The Big Lebowski (1998)

Film: The Big Lebowski
Release: 1998, theatrical
Starring: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Jobless slob Jeff Lebowski, otherwise known as The Dude is thrown into a kidnapping negotiation when he's confused for a local billionaire with the same name

Hans' thoughts:

Between bowling tournaments, drug fantasies, riled up war veterans and one of the most complicated to sum up movies of all time, The Big Lebowski sits as one of those big quotable cult classic comedies. Made by the impeccable Coen bros., The Big Lebowski stars Jeff Bridges as "The Dude" a laidback slob that signs checks for ridiculously small amounts and whose only social outing is that of the ongoing Bowling league where he hangs out with his peers. The paranoid and quick to arms Vietnam veteran Walter played by John Goodman and the socially awkward loser Donny played by Steve Buscemi. Everything takes a radical turn for the complicated when The Dude is mistaken for a multimillionaire of the same name, said multimillionaire being the titular "Big Lebowski" whose wife owes a considerable amount of money to a local loan shark and pornography magnate and then seemingly gets kidnapped. The Dude will now have to balance the drama of being hired to negotiate with the kidnappers while fighting his own personal battle of wanting to win the local bowling league where his greatest adversary is the colorful sex offender Jesus Quintana played by John Turturro. This may seem like I'm spoiling the plot of the movie, but trust me that this is actually just the setup for a plot that will go further and further down a very strange rabbit hole. 

Acting wise the movie is great, The Coen brothers have always been a star pull and this time is no exception. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges as the movies leads make for a very funny oddball pair and every character in the movie is just so darn colorful that you can tell the actors involved had fun on the set. There's not really much of a limit to the utter cool of The Dude, he's a laidback guy who's just found his special sweet spot in the world and he very much channels the spirit of a grown up hippie who's never really gotten to the point of a formal career but instead decided to do whatever he wants. He may not be a big player in the political leagues or a hero in the formal sense but The Dude is nevertheless a man steadfast on his principles and he really just wants to go on existing the way he's done so far which is what makes him so relatable everytime he tries to call it quits on the strange version of The Hero's Journey he's been put on. Bridges does a great job of portraying the character and you can kinda see elements from his performance as Flynn in the 1982 movie Tron as he prefers pleasure to duty and is bare bones honest about it. The Dude is very much a hero of the era he exists in and would go on to become an icon of 20-somethings everywhere. The film is also littered with strange but compelling and well choreographed dream sequences where we explore the psyche of our very laid back character. 

While the plot may seem very complicated, it never goes too far and leaves the casual audience behind. Reusing many of the same characters and expanding on them while the movie goes along even minor characters kinda get their own little moment in the movie and we can kinda tell who they are even if we're never given all that much time with them or information about their past. It's very reminiscent of the Iceberg-style created by late author Ernest hemingway, a style where you're only shown the tip of the iceberg directly but it's a tip that you can really read a lot into thus revealing the rest of the iceberg hidden underneath. It's a very show-don't-tell style and one I feel really fits the visual medium but unfortunately never get's used enough. This is an independent piece and that use of style is a sign of it, I very much doubt that a film like The Big Lebowski would've been greenlit by a major studio. However the Coen bros funds all their movies themselves and the revenue always goes into the next project, they only really use the big companies like Universal Studios as in this case for the sake of distribution to a mainstream audience. That's a pretty hard thing to pull off, yet the Coen bros. have done so with all of their movies and it really speaks for the amount of talent that's behind them. Especially interesting to me were the political commentary inherent in the story. There are next to no innocents in this movie and everyone is portrayed as a bit of a two-faced buffoon with the only possible exceptions being Steve Buscemi's Donny and Julianne Moore's character whom shall go unnamed for the sake of spoilers. The Bowling imagery is a running theme in the movie and what exactly it means is thankfully left to interpretation, something I once again don't think a mainstream studio would've let slide.

The Big Lebowski is one of those bizarre instances of good acting meeting good scriptwriting and magic just happening on screen. Between characters taking on a life of their own, really well-written dialogue and some fun imagery the film presents us with a strange journey taken by a strange man where he meets strange people. The film takes on nihilism, social status, the burden of keeping up appearances and the presidency of George Bush senior all seen through the eyes of a man who actually just wants to be left alone and live out his humble but comfortable existence. 

An Adventure in Space and Time (2013)

Film: An Adventure in Space and Time
Release: 2013, TV
Starring: David Bradley, Jessica Raine, Sacha Dhawan
Directed by: Terry McDonough
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The new head of drama at BBC Sidney Newman wants to implement science fiction in an empty 25 minute spot. To produce the new program he promotes his former assistant Verity Lambert, and the young indian Waris Hussein is put into the directors chair - both of them the first of their kind they face numerous challenges in an industry dominated by middle-aged male traditionalists.

Hans' thoughts:

Made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, the longest running science fiction on television, BBC has released this dramatised version of the events surrounding the creation of the program up to and including William Hartnell's departure from the series as the first Doctor. Starting in 1963, we're introduced to BBC as a highly traditionalist institution: Our main character is a young woman promoted to a leadership position at a time where such a thing was pretty much unheard of. If you've seen the 50's drama series Mad Men, you know what kind of environment I'm talking about. Middle-aged and Older men in leadership positions who scoff at anyone who doesn't belong to their own group. Her director for the series is the young Indian Waris Hussein, and together they pretty much represent the young generation that would become more and more commercially relevant in these years. Unfortunately the dramatic potential for their struggle to actually put out the series feels very lightly brushed over. It is touched upon that they would run into a number of problems, departments not taking them seriously, horrid shooting conditions and other such things but instead the movie shifts focus to the actor playing the Doctor and hurries to go over some key moments from the years where Hartnell would have the role. 

Fortunately they have a very strong actor actually portraying the late Hartnell in the form of David Bradley. Most people will remember Bradley from prominent role as the nasty janitor Argus Filch at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter films or his supporting cast role as the perverted Walder Frey in the HBO fantasy series Game of Thrones. Both are very off-putting characters and it only speaks to the man's talent how polarizing his portrayal of Hartnell is to the others. He shows definite, strong and believable range here not seen very often even among the most famous of actors. I expect even non-Doctor Who fans will find something to enjoy in his performance, because while the movie definitely plays on it's role as "The film we're watching until the 50th anniversary special" it also more than stands it's ground as being a well-written dokudrama about the major changes the sudden rise of awareness from companies on the teenagers and kids audiences would have on business practices and programmes. 

Being an insightful story about the creation of that wonderful alien in his big blue box aside, it is overall very well-done period drama for fans and non-fans alike. Everything shot on the set looks like you could have travelled back in time to the era it took place, and of course it has nods to some of the most iconic villains and aspects of the show. Between heartbreaking moments, really good acting and just a good story this is was a treat to watch all the way through.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Film: Miller's Crossing
Release: 1990, Theatrical
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: link opens in a new window
Description: The advisor to a prohibition-era crime lord becomes the only person holding back an all out war between the competing families.

Hans' thoughts:

1919-1933, the consumption and dealing of alcohol is prohibited throughout the United States of America. Ironically, the men and women who were involved in creating the now notorious underground bars and smuggling passages has since then become national folk heroes. Like so many other movies, there is "Miller's Crossing" - a straight up crime drama following men with more vices than can be counted on a hand. Our hero is Tom Reagan, a classic mobster with ties to an Irish crime family that runs the city he lives in. He's considered one of the top advisors, second only to the boss himself. It's said that he's "always got the angle" on what is going on around town. Of course that isn't as true as it would first seem. While our main character certainly seems self-confident and always on top of things (played excellently by Gabriel Byrne) it quickly becomes apparent to the audience that he might have bitten off more than he can chew. He's a character that's been seen before, reminiscent of main characters from detective noir films. He's very much a "man's man", keeping his stoic demeanor in the face of a life threatening situation and always with a quick line to throw at others. This is also where we see one of the main qualities of the Coen bros., if I had to pick only one thing they do well it would be their way with words. 

Now a short admission is in order, I have not seen all that many Coen Bros. movies. This is not because I dislike their movies or because they only dabble in genre's that fall outside my personal preference. No, instead it simply wasn't in the cards. Watching this movie, I can certainly see what I've been missing out on. Between memorable characters, funny lines and just plain beautifully done shots I cannot believe I didn't wise up to these guys sooner. Gangster movies set in this era is one of my favorite sub-genres. I love the way they talked, the look of most of these films with the pinstripe suits and the tommy guns, and I just love how folksy the silent respect between even notorious crime lords were - according to these kinds of movies at least. If you were hoping for a super realistic look at prohibition-era crime syndicates, this isn't the place to look. This very much rehashes the tropes of the genre. This isn't to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, in fact I'd say this is one of the best crime syndicate movies out there. Our main character of Tom Reagan is also a bit more relatable than that of The Godfathers' Michael Corleone. I say "main character" and not "hero", because while Tom certainly tries to prevent a war in the criminal underworld, there is not much in the way of good deeds in his repertoire. The man has a end game, and it seems like he may be a bit more ambitious than he first lets on. What exactly he's actually up to during all this is of course up to you to find out by watching the movie.

Our other characters are pretty good as well, there is no one in the film that I would characterize as the "main villain". None of these people are good guys and everybody is in for themselves in the end. The actors all do a terrific job, but I wouldn't feel right if I didn't mention the very minor but memorable appearance of Steve Buscemi as the nervous fast talking Mink. He talks so fast in the one scene he shows up in that it was actually kinda hard to follow what he was saying, though I am pretty sure I got the general idea. As for our female lead, I'm sad to say there is not much to her. She seems like your average 30's femme fatale who does bad things to get along in a man's world. This is not to say that she's not interesting at all but she does come off as a tad too generic and one-off, which is sad when you think about how good the writing is in almost all other areas.

Jon Polito as Johnny Caspar

Our two crime bosses in the movie are played by Jon Polito and Albert Finney. We don't get much face-time with Finney as most of the movie takes place in the Polito camp, but what we see is pretty good. Finney's character gets one of the movie's few action scenes and it is very well done, from the sound work to how well the events are strung together Finney really makes an impression, like Buscemi, in spite of how little we actually see of him. Polito plays a much larger role in the movie, and for what it's worth I found him funny as the character of the up and coming boss Johnny Caspar. Though I have to say for whatever reason, and this might be the comic guy in me speaking, I couldn't stop picturing him as a new take on the Batman villain The Penguin. His methods are very akin to the character and had it not been for Polito's character being a lot more dignified it would have been an almost perfect live-action adaptation. I very much doubt that the Coen bros. had the Gotham City crime boss in mind when they wrote the character, but I just feel I have to put it out there.

The plot of the movie is, unpredictable to say the least. Every time I thought I knew in what direction the movie was going a new event comes in and changes the goals of our main character, if only temporarily. One moment the movie seems like it heading in a Romeo & Juliet-esque direction and the next everything is about something completely different. Unlike the main character of Tom Reagan, the audience is never let in on him "knowing all the angles". He seems to be able to predict most of the events that are coming long before they do and when he's actually surprised - so is the audience right along with him. You never know what the characters are going to do because unlike so many other movies you are never let in on their secret plans or their actual motivations. Things happen just as they would in the real world and it seems at times like we are right there observing it from a safe distance. We're also left completely in the dark about certain things, what is the name of the city? What is the last name of one of our crime bosses? What exactly is the balance of power in the city? We're never told that because we don't need to - focus is kept quietly on following things from the eyes of our main character and nothing is mentioned without it sounding natural in dialogue. From the Fox logo, the very first sound we hear is that of ice cubes in a whisky glass and from then on we are shown a tale of a life in the criminal underworld during the prohibition. 

Citizen Kane (1941)

Film: Citizen Kane
Release: 1941, Theatrical
Starring: Orson Welles, Dorothy Comingore, Joseph Cotten
Directed by: Orson Welles
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: An aging billionaires last word becomes the axis of an investigation into his life.

Hans' thoughts:

Citizen Kane, a movie heralded by many as the greatest achievement in cinema. Even today, people are talking about the movie as the best - giving films like The Room the subtitle "The Citizen Kane of Bad Movies". The film is a cautionary tale, Kane himself a man that has made himself into one of the wealthiest men in the world, living in a mansion called "The greatest monument to a single man since the pyramids". Curiously named Xanadu, a palace built from self-indulgence that would since be nothing but rubble. The name is most likely picked deliberately, as it mirrors the tale of Kane himself. The movie is certainly something else from most other films - loaded with symbolism to a degree that most would have to take repeated viewings to pick up on. The shots are also beautifully framed, using the banality of a doorframe to great effect several times in the film. 

All that set aside, I must admit that the film hasn't aged all that well. Character writing has come a long way in the years since then and I don't feel that most of them were all that redeeming. Perhaps this is because of the person I happen to be, growing up in a socialist family I probably don't appreciate the kind of mentality required for making this movie work. To me, this movie is about Rich people talking about other rich people and how they did some bad rich people stuff in their rich people lives. But honestly, there must be some core thing I'm not seeing here. The movie seems to attempt to convey the notion that some people would just be better off without certain advantages. For audiences, the big guessing game is what made Kane himself turn into a worse person. Whether it was his upbringing, his ambitions or those around him that turned him into what he is, is anyone's guess.

Interestingly, the movie is shown through the eyes of a young reporter. Walking from person to person asking about the life of Citizen Kane. This almost makes the movie into a casefile from a psychology class. While it may not have been the original intent I assure you that a man with such knowledge could find at least a couple of theories that fits with the life of Kane. Whether it's the historical references, the symbolic imagery or just plainly the well-written drama - Citizen Kane deserves recognition as one of the great movies, if not for all time then at least of the era. Made in a period just after the Great Depression and released in the second year of the second world war the movie gives us a time capsule of the zeitgeist of the years in which it was made and later released.

Acting wise the movie is great, Orson Welles himself playing Citizen Kane is the highlight of the movie. Managing to show the anger and overzealousness that the man contains. He blames his silver spoon for his personal shortcomings "You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."  Other actors do a good job as well, in particular that of Everett Sloane playing Mr. Bernstein. Playing the character as a humble yet joking man - like all others his old age has made him wiser. The actresses on the picture, was unfortunately nothing spectacular. Perhaps held back by a script that made the characters they played very one-note.

No matter how it has aged, there is no doubt that if you love film: This is one to watch. Fundamentally changing what movies were all about while telling a dramatic story of a mans journey through greatness and fall through the eyes of his peers.

Spartacus (1960)

Film: Spartacus
Release: 1960, Theatrical
Starring: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, John Gavin and Tony Curtis
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 73 BC, the slave Spartacus is bought by the owner of a gladiator school. However, when a slave starts revolting during a battle in the ring, Spartacus becomes inspired to lead one of the most legendary uprisings in ancient history.

Hans' thoughts:

When Kirk Douglas was denied the role of Ben-Hur, he decided to spit in the faces of the team behind it with his own ancient era epic: Spartacus! Made in a time where Hollywood movies where not only long, one of their main selling points was sheer spectacle this colossus of a movie must've been one of the most expensive movies of it's day. No surprise then, that Douglas hired a young (at the time) unknown director to steer the movie. I'm of course talking about Stanley Kubrick: A man whose directing style would later become one of the most recognizable in the industry. In this movie however, he is kept very much on a leash and he later moved to have his name struck from the movie - though his efforts never bore fruit. Indeed, his name has title billing on my personal copy of it.

Spartacus is a beast of a movie, 3 hours and 17 minutes in length (including overture, intermission and entr'acte) it is quite the overtaking for modern audiences to actually decide to sit down and watch this thing. One might ask if it was entirely necessary to not make the aforementioned three things merely an option rather than the standard on the blu-ray release. But I digress. Actually, in spite of the movie's very long running time, it seems well spent. There's not a single scene that I would've removed.

Watching modern movies for the most part, it's astonishing how much care and detail was put into movies at the time. The sets are HUGE, and much care was put into details that most people probably didn't even see. Things such as making the sets actually look like they were made out of marble. A lot of credit also goes to the outdoor locations, as the beautiful settings combine with an incredible number of walk-ons in costumes makes you wonder about how much patience the director of photography and his crew must've had to pull this off. 

Speaking of photography, it is very refreshing to see the amount of color this movie has. Where as many movies today rely on filters and lighting to help actors convey the emotions to the audience, this movie leaves all the work to the actors signifying (perhaps not on purpose) that the world around doesn't turn dark and gray just because you happen to feel bad. Instead, we have a great bombastic score to help with the connotation on the visuals of the movie. 

Acting wise we have a lot of big names running about. Kirk Douglas as the stalwart Spartacus does a good job to show a man who has seen mostly darkness in his life but nevertheless is able to gather the strength to fight back. Honestly, the movie does a very good job of portraying the legend of Spartacus, bittersweet as it may be. Also, you should probably refrain from using this movie for history studying, as it is less than accurate. Indeed, while most of the names for the characters are taken from real people, they lived at different points in time. Marcus Licinius Crassus died in the 50's BC whereas Gracchus, his rival in the senate in the movie, had died much sooner in the 120's BC. Meaning the two men never met in reality. 

Speaking of Gracchus, I'd like to highlight Charles Laughton as MVP of the movie. Playing an awarely corrupt, yet reserved senator. He knows he has a lot of vices, but doesn't hide by the main villains claim of ultimate patriotism. Instead wanting to enjoy the pleasures in life, while doing his job unambiguously. 

The weakest actor in the movie, though still very talented in her own right was Jean Simmons as Varinia, the female lead. This is mostly due to her giving completely into the damsel in distress persona. Not trying to add a little fire to a character who was probably written that way in the screenplay. I know that you can't do much against a screenplay and a director, but certain deliveries of lines could've been tweaked in favor of the characters apparent independence. 

Overall I'll say that I was very impressed with this movie, However the long running time and the bittersweet tone of the movie combined with a slow build-up may bore modern audiences used to a more fast-paced version of entertainment. For the rest of us I say: Dedicate an afternoon to this movie, you will likely be entertained. Perhaps a bit richer for the experience.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Film: The Lone Ranger
Release: 2013, theatrical
Starring: Armie Hammer, Johnny Depp, Tom Wilkinson
Directed by: Gore Verbinski
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: On a train headed for hanging sits Butch Cavendish, the worst outlaw in recent memory. On the same train sits the newly appointed district attorney John Reid, and he's about to get very much in over his head.

Hans' thoughts:

I don't think most people from my generation really know who The Lone Ranger is. This is why I kind of doubt the validity of making a Lone Ranger movie so long after the original serials run. It's also strange considering that The Green Hornet already had his modern movie years ago. But I guess that's how it is. Movie companies are willing to revive almost any franchise these days on the slim chance that it will make them a quick buck.

This movie is very much a product of the times we live in. Now, more than ever, Hollywood pumps out adaptations of every character that even smells of superhero. It's a money-making movie, but that doesn't mean it's bad. No actually, while the movie may ride on the success of both Pirates of the Carribean (the connection to that movie series being mentioned in all promotional material) and the current success of the superhero movie genre - I really found myself enjoying it. Indeed, the connection to the Pirates movie series is not actually that far fetched, beyond the casting choice of Johnny Depp I mean.

The movie plays very much the same nature as the first Pirates movie, Armie Hammer being the wide-eyed, by-the-books innocent hero to bounce off of Johnny Depp's very energetic broken hero. It is very much the same character dynamic as that of Orlando Blooms chemistry as Will Turner with Depp's insanely popular Jack Sparrow. What it seems to me they tried to do, was make a repeat performance of what Pirates did. In essence, take a genre that has seen a decline and try to put it back in the minds of the children. It is very much a high adventure movie that seems to focus on catching the attention of kids. I'm not saying it's a bad business plan, I just think the timing is a little weird. Opening the movie the same weekend as the sequel to an already popular franchise (in this case, Despicable Me 2) is never all that good of an idea. 

Even though she's on the EU poster, Carter doesn't actually
get all that much screen time in this movie.

So to those of you that don't know (and I expect a lot of you) The Lone Ranger was a radio-play turned cinematic series in the 40's and 50's. It followed the adventures of a masked cowboy riding with his partner and mentor Tonto to be vigilantes in the old west. Most of the clichés you think of when you think of the cowboy genre originated in this series. Right down to the use of a sped-up version of the Wilhelm Tell Overture, today a piece of music very much associated with westerns right along the theme to The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. The Lone Ranger was very much a part of the reason kids played cowboys and Indians back in the day.

As such the movie actually manages to capture the spirit of The Lone Ranger very well. Intentionally or not, it is also very much full of elements from the Lucky Luke comic book series. That being the type of humor used. If you're still not so hot on the concept of a Lone Ranger adaptation, you can think of it as a Lucky Luke adaptation instead. The movie has a lot of the elements you would combine with the western genre, chases, train robberies, the cavalry fighting native Americans, they even put in an old fashioned whorehouse. 

The plot is what you would expect from a PG-rated western. It encompasses the newly built railroad, the relationship between native Americans and the newly formed U.S. government, the dog-eat-dog world that the romanticized west has and a bit of weird spirituality thrown in to give the movie a mystical element.I'm actually quite impressed with how accurately the movie recaptured the spirit of that particular genre while still staying somewhat fresh. It most definitely uses CGI unnecessarily at some points but at the same time the special effects are mostly used for comedy so it's kind of forgivable. No Hollywood, CGI rabbits will never look good.

Is this movie anything special? No, it most definitely isn't. It's kind of forgettable in how "okay" it is. But as a summer blockbuster it does it job. If you happen to go to the cinema to waste an evening or afternoon, this is worth the price-point of entrance. But nothing more. If you don't have the cash to go see it in theaters, consider tracking it down after a price-drop. It's serviceable enough and a lot of fun while you actually sit in the theater. And I'm okay with that, sometimes you don't need any more.

Blackadder: Back and Forth (1999)

Film: Blackadder: Back and Forth
Release: 1999, theatrical
Starring: Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry, Rowan Atkinson, Tony Robinson, Tim McInnery, Miranda Richardson, Rik Mayall
Directed by: Paul Weiland
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Lord Edmund Blackadder is hosting a new years party at the eve of the new millennium. To cheat his guests out of cash he has had his faithful servant Baldrick build a fake time machine. Unfortunately - it actually works. Blackadder and Baldrick is now lost in time and has to find a way back to their own period.

Hans' thoughts:

Blackadder is one of those big British comedies. When a foreigner like me thinks of British comedy the first things that come to mind is Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, 'Allo 'Allo! and Blackadder. It's timeless in it's wit, set in various historical periods, and was pretty much the breakout series for a lot of big names. The three biggest being Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. 

The "gimmick" of the Blackadder series is that each season of the tv-show is set in a new historical period, each with it's own incarnation of the title character and his faithful servant Baldrick. Other returning cast members are historical figures with distinctly recognizable features - mostly because they're played by returning actors. The most obvious example is that of Hugh Laurie playing Prince Regent George of Wales in the 3rd season, and then returning as Blackadders second-in-command in Blackadder Goes Forth, the 4th and final season. Needless to say, this series is very beloved by it's fans. 

That's all well and good you may think, but what about the movie? Well, I liked it.

Okay let me rephrase that for a second, I liked it but it is a very far cry from the wit of the original series and as such it is better to be seen as it's own thing. Okay let me backtrack a second, the original series run of Blackadder ended with it's 4th season in 1989, this movie was made in 1999. That's 10 years later. These guys haven't done these characters for such a long time that's it's understandable that there would be few hiccups.

One of those is kind of forgetting that the strength of the series was always it's dialogue, with the visual gags being more or less hit and miss (more miss than hit, really). Blackadder the series is one of the most quotable sitcoms in the world and this movie falls just short of truly recapturing that amount of snark. The series also never really strayed all that far from what could feasibly happen in the real world. Of course it took it's liberties for the sake of comedy but never to the extent of the characters actually inventing time-travel. Then again, to it's credit the time-travel aspect of the movie is set just a bit in the background and serves as a narrative tool to pay homage to the different time-periods from the series.

What I'd also really like to highlight is the music. This movie brings what may possibly be the best version of the classic Blackadder theme. You really feel that this time there's a huge budget behind it. It's not that the themes in the former series were bad - no I feel Blackadder is one of my favorite theme songs - but this one really hammers it up to movie budget level. The intro-sequence is properly epic, set to various historical pictures with Rowan Atkinson put in making rude gestures to a almost Lord of The Rings-esque version of the theme. The ending theme follows the tradition, but whereas the second season went a little overboard with the (at the time) modern pop influence, this one let's the funny come exclusively from the songs lyrics.

This movie servers as a tribute and send off to one of the greatest and funniest sitcoms of BBC. It has a return of a huge amount of the original actors and it actually feels like a sort of family reunion - The group put together again for one last blow-out. If you've seen all the Blackadder series and feel that you need a proper ending for the clans story - this serves the purpose. However, people who hasn't followed the original series at all should probably watch that before turning to this movie. It's more of a thank you note to the loyal fans than an introduction to the series.

Of Mice and Men (1992)

Film: Of Mice and Men
Release: 1992, theatrical
Starring: John Malkovich, Gary Sinise, Moira Sinise
Directed by: Gary Sinise
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: During the depression, the drifters George and Lennie try to find jobs at the various farms to chase the impossible dream they share.

Hans' thoughts:

The Great Depression is a very popular time period to make movies about. Unfortunately, these stories mostly take place in places like Chicago - completely forgetting that the farms around the country were actually hit the hardest. 

This movie is based on one of the most classic novels, arguably the most well-known, about this era, and it just so happens to be about farms - how about that? 

Even people not all that familiar with this story know some elements from it. For instance, Looney Tunes' Sylvester the Cat had his own gentle giant sidekick that called him "George". This is of course in reference to the popular line "T-t-tell me about the rabbits, George!" uttered several times by one of the story's main protagonists, Lennie Small, who is played by John Malkovich in this adaptation.

Now, this is a very dark story. Lennie and George are down-on-their-luck farmhands who can't hold down a job, partially because of Lennie's affliction. Said outright, Lennie Small is mentally disabled, giving him the mind of a child, but physically he's a big, strong man. As you can probably imagine, because of this the story brings with it the danger of making Lennie into a comical character, completely destroying the tragedy behind him (Indeed, a Danish comedian named Dirch Passer tried his hand on doing this character in a stageplay adaptation with serious intentions, but could not be taken seriously by the audience, and ultimately being laughed off the stage). However, I feel that John Malkovich plays the character very respectfully and indeed the movie handles him incredibly well.

Both leads did a great job bringing these characters to life

George is played by actor/director Gary Sinise. Sinise is an actor I respect a whole lot, I've not seen him in something where I didn't like his work. Unfortunately, Sinise is one of those actors who gets typecast a great deal. This movie is no different; if you've seen Forrest Gump or CSI: New York, you know exactly how he plays the character. In this movie his style fits right in with the character of George Milton, a quick-witted and sarcastic, but kind-hearted man. 

As for the other actors, I'd like to highlight John Terry as Slim, he does a very good job both when he's being kind, and when he's being absolutely furious. I can't pinpoint exactly why, but the actor's performance just stood out to me.

Let it be known, though, that it is a very long time since I last read the actual novel. I cannot judge how well this adaptation keeps to its source material. Judged on its own merits however, this had a very compelling story once I got into it.

Of Mice and Men is a timeless tale of hope and loss. This movie pays a lot of respect to it and it seems that both cast and crew had a love for the source material. If you have any historical interest, even slightly, this movie is for you. If you like drama, this movie is for you. If you have the ability to sit down and enjoy a quiet tale, watch this movie.

Argo (2012)

Film: Argo
Alternate title: Operation Argo
Release: 2012, theatrical
Starring: Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin
Directed by: Ben Affleck
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When revolution stirs up in Iran, CIA and Canada conducts a fake film project to extract endangered American diplomats from the country

Hans' thoughts:

One of the dangers of adapting real stories for the screen is making one side look cartoonishly evil. Fortunately, just like the real world this movie is a lot of very grey areas. While the Iran government is still set up somewhat as the "bad guys" the movie constantly reminds you that America started the whole debacle themselves. The movie doesn't seem like it wants to show some kind of political agenda, rather it just tells what is a very good story. This movie is very straightforward in that aspect "here's what happened, with a bit of sprinkles to make it interesting" much in the same vein as Zero Dark Thirty from the same year. The most entertaining part of the movie is the middle part, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin almost paying tribute to The Producers in their performance. Especially Arkin is very fun to watch. However, they manage to lighten up their part of the movie without belittling the situation the movie is depicting. The climax is also very suspenseful and I was at the edge of my seat for most of it. I have to say, while Affleck may not be the most animated of actors, he definitely has his place in the directors chair.

King Solomon's Mines (1985)

Film: King Solomon's Mines
Release: 1985, theatrical
Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone, John Rhys-Davies
Directed by: J. Lee Thompson
Next in the series: Allan Quartermain and the City of Gold
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Allan Quartermain is hired by a woman looking for her father who disappeared under strange circumstances.

Hans' thoughts:

I believe myself to be a relatively calm person. I have calmly sat through many movies, good and bad, and not been over-zealous because of the things happening on screen. This movie broke me. Rarely have I witnessed the amounts of utter stupidity happening on screen. This movie had points where I was half-expecting Porky Pig to finish the scene going "T-T-T-That's all folks!". Really, we have Looney-Tunes-amounts of stupid on the screen during this movie, but the fault is that we're still sort of supposed to take it seriously. Quarterman waterskies behind a train, pole-jumps a lake of lava and they even put in the stereotypical cannibals with the giant pot, complete with a carrot joke. I mean, wow! Speaking of stereotypes, if you like laughing at Germans, then is this EVER the movie for you. One of the main villains is a World War I colonel who listens to Wagner, has a silly mustache, is small and chubby and even eats sausages. Wow. In all honesty? Just go watch the Looney Tunes. You'll have a similar experience, only the laughing will be intentional. Okay, so maybe I could be kinder to this movie. I am quite honestly stunned at some of the very beautiful locations they've found for this movie, and while the movie is mostly stupid, it certainly had me sit through the whole thing. If you are to enjoy this movie, best you enjoy it ironically. The cheese factor is very, VERY high.

Miki's thoughts:

Prepare for action! Prepare for adventure! Prepare for a whole lot of cheesy acting! Richard Chamberlain plays Allan Quatermain, an adventurer who accompanies Jesse (Sharon Stone), the daughter of an archaeologist who claims to have found the location of the legendary King Solomon's Mines, a place of immense wealth. Their journey through the darkest Africa is constantly being hindered by the very stereotypical (in Hollywood terms) German colonel Bockner and the equally evil Turk Dogati (played by John Rhys-Davies), as well as various African tribes trying to eat them or throw them to the crocodiles.

I will go as far as to say that this movie is the poor man's Indiana Jones. Although the books about Allan Quartermain preceded Raiders of the Lost Ark by about a hundred years, it is easy to see that it was trying to cash in on the adventure film genre made popular by the Indiana Jones franchise.

I will even go as far as to say that this is Indiana Jones for stupid people. Why? Let me point out a few dumb things that stand out:

Richard Chamberlain as Quatermain. His character is supposed to seem tough at first, only being interested in getting paid to do his job. But Chamberlain quickly sheds this image to play the obvious heroic guy, and delivering an over-the-top performance. One of his most glorious moments is when he fights on top of a moving train, on the side of a moving train, under a moving train, and culminating in him waterskiing behind a moving train. Yes, you read that right. Still, that doesn't exactly top jumping onto a horse from a biplane.

Sharon Stone is playing the typical blonde beauty without much of a clue, and even though she does pack a few punches, she is whiny and hysterical, although she doesn't reach the same level as Willie in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

The movie is supposed to take place during the first World War, and so the German army is the main antagonist (out of many) to Quatermain. Although there were no Nazis during this period, Hollywood simply LOVES ze hilarious Nazis, and Colonel Bockner fits every stereotype. Eating sausages and listening to Wagner, carrying a riding crop and just generally being a little fat guy with a temper. Ze German army will not stand for zis, but Hollywood carries on.

Dogati (played by John Rhys-Davies) is probably the most likable character in this movie. That is, when the rest of the cast consists of over-played stereotypes trying to be funny. It's interesting to see Rhys-Davies play much of the same role as he did as Sallah in Raiders of the Lost Ark. His Dogati is fearful and he will surprise you more than once in this movie.

The movie is supposed to be a light-hearted take on the adventure genre, as well as a parody of Indiana Jones, so if you can switch off your brain and look through fingers with the amounts of cheese in this movie, it is an enjoyably ride.

The Phantom (1996)

Film: The Phantom
Release: 1996, theatrical
Starring: Billy Zane, Kristy Swanson, Treat Williams
Directed by: Simon Wincer
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When a New York business man steals skulls of mystical power, The Ghost Who Walks is called into action.

Hans' thoughts:

Credit is due for the mere fact that they actually dared making a movie with this character. The Phantom is one of the lesser know superheroe-esque characters and he wear a bright purple outfit while on duty. So props is definitely given for even trying to make modern audiences take this character seriously. As for the actual movie, it's a mixed package. On one hand you have some pretty cool stuntwork and an epic tale, you even have a very nice score and this could very much just have gone as an Alan Quartermain or Indiana Jones movie. It has mystical artefacts and junglestunts and our hero is both daring and skilled. On the other hand you have a very by the book plot, and the villain (Treat Williams) is really hamming up the acting to the point of it going from sorta amusing to just downright obnoxious. He's very camp. Some of the mythos is also not explained very well, at points we see the main character talking to a ghost that no one else can see but it's never fully explained who it is except in throw away lines. A lot of the story is told in throw away lines. At one point of the movie, the main character even feels the need to retell his entire origin. However, if you like period piece adventure and really well-done action it is certainly entertaining.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Film: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Release: 2004, theatrical
Starring: Will Ferrel, Christina Applegate, Steve Carell
Directed by: Adam McKay
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window 
Description: Ron Burgundy's news team is the most successful team in the city of San Diego, one day however all conventions are broken when a woman joins the station.

Hans' thoughts:

This is one the movies I quote the most, the movie is filled to the brink with so many one-liners and memorable moments that it is indeed at the top of the mountain when it comes to comedy. It's a doozy however, because while so much more could have been done with the concept of the story the characters are all so memorable that you just kinda forget the lameness of the actual plot. Because yes, the plot is very cliché, and the story could have had a message mixed in with the comedy but you quickly forget that because you're laughing at the utter bizarre level of stupidity from Steve Carell's character, Brick. If this movie was ever to gain a spin-off, Brick would most likely be the character to get it. The other characters get their funny moments too, though I have to say that while most characters get a lot to do humor-wise, Paul Rudd is just sorta.. there. That said, the movie would definitely be worse off without him. This is also a movie with a lot of celebrities playing throw away roles, like Jack Black, Danny Trejo or Ben Stiller each being characters with only one or two lines only appearing once in the movie. The movie is just loaded with big name actors like that, indicating to me at least that this movie was a "play time project", as in a movie where actors and their friends just do a movie for the fun of it. Kind of like how The Blues Brothers is also loaded with cameos. This movie is one I've found myself revisiting again and again and I'll be sure to do so again in the future.

First Blood (1982)

Film: First Blood
Release: 1982, theatrical
Starring: Richard Crenna, Sylvester Stallone, Brian Dennehy
Directed by: Ted Kotcheff
Next in the series: Rambo: First Blood Part II
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A Vietnam war veteran comes to a small town, but is quickly arrested for loitering by the local authorities. His arrest tricker his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and it quickly becomes a one-man battle against the world

Hans' thoughts:

This movie really has some pretty imagery to go for it, which is the first thing you'll notice when you watch it. Big scenic pictures of nature. Stallone also does a very good job, albeit he speaks a little low so I'm wondering how the movie felt to the theatrical audience in America back in the day. Then again, this might have been a problem with my television but I'm mentioning it anyway. Hurray for subtitles. Honestly I feel that Stallone was a better actor back in the day when he did this one and the first Rocky. The feel of the movie is also very quiet, a lot quieter than what you normally associate with a Rambo movie these days. The death count is also barely there (I counted 1). Looking back today with the knowledge that First Blood would spawn one of the most violent action movie franchises out there, it is almost surreal. This movie also gets it's message across clear and to the point, but without getting too preachy and shoving it in our faces. I feel they made the other sides make their own points, as invalid as they may seem.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Film: X-Men: First Class
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, James McAvoy
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Next in the series: The Wolverine
Previous in the series: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 1962, a powerful mutant is fanning the flames of war between America and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, a young Erik Lensherr is looking for revenge on the man who murdered his mother.

Hans' thoughts:

After the sub-par X-Men: The Last Stand and the devastatingly awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 20th Century Fox redeems the X-men movie franchise with yet another prequel. This movie is what I feel the series should have been from the start - A period piece. One of the core struggles of the characters are the fight against bigotry and I really feel that works better in a historic setting. The characters are also mutants, a concept that was much more prevalent around this time, also called the "Atomic age". The actors in the movie all do a decent job, it has a lot of nods to the fans and they all seem to have something to do. However, some of the characters kinda just springs into the movie and leaves shortly after, mostly through death. You could argue that this makes the characters completely pointless, but actually they serve to make the stakes high and the characters that actually do end up dying all do so after introducing something important or doing something equally so.All in all, as I mentioned earlier, this movie served to redeem the X-Men movie franchise for me and I shall look forward to the next movie.