the, basic, story of the Scottish rebel William Wallace, portrayed by Mel Gibson, who also directed. But, do you know how much of that story, told in Braveheart, is true? Well, let's go over a few of the major aspects that were false in the movie in order to make the film more entertaining.
    Let's go in chronological order, first, in the movie William Wallace's father was portrayed as a peasant farmer fighting for Scotland's freedom in earlier wars. However, historians found letters and a seal, which features William's father name on it, possibly Alan, but Malcolm in the film. So, right off the bat there is an error in the film, William Wallace's father was higher than a peasant, but not nobility. He was probably featured in the film this way to give the effect that the hero rose from the bottom.
    Next, we visit William's wife Marion, called Murron, in the film. Now, they did get married in secret and she was killed to draw Wallace out, but not before they had at least one son, whom not much is known about. The attack scene in the movie took place during daytime when it actually took place at night. William Wallace also had a beard and was not clean shaven as depicted in the film.
    The Battle of Stirling Bridge is next in which it is depicted as an organized battle in the movie, but it really wasn't. Also, if you look closely something is missing, a bridge! In reality the English were crossing a very narrow bridge over a river and were ambushed. They eventually had to retreat over the bridge, which then collapsed drowning thousands. The battle was won in a matter of a couple hours.
    The Battle of Falkirk was next in the movie and it shows the Irish fighting for the English, but just before they meet the Scots in the battle they stop and join them. Well that part, again, is false. They did that in the film because the Irish and Scottish extras did not want to fight each other. In reality the Irish fought the Scots, the Scots were defeated and forced to retreat. Also, Wallace was not betrayed directly on the field as shown in the film. Robert the Bruce did it indirectly by siding with Longshanks. After that Robert the Bruce felt so bad about the betrayal that he went and lived in a cave for months before coming out again and fighting for the Scots and becoming King.
    Finally, we have the relationship between Wallace and Princess Isabella, the French wife of Longshanks bisexual son, who was not as skinny and lanky in real life like he was in the movie. But, Princess Isebella at the time was only about 13 years old, so it would not be possible for her and William to have a relationship at the time, which they didn't. Isebella and her husband actually had a fairly happy life and had several children. That whole relationship in the film is false.
    At the end of the film, when Wallace is being executed, it shows that Longshanks appears to be dying at about the same time. Well King Edward died about five years later, Wallace was captured and executed in 1305. The Battle of Bannockburn at the end of the film takes place in 1314, although it seems to take place right after the execution.
    Those are some of the major aspects of the movie Braveheart that did not really happen in real life. The Scots also did not have kilts until the 1400's and they did not paint their faces in battle as worn by Gibson in the film. Even though the film portrays many things about Scotland's independence and William Wallace's life as wrong, does not mean that Braveheart is a bad movie because it certainly is not. It will entertain you beyond your belief, you will laugh, cry, and cheer throughout the movie and that is what makes it great. If you want the true story of William Wallace, Braveheart is not the place to go, you watch it to simply be entertained. If you haven't seen, give it a watch!