“Sons of Anarchy” on FX (2008-2012)

Five season, Golden Globe award winning drama about the workings of a motorcycle gang in California. Working class stiffs with incredibly tight bonds with each other as members of “the club” and as an ancillary issue, with their women. In the words of Gemma Teller-Morrow: “You love the man, you learn to love “the club”. Motorcycles serve not so much as the transportation but as the vehicle that explores the limits of fealty and loyalty.

Their roots are much like the original Hells Angels MC whose earliest members came back from Korea bored with civilian life and found a common bond in motorcycling. Looking for “adventure” eventually taking the form of illegal activities bringing tension relieved as intense group bonding. The Sons of Anarchy are similar, wearing “colors” (identifying leather jackets) loudly advertising their bond, scruffiness and attitude. The ultimate expression of male bonding.

They all work in an auto repair shop which hides their money making enterprise; running guns to anyone who’ll purchase them, including those they know will use them for mayhem. However, they draw moral line at drugs and prostitution, endeavors they consider anathema for their town. They work with the town lawmen to keep these entities at bay, and the police look the other way as it pertains to guns.

These guys then get into incredibly complex adventures with various levels of the law and each other. They emerge as classic anti-heros in the Marlon Brando-Lee Marvin mold from “The Wild One” (1953). Alternately mean and self-serving then loving and caring for others in various capacities. Sonny Barger, the original Hell’s Angel President and Maximum Leader is a perfect role model for Clay Morrow.

Hunter Thompson described the Angels to perfection in his 1966 book “Hell’s Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga”.

“They were a bunch of overgrown adolescents, stuck in their religious

mind-set as a way of life.  They defined themselves by their opposition to

any and everything.  The strength of their antagonism was the source of

their faith, and like all holy wars, their greatest enemies and their greatest

source of bloodshed was from within, battles against rival factions competing

for bottom of the barrel status”

Murder and mayhem come easy for them if it’s in the best interest of the Club. Revenge and retribution are their stock in trade. The viewer finds him or herself liking and even grudgingly respecting them despite their shortcomings if for no other reason than they’re such an interesting side of an alternative life.

The characters come alive in a hierarchy of texture and subtlety. Reviews have been positive and Katey Segal has won awards for her role just about yearly. The plot line is consistently coherent and interesting. Ally Walker as June Stahl is perfectly smarmy, nasty and vulnerable. The rest of the boys have their characters nailed.

Not for everyone. I give it four brotherly bear hugs.

My wife has been a concerted fan of British writer Lee Child (real name Jim Grant) for a number of years and has read his entire works. She was very leery of Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher as virtually none of the specifics match. The real Reacher is said to be 6’ 5” tall and weighs over 220 pounds. He rarely says much in the novels.  Cruise is about 5’ 7”, considerably lighter and more loquacious.

So critics who know the character weren’t happy with the choice, but it’s always risky counting Cruise out in any role. Back in ’94, critics howled at Cruise’s selection to play Lestat in “Interview with the Vampire”. Author Anne Rice threatened to pull her name off the project. But Cruise pulled it off with great reviews. Similarly, in “Jack Reacher”, Cruise re-crafts the character admirably such that if you didn’t know the real Reacher, Cruise would be a pretty good fit for the otherwise interesting plot.

Progression of events for Jack Reacher was well written and maintained interest throughout. There are some relatively minor shortcomings that can easily be forgiven. The evidence issue is a bit of a stretch. The end was dragged out a little too long. There was some gratuitous violence that wasn’t really necessary.

The female lead Rosamund Pike is a beautiful British actress that captured every scene. What does a frightened assistant district attorney do when tied to a chair, guns on her and bullets flying everywhere?  Why, cross her shapely legs in a short dress and heels, of course.

Best part:  Great scenes of Pittsburgh.

Not so best part:  Tom Cruise as a penniless drifter that just happens on the scene with no visible means of support is a bit of a stretch.

I liked it in spite of some shortcomings. Interesting plot, held my attention.

I give it two and a half toothy Tom Cruise grins.

Most moviegoers anticipate a coherent, engrossing plot and actors skilled enough to interpret it. But without the vision of a Director, the actors wallow like a rudderless ship. It’s the Director’s vision that pulls it all together.

Look to the past.  The scene in “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) where Peter O’Toole blows out the match and the scene instantly morphs to wide angled desert dunes. Dr. Zhivago’s dacha silently covered in ice (1965). A space station in “2001: A Space Odyssey” spinning to the strains of Johan Strauss (1968). The constant backdrop rain in “Blade Runner” (1982). These were all creations of the Director. The actors were coached on how to fulfill the Director’s vision.

The Life of Pi (2012) is, stem to stern, a Director’s film. The action sequences are custom formulated for the actors to inhabit. The sets are magnificent, the world-class cinematography as good as it gets. Ang Lee has matured since “Brokeback Mountain” (2005), to my mind an underappreciated masterpiece of human emotion. He can now sit comfortably at the table with David Lean, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stephen Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese.

That said, The Life of Pi is a conceptual dud. A film adaptation of the book by Yann Martel was said to be impossible. This proved to be prophetic. The plot is contrived and preachy; a sow’s ear crafted into a silk purse by a masterful Director. The pseudo-religious connotation doesn’t work as an elegant proof of God. The “surprise” ending doesn’t quite get off the ground as an allegorical morality conundrum. “Cast Away” (2000) did it better.

I recommend this film specifically for the beyond incredible visual effects. See the 3-D version as it’s worth the extra three bucks. Otherwise,  Hold your nose at the end.

Best Quip:  “Then it’s done….We sail for America….Like Columbus”.  “Yeah….but Columbus was looking for India”.

I give it 3.1416 of 5 snarling computer generated tigers, and that’s a gift to the gifted Director.

Followup remarks:

This is a book that many said could not be made into a film. There is one other book in my memory that critics said the same thing about and that was “Catch22” by Joe Heller (1962). The book was so convoluted and so many complex threads that any film made of it would have to be ten hours long. But they did make a movie out of it in 1970 and the hype surrounding it permeated the universe. Big name stars like Alan Arkin, Art Garfunkle, Orson Welles, Anthony Perkins, Bob Newhart, Jon Voight. Directed by Mike Nichols fresh off “The Graduate”.  It was filmed on location all over the world, cost a ton of money and was expected to be the blockbuster of the century.

It was a critical and commercial flop. It was reported that it nearly brought down Paramount Pictures at the time.  Why?  All the ingredients were there. Interesting story line, excellent actors, world class director.

Sometimes there has to be a quotient of magic to make a great film other than the personnel coming together in concert. Some indefinable prestidigitation to make the brew digestible. No one has yet figured out how to make that happen in advance.

At the 2010 Santa Fe Film Fest, Alan Arkin, Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss gathered to discuss the film.  It’s an interesting read and can be found at:

Features

Arkin remarked:

“For one thing, we had about 30 B-25 bombers on the runway of the set. Real B-25 bombers. And the Mexican government was very nervous because with all those bombers, we were the fifth largest air force in the world. Had we wanted to, we could’ve taken Mexico. And if we did, it would’ve been cheaper than making the film”.

There are several immutable ground rules for moviegoers that mandate unquestioned attendance. One is any film directed by Steven Spielberg and another is any film Daniel Day-Lewis appears in. Someday I’ll list the rest.

Daniel Day-Lewis doesn’t do too many films. Anything he’s in is a lead pipe cinch to be good. That said, I resisted “Lincoln” because I thought there’d be a real chance of having to sit through a good actor struggle through a dry, period historical drama like “Anna Karenina”.  However, Rolling Stone gave “Lincoln” rave reviews and it rated 90% on the Tomatometer, so I gave it a chance.

The portrayal of Lincoln’s domestic life is passed over briefly to dwell on the politics of passing the 13^th Amendment repealing slavery.  Lincoln is willing to the amendment passed by any means possible and his opponents are set on insuring its defeat. “Lincoln” brilliantly portrays the callous Barbary well as the subtlety of politics, what advocates and opponents are willing to do to pass or stop laws. It’s a vivid lesson in history and politics reminiscent of what’s going on in Washington right now.

“Lincoln” is a film treasure. It comes alive on every level. Spielberg’s cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, captures the style and texture of the film masterfully. Day-Lewis absolutely nails the characterization, but he relinquishes the center of attention to connect many other fabulous actors with incredibly strong performances. Sally Field yields an unusually interesting portrayal as Mary Todd Lincoln. The list then widens, including magnificent performances by James Spader, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn and many more. The whole manifests much more than the sum of its parts.

Best scenes: The political antagonists and protagonists describing each other in colorful terms on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Not so best scenes:  The issue of Lincoln’s assassination was treated as an extraneous aside.

Some of the real history is probably revised by Spielberg and doesn’t quite jive with that in the film, but the actors do a magnificent job of bringing history to life. Well directed and photographed.

I give it four and a half of five Derogatory shouts from the speakers box.  Must see.

50 years of James Bond, a perennial “Man’s Man”. Men want to be him, women want to be with him and adventure follows him.

The 23rd Bond film, “Skyfall” deftly but subtly nods to the past 50 years as it sets the stage for the new millennium Bond. Filmed in magnificent Istanbul, China and Scotland, the cinematography and action scenes are perfection. “Skyfall” produces all the glamor and excitement it’s devotees have come to expect and more.

The film transitions Bond into a new world, and accordingly, many of his previous associates and logistics are in the process of renewal. At 43 years of age with greying whiskers, Daniel Craig is getting a little long in the tooth for the rigors of this kind of physical action. But he does an excellent interpretation of Bond and I think he has a few more episodes in him.

Having seen all 50 years of Bond- the first one as a high school student, allow me to point out some of the accouterments of the past in this excellently conceived and directed film.

In “Dr. No” (1962), Sean Connery flashed a brand new style of wristwatch in one of the action scenes, a black face Rolex Submariner. This was a radical departure for wrist wear and ushered in the era of “sport watches”. I lusted so heavily for one I drooled for years, but they cost US$200.00 in the early 60s, a lot of money from a watch. It was years later when I finally obtained one and I wore it for many years. It is still a superb timepiece, and phenomenally expensive now.

1964’s “Goldfinger” introduced the ”Bond Car”, a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 replete with numerous gadgets, including a rudimentary GPS screen, passenger ejection seat and revolving license plates. Jerry Lee, Owner of WBEB Radio in Philadelphia, PA originally bought the car from the Aston Martin Company in 1969 for US$12,000.  The DB5 was sold for 2,600,000 British Pounds Sterling in 2010. The silver car in mint condition is still capable of 145mph and most the gadgets still work.

Cutting away to this week’s iteration of the series, Bond progressively moves into the new millennium and as he does so, he gives brief flashes of the past, but you have to look quickly. In the action scene that opens the film, you get a brief glimpse of him checking the time on a newer version of a Rolex Submariner. Then in later scenes, he switches to an Omega chronometer, which has been used in most of the more modern episodes.

The Bond car for “Skyfall” is reminiscent of the “Goldfinger” car, but if you check out the rear right of the car as it goes by, the logo shows it to be a DB6, built between 1965 and 1971. The practical differences between the two cars are negligible. The license plate number of the DB5 in ‘Skyfall’ is BMT 216A, the same as it was in “Goldfinger” and “Thunderball”.  Unclear why they didn’t find a DB5, possibly so expensive they didn’t want to blow that kind of money on the car and then trash it.

Best parts:  The 15-minute action sequence that trashes half of beautiful Istanbul. British singer Adele singing the title song.

Not so best features:  The actual plot for “Skyfall” is rather thin and a little too prolonged. The magnificent castle in Scotland was fake.

A few minor plot issues, but still an excellent film and highly recommended. Worth a few extra bucks to see it on IMAX. Don’t sit too close to the screen.

I give it four and a half of five shaken, not stirred martinis.

“Flight” is a film working 2009’s “Miracle on the Hudson” with some moralistic quirks showcasing Denzel Washington’s dramatic flair. It melds two diverse story lines together, one more interesting than the other.

The first explores the proposition that genius resists impairment.  Pilot Whip Whitaker is so good that even impaired by drugs and alcohol, he can creatively control the most unhinged situations better than the next sober guy. A proposition that has been debunked by meticulous practical performance studies.  Musicians and artists similarly opine that drugs augment their creativity, a notion that many such creative persons paid with their lives to debunk in the 60s and 70s.

The second story line is a simple a morality play about the evils of strong drink and drugs, done better many times in film.  “Days of Wine & Roses (Jack Lemmon, 1962),  “Lost weekend” (Ray Milland, 1945), among many others.

However, the combination of these two plots cancel each other out like matter and anti-matter yielding a tale of self-destruction and eventual redemption that descends into preachy melodrama and a thinly veiled promotion for a 12-step-program.  A superman that can come to life from a big league hangover to save the day under incredibly complex conditions but subsequently descends into the rehab resistant dregs of substance abuse? A bit of a stretch.

Serviceably directed by Robert Zemeckis, the action shots of the aircraft maneuvers are well done. Thereafter, Denzel Washington is good, but not that good. I’ve seen him better (Inside Man, 2006).  Don Cheadle applies an understated performance. The love interest angle is implausible and goes nowhere.

Best scenes:  The in-flight disaster avoidance maneuvers. James Badge Dale (The Grey, 2011) cameos as a rambling, out-of-context cancer patient. He steals the show in three minutes.

No so best scene: Gassed to the eyeballs Whip Whitaker countering a hangover with stimulant drugs.

Biggest scene stealer:  John Goodman.

Mediocre film punctuated with some isolated interesting scenes. My recommendation:  Wait till it comes out on Cable.

I give it 3 of 5 upside down passenger jets.

History as film art. The story line allegedly really happened in 1980.  Immaculately told by multi-talented Ben Affleck who directed and performed in this gem of a film.

A thoroughly hokey, thoroughly American-style plot to rescue six American bureaucrats trapped in the Canadian ambassador’s home, overlooked by the Iranian captors of the rest from the American embassy. The stealthy investigations of the Iranians using legions of children to reconstitute shredded documents are fascinating. I didn’t know it could be done. They simply reconstructed it all and used it to track down the missing embassy personnel, one step behind the rescuers. It was a nail biter followed by an edge-of-seat panic right to the end, very masterfully done.

Affleck used old 35MM film stock, enlarging it to create grain, washed out color and a 70’s feel. Period perfect properties. The characters are interesting and lively. The film is a joy on many levels, including a chilling portrayal of mob mentality and violence, a mob that has the moral authority to do pretty much anything it desires, and then proceeds to do just that in violent detail. Tense, suspenseful, thrilling and darkly comic. Rotten Tomatoes give is a deserved 94%/95% from both critics and audience on the tomato meter, a reliably stellar endorsement.

Best parts: Absolutely Alan Arkin and John Goodman.

Not so best parts:  None

Extra notes:  Watch for an aging Michael Parks (who every motorcyclist knows as “Then Came Bronson”, (1969)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063955/

BTW, the original 2 hour series opener of “Then Came Bronson featured then young actress Bonnie Bedalia in a brief topless scene that was cut for the TV opening. Naturally, I have a copy of the original.

The actor that portrays Jimmy Carter Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan (Pronounced “Jerdan” by old-line Georgians) is Kyle Chandler, a dead ringer for Jordan in 1979.

Near the end, as John Goodman takes a poster down off his wall, a dead ringer for Jack Nicholson walks by the window and asks what happened to the movie. Some say it’s the real Nicholson in an uncredited cameo role, which is quite possible. Others have said it’s the “real” Tony Mendez in a cameo role.

Hint:  Don’t leave before the credits at the end.

I give Argo a whopping 5 of 5 pissed off Iranians on the warpath. See it now, don’t wait for HBO.

“The Master” is actually two films in one. The first theme is a cosmetic examination of a pseudo-religious cult reputed in the media to be Scientology. Actually, “The Master” is much more like “est” from the 70s, a charismatic cult similar to Scientology, headed by the monolithic presence of Werner Erhard.  Rather than living a life enmeshed by their history, “est” trainees were offered escape from the shackles of their past by an endless Socratic method.  This process broke down inhibitions (and common sense) similar to a pastel Marine boot camp, bringing the follower to a state of true belief and one-ness with their ethos.

The second theme chronicles the track from sociopath to cult acolyte, a theme that has been worked heavily in the past, beginning with “The True Believer” (Eric Hoffer, 1951) which brilliantly described the personality type attracted to cults:

“Mass movements glorify the past and devalue the present, appealing to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, former soldiers, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors”.

This revelation was thereafter followed by the film “Pressure Point” (1962), in which underrated singer/actor Bobby Darin chillingly defined the personality of  “The Master” protagonist Freddie Quest in similar circumstances. The road to satisfaction and self-esteem lies in associating with the kind of power that derives from a charismatic leader.

Despite a potentially interesting exploration, “The Master” is deeply flawed and unsatisfying on almost every level. Its treatment of the sociology of sociopathy is shallow and diluted with free-form contrived drama.  The primary characters emote repetitively and almost experimentally, enhanced by extreme facial close-ups like a two and a half hour method-acting lesson in Lee Strasburg’s studio.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman works hard to carve out the cult’s charismatic maximum leader but in the end only explores the width of the role, not the depth. Joaquin Phoenix gets the overacting award of the year, and on some level I suspect he IS Freddie Quest in real life.  His exploration of the role is doing what comes naturally as he did in the impeccably weird “I’m still here” (2012).

It was a valiant effort but ended up a shell full of tedious melodrama that went nowhere and allowed the characters to progress to the same fate had no one ever observed them.

Best part: Cinematography was excellent.

Least best part: Gratuitous sex scenes that contributed nothing.

Quick aside quip:  The motorcycle run by Freddie in the flats was a 1950 single cylinder Norton 500T, a British bike quite desired by collectors. The Norton motorcycle company (along with Triumph and BSA) folded in the 70s after it was outclassed by cheaper, better-built Japanese bikes of the early 70s.

This is a very mediocre film bordering on tedious.  Not recommended to pay full freight to see it. If you like the actors, wait till it comes out on HBO.

I give it 3 of 5 smirks of “He’s making it up as he goes along”, and that’s a gift to Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

The theme of going back into time to change the future has been a staple in film and novel. Especially the potential for an individual to suddenly vanish in real time after going back to kill his father. This issue is heavily worked over in “Looper”, a film that is getting a whopping 93% rating on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer.

In this futuristic thriller, time travel is possible in the future but is rigorously controlled by powerful factions that send their enemies back 30 years in time to be disposed of by specially designated hit men (Loopers).  Occasionally the future iteration of the Looper gets sent back for disposal, and if that person happens to escape, a multiplicity of complications occur involving generations of players.

The older and younger versions of the same man can exist on the same time plane, but it’s complicated. What one feels, the other feels as well. They can communicate with each other by raising print welts on their respective forearms. The mission of the older version from the future directly affects the life of the younger version and everyone around him. The shock ending is definitely not anticipated. Each tries to negate the influence of the other.

The action is fast, elegant, weird and smart, but in places is difficult to keep who’s doing what and to whom in perspective. This is the third time Bruce Willis’ character time travels and encounters his younger self. The first was “Twelve Monkeys” and the second was “The Kid”. Newcomer Joe Gordon-Levitt (from “50/50” and “The Dark Knight Rises”) does a good job of holding the circles of personality together.

Best part:  The implications of the surprise ending.

Least best part:  Trying to figure out a fast moving convoluted plot on the fly.

Quirky notice:  A futuristic motorcycle (called a “Bike”) crashes and just for a second as the camera surveys the damage, the “bike’s” speedometer is shown. It is a “Smith” brand- standard equipment on most vintage British bikes of the 60s and 70s such as Triumph, BSA and Norton”

I give it four and a half blasts from a Blunderbuss.

Dinesh D’Souza is a self-professed conservative pundit. There is another 20-minute film out there in which he’s interviewed by interviewed by another conservative pundit with a reputation for distorting virtually any issue, Glenn Beck.  D’Souza freely admitted his desire to make a propaganda film that supported his own viewpoint, not necessarily examine any facts objectively. That’s exactly what he did, so this isn’t anything resembling a documentary (which is what it’s billed as).  It’s a statement of D’Souza’s biases, supported by whatever D’Souza could find that seemed to support it.

It was co-written by John Sullivan who directed the impeccably stupid and factually incorrect:  “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” featuring Ben Stein,which was roundly trashed by Rotten Tomatoes (a whopping 9%) and virtually every critic in the crit-o-sphere including well respected Roger Ebert. So you have some really strong experts here.

D’Souza says he understands Obama because he (D’Souza) is so much like him (so what) and theorizes that many of Obama’s actions are to jive with his dead father by taking isolated excerpts from the previous book. I read that book and I didn’t get any of that impression, nor did anyone else I know. D’Souza has no training in psychiatry or clinical psychology, so his opinion isn’t any more authoritative than mine.

D’Souza then schleps around the globe interviewing on-camera anyone that has a bias against Obama, presenting this bias as “enlightening”. He also makes oblique references to the incredibly stupid and previously trashed “birther” issue.  And of course Obama spent four years overseas as a child, which he implies, was a major formulation of his basic personality. He dredges up past guilt-by-association silliness like Bill Ayres and the Rev Wright, personalities that faded from any credibility years ago.  .

This film is specifically constructed to reinforce the alarmist notions of the radical political fringe. The spawn of Satan, Barak Obama, a man who is destroying the country in a quest to prove his worth to his dead father. Lots of expert opinions from people who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Obama Sr. A distant relative of Obama that maybe Obama is ignoring because he’s a poor African (the relative never agreed with that).

D’Souza punctuates some of his points with “Psycho”-like musical shrieks to help the viewer come to the conclusion that frightening things are happening (because of Obama). The ending was shored up by swells of patriotic music designed to complete the emotional attachment to the film’s premise.

This garbage doesn’t get the dignity of review as a film. It gets a minus 5 Glenn-Beck-Intros for intellectual dishonesty, malicious gossip, idle conjecture, guilt-by-association, armchair pseudo-psychology, whitewashing of facts, leaps in logic, and ugly race-baiting.

This pseudo-documentary is the closest thing to the essence of pure evil as anything I have ever witnessed. Somewhere the moldy corpse of Dr. Goebbels is smiling.