+BROWN BUNNY (2003) - (A Movie Review)

Roger Ebert hated the 120 minute version of Brown Bunny that debuted at festivals in 2003, but he gave the 90 minute re-edit three stars despite some reservations. I personally found it more interesting than Vincent Gallo’s directorial debut, BUFFALO 66. That film too may have benefited from a shortened length.

Gallo looks like a street hood straight from central casting and therefore Gallo the director uses that image to give the audience the wrong impression of the main character. He looks dangerous like young Marlon Brando on the outside, but he’s Jimmy Stewart on the inside. The action in both Gallo movies is the slow peeling away of the Brando for the Stewart. He likes to do that with his real-life image as well. Gallo has been on record several times saying that he is a Republican. He’s even attended events with Jenna Bush.

But the sex scene at the end of Brown Bunny is the most graphic thing I’ve ever seen between 2 mainstream actors. So is Gallo being ironic or contradictory or just enigmatic? Since being a Democrat in that community is the most conformist choice you could make, I think Gallo is asking his audience which choice is more provocative. I mean what’s a more avant-garde these days than identifying with George W. Bush? And when you can identify with Bush but make “open-minded” critics like Roger Ebert blush at the sexual content, you are really blazing a unique trail. Whatever Gallo’s actual politics, he’s certainly demonstrating that he wants to be a maverick.

BROWN BUNNY is mostly silent with intermittent dialogue to break things up. I liked the pace quite a bit and felt that the payoff tied the character’s actions together rather well. Some critics howled at what they considered an overly simple meaning, but most heart-wrenching events of real life are rather simple if you think about it.

Director Todd Haynes was lavishly praised for his Douglas Sirk rip-off FAR FROM HEAVEN by playing into our egos as open-minded individuals. It was well-made with good performances, but neither challenging nor surprising, though it was treated by critics as some sort of revelation. Critics love to pat themselves on the back and it’s a most comforting movie in a politically correct age. Gallo has made the antithesis of that effort, a movie that makes you feel uncomfortable before reminding you of the simple human yearnings that mirror real life much more than the “realism” critics usually praise. I liked it enough to watch it again the next night when Trish got back into town.

PAUL McCARTNEY IN CONCERT (Review of his 9-17-05 performance in Tampa, FL)

Paul McCartney ended the US leg of his 2002 tour in Florida and in 2005, he began here. I hadn’t thought that would be significant, but McCartney and band were so sharp in Tampa in 2002 that it was a phenomenal experience. So much so, that I talked Brother John into driving down to Fort Lauderdale to see him again. Now neither Sir Saunders nor I had ever seen him in concert before, so that would certainly lead to good feelings, but the second time in South Florida was maybe even a bit better, it was certainly no worse. Last night the band seemed a bit off and since it was only the second night of the tour it played more like an extended rehearsal.

Later when a portion of centerstage lowered so that the crew could roll a piano on, Paul was still unsure enough of his blocking that he accidently rode it down to the bottom joking that it got a big enough laugh that maybe he would keep that gag in the show.

Last time the show began with a sort of operatic costume procession through the audience. He must have had 50 people dressed and marching up to the stage. It didn’t serve much purpose but it gave us something to look at while people took their seats. This time it began with a DJ on stage playing dance versions of more obscure McCartney solo efforts. From there it showed an interesting biography of Paul beginning with air raids over Liverpool when Paul was born. I had never thought about how being born during the war might have shaped all the Beatles and their surroundings. The problem with the documentary was that the sound was too loud to the point of distortion in places. The speakers were geared to rev up over the crowd noise during music, but the fans were quiet here and the knob was on eleven.

McCartney and band began the concert with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR which is a good number but it seemed a bit flat. It certainly didn’t match his introduction last time with HELLO/GOODBYE. His second song was a poor choice too, something from the album released on Tuesday that no one has heard. The crowd wasn’t quite invigorated enough by MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and it brought them down having to listen next to something that they didn’t know.

It’s interesting what Paul chooses to sing considering he has such a wide catalog. How many singers could play 2 ½ hours and not get to some of their #1 hits? Of course, I can understand his not wanting to play SAY, SAY, SAY and EBONY AND IVORY. But on neither tour did he play UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY, SILLY LOVE SONGS or WITH A LITTLE LUCK. Thankfully, he played one of my non-charting favorites both times, LET ME ROLL IT.

He tried a few “new” old songs this time among them the interesting “TOO MANY PEOPLE” from the underrated RAM album. He also did “HELTER SKLETER” during the second encore. I had read that those two songs were at the top of a poll of what fans wanted to hear him play.

During his playing of the melodic “I WILL” he accidently skipped ahead and sang

“Love you whenever we're together
Love you when we'r e apart”,

before singing

“Love you forever, and for ever
Love you with all my heart”

He stopped himself before the second verse and joked that he wrote the song a long time ago.

He also explained that the last shuttle crew was awoken with the song “GOOD DAY SUNSHINE” on the day of their return. He played the intro audio from ground control leading into his playing the tune himself. After the song he said very boyishly proud way, “Imagine if they chose your song to play to the astronauts.” Songs like GOOD DAY SUNSHINE really separated Paul from the hippy part of the 60s. Sure he did his experimenting like the rest of them, but his life affirmative songs were really in direct contrast to a more ambivalent culture.

I was also happy to hear “GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE” a song that actually charted 5 years after the band broke up. I can easily imagine that an average sixties band could have made a whole career out of a song like that, much like the RASCALS did with “GOOD LOVIN’.” Here it’s one more in the catalog.

We all have our tastes. The first Beatles album I had was the 20 Greatest Hits and I played it over and over. So now I’m more tired of the big songs and yearn for the obscure stuff. Still, I could hear songs like GET BACK and LET IT BE endlessly, but PENNY LANE, ELEANOR RIGBY and LONG AND WINDING ROAD get boring to me. Even YESTERDAY wears thin with me nowadays.

He didn’t plan a lot of early British Invasion tunes this time. We did hear PLEASE, PLEASE ME and I’ll GET YOU though. He also sang that cover from the Music Man, “’Til there was you.” explaining that he use to sing it in Cabaret clubs long ago. He also sang a cover of what he called the first recorded Beatles song that predated even Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe. I don’t remember the name though I have heard someone else sing it. The band contained a guy named Duff that I had never heard of and another guy I didn’t remember.

DRIVE MY CAR was the only number from RUBBER SOUL album, but I guess that record was dominated by Lennon songs like IN MY LIFE and NORWEGIAN WOOD.

He seems to love his work from REVOLVER because we heard FOR NO ONE in addition to RIGBY, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, and GOOD DAY SUNSHINE.

He’s 63 now so I wonder what singing a song like WHEN I’M 64 is like for him. He didn’t try it last night.

A few moments reached the heights of 2002, including HEY JUDE where Paul has the crowd sing the chorus. It’s amazing that so many people singing together can sound that good. I thought the biggest crowd pleaser was BAND ON THE RUN, especially the change from “If we ever get out of here” to “The rain exploded with a mighty crash.” That change brought people to their feet including me.

The concert ended the same way as the previous one with the reprise of SGT PEPPER and THE END from Abbey Road. After the standing ovation, Paul went to the mic and said “See you Next Time.”

Having seen him twice already I wasn’t committed to going again this time. The concert sold out the first day and I didn’t get any tickets. I did win some on an EBAY auction in May, but the cheep chiseler didn’t send the tickets. I had to go through PAY PAL to get a refund minus $25. I decided that it was probably a sign that I didn’t need to hear him again. About a week ago, fellow McCartney fan, James Cheshire told me that rumors were circulating that he was going to sing some non-Paul Beatles songs. That became an intriguing reason to see the concert. I thought that hearing Paul sing things like TICKET TO RIDE, HELP, COME TOGETHER, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM FRIENDS or YELLOW SUBMARINE would be unique. Of course, the rumors about the play list were unfounded, but I did get a heck of deal on tickets.

I had originally won two seats in the third deck. It was far enough behind the stage that I wouldn’t have been able to see the screen. I was lucky he was a crook. This time I bought the tickets in an EBAY fire sale the day before the concert and got seats in the first deck with a good view of everything. The seller really took a bath on them. I paid $142 (about the same price as the others) for a pair of tickets that cost over $300 face value if you count the convenience charge and taxes.

I go through periods of listening to music, but unlike most people I know, I go through periods of being tired of music for long stretches. At certain times of year, I’ll forgo music entirely to watch movies and listen to talk radio. I don’t go to concerts very often. I’ve seen 5 or 6 (when I wasn’t working it) in my life and I haven’t been to one since McCartney last played here. My going to see McCartney in concert is like how people who avoid art museums might change their minds to see a touring Van Gogh exhibit. Or like how my friend Dan, though hostile to basketball bought tickets to see Michael Jordan’s last game in Orlando. People make exceptions to their usual rules when greatness is involved.

Although, I liked the 2002 concert better, I would recommend seeing this tour as it comes through America this year. It might be the last chance to see one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.

STAR WARS III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) - A movie Review

This is the only film that I have seen in the theatre this summer and although I saw it way back in June, and I enjoyed it more than the first two, I've since been troubled by it's meaning as it relates to the series.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most revealing thing about this final film is what wasted opportunity this whole series was. It’s the best entry in the new trilogy, but that’s only because George Lucas actually uses the background material we’re familiar with and he has fewer opportunities to expand and revise his vision. You can forgive ridiculous ideas like Chewbacca being a pal of Yoda in Episode III, but it’s hard to forgive the series when you realize how far he has strayed from the original material with the first two episodes.

Lucas was once a young filmmaker struggling to become somebody and that struggle is embodied in the Luke Skywalker character from the first trilogy. Mark Hamill isn’t a great actor, but he's an earnest one and his struggle to overcome was gripping for three films. Lucas can no longer identify with Luke’s struggle to find himself. You need to understand self-doubt to write that character. Now Lucas is a man that has made some of the biggest box office successes of all time and the only holdout to his greatness are film critics and the Academy Awards. So Annakin’s struggle is not finding his place in the world but being recognized for his greatness by the Jedi counsel.

Luke’s struggle was man v. self while Annakin’s struggle is more man v. society. Lucas had an inherent understanding of the first conflict and we the middle class filmgoers could identify readily. Unlike Orson Welles who could show you the greatness of the character struggling against society, Lucas shows you a sniveling brat that’s whining and he has to remind you with dialogue of how he’s the “chosen one” because he can’t show you any greatness. The plot shows the one great character to be Obi-Wan Kenobi, but the dialogue wants us to believe Annakin is more important. The ending of this movie should be tragic with the supposedly “great” Annakin being forced into the dark side. The ending of Jedi with Vader finding his inner goodness is now hollow because we didn’t see any deepness in this current trilogy. His motivations are all selfish.

Had this second trilogy been produced immediately after JEDI, it might have retained something from the early films. The harbinger for these last three can be seen in the Special Edition films from the late 90s when Lucas re-edited episode IV to have the Greedo character shoot at Han Solo before he’s smoked. Besides the fact that there is no way Greedo could miss Solo shooting him at point blank range, it’s most significant because it changes the whole complex nature of Solo’s character. The point before was that Solo was a rogue that would do anything to avoid the arm of Jabba and he entered into the deal with Ben and Luke to pay off his debt to the mob boss. He slowly comes around in the series to see himself as part of a larger community. This is a character of the greatest tradition in American film, played most effectively by people like Humphrey Bogart in CASABLANCA. By changing that one thing in the first film, Solo’s character has no where to grow. Now it’s just a matter of time before Solo stops the big talk and signs on with the rebellion.

This new trilogy misses those two elements, the young man’s struggle with self-doubt and the rogue’s gradual realization that he belongs in a community of like minded individuals. The only real theme I can identify is the danger of unrecognized genius. That’s the most self-indulgent and boring choice a filmmaker could choose, but I don’t think he consciously chose it, rather I think that these new screenplays were an outpouring of his current auto-biography and that became the most consistent theme of his current life.

Like many, I had longed that he would continue this story someday, but his break after Jedi was detrimental to his thinking on these characters and the meaning of the story overall. He no longer identifies with the characters he created in the mid 70s and is in some ways he’s embarrassed by them. It shows in the inconsistencies and changing motivations in the two series. The larger part of Episode III should have really been episode I with the more stories to follow to flesh out Annakin’s fall.

Now Lucas is done making Star Wars films and rather than explain more of the universe that meant so much to many of us in our youth, he has muddied the whole thing. He says he won’t re-release the old version ever again. These wretched SE versions are now considered the definitive work. Choices like the insertion of cartoon Jabba in episode one and Han’s emasculating are now the new “truths.” It’s like Van Gogh lived to be 80 and went back and painted modern looking clothing on his authentic period subjects.

It’s a loss to those who will read about the importance of Star Wars in 1970s cinema, but will never actually get to see the movies that we saw. Orson Welles was once quoted as saying he wanted Ted Turner to keep his crayons off his films, although Turner never eradicated the original version of any movie. Lucas owns the Star Wars films and can cut them up and throw them into the fireplace if he likes, but it’s a weak choice to not let your original work stand as a testament of the time. I now wish Lucas would have been as tired of STAR WARS as Sean Connery was of James Bond. Too bad that we couldn’t imagine how great the films might have been rather than live with the reality that lightning didn’t strike twice except if you mean it burned down everything the original films stood for.

MOVIES REVIEWS CATCHUP

I am way behind in posting my reviews. Some of these date back to May. I haven't posted a book review on Amazon since January. Taking a leadership spot at work has certainly curtailed my criticism writing.

Since Netflix has allowed me to create my own mini film festivals, Ill start with a recent creation.

JAMES STEWART-ANTHONY MANN WESTERNS

WINCHESTER ’73 (1950) – This is the first entry and the only B/W. The story centers on a rare rifle that everyone wants and a character called Dutch Henry Brown that Stewart wants to kill. There are some great moments and the psychological elements that made the series famous are also present. It was unusual in contemporary westerns that a hero like Stewart would proclaim that he wants to kill someone, but it’s still a bit stuck in other conventional Western patterns nonetheless. The New York sounding Dan Duryea plays a cold blooded killer. Rock Hudson plays an Indian chief. Tony Curtis can be seen somewhere. The underrated character actor John McIntire has a small role and he would turn up as the heavy in a later installment.

BEND OF THE RIVER (1952) – It develops early as a buddy film between Stewart and Arthur Kennedy two guys that share a similar past as gun fighters. The two volunteer to help some settlers get provisions to their new homestead. Stewart shows that ill reputes can be redeemed while Arthur Kennedy shows that it’s not always so. Rock Hudson gets a bigger role as a gambler that pitches in against the villains. The relationships here are bit clumsy. I have trouble believing Kennedy would turn his back on Stewart while the Rock Hudson character seems a little too ambiguous leading up to the conclusion.

THE FAR COUNTRY (1955) – This is my favorite of the series. McIntire plays the heavy and Walter Brennan plays Stewart’s sidekick. There’s also a love triangle with Stewart on either side of the worldly Ruth Roman and the naïve Corrine Calvet. Stewart seems the most torn between morality and self-determinism here and that’s the theme of the whole series looking back. I heard a critic once say that Stewart was more in touch with his anger than any prominent American actor in the history of film. It‘s his anger in this series that’s so unusual for leading men and Stewart in general. There’s a look in his eyes that says temporary insanity.

The series also includes THE NAKED SPUR (not on DVD) and MAN FROM LARAMIE (which I couldn’t get to play in my machine). Either could be the best of the series. I've seen snipets of both on AMC through the years.

ONES I SHOULD I HAVE SEEN BEFORE NOW

DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) – Spike Lee makes better movies than his militant persona leads on. For instance, Danny Aillleo is much more sympathetic than you’d expect a white character to be. Spike even makes his own character ambivalent rather than heroic. The movie has some really good performances by the likes of Ossie Davis and John Turturro, but still the movie gets too much credit overall. Spike sets up a believable story of hot summertime Brooklyn and even the eventual riot that ensues makes dramatic sense, but the epilogue between Lee and Aiello rings so false that it spoils the realism that led up to it. Lee wants the audience to forgive the mob violence that ruined Aiello’s pizza joint with the reasoning that Aiello is insured. That it never seemed to be about money to Aiello is conveniently ignored so that the people who started the riot can be forgiven without consequences.

F FOR FAKE (1973) – The last completed movie directed by Orson Welles is many times interesting but too fragmented to make a cohesive whole. He’s great to see on camera, funny and mischievous. His voice over line readings have always been the gold standard. The movie breaks down into two parts. The first is the study of famous fakers and the second is Welles own fraud to bring the film to feature length. It’s a shame that Welles didn’t helm a commercial film in the 1960s to keep his directing career alive. Nobody could have done better with this material than Welles and yet style can’t always make up for substance.

+ ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962) – Otto Preminger directed film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury. Charles Laughton’s last film is a great example of his uniqueness in film history. Laughton was one of the few homely character actors to attain leading role status due to his incredible talent alone. Dude’s recent comparison to P.S. Hoffman is apt. I once thought that Gary Oldman was taking on the Laughton mantle, but he’s more chameleon like while Laughton could never disguise that mug. The center of the story is the ailing Democrat President wanting to name the controversial Henry Fonda as his new Secretary of State. Laughton is the southern Democrat opposed to the nomination. The story takes on a number of twists and the supporting characters, Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford and Burgess Meredith are well cast. Like George Stevens, Preminger hasn’t been given due credit for his body of work.

BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965) is probably Preminger last decent film. Here an American brother and sister relocate to England to with the sister’s young daughter. Soon after the film begins, the sister’s daughter comes up missing and it’s up to English detective Lawrence Olivier to find the daughter or discover is she ever even existed. Since the audience has never seen her, we are given reason to wonder the same thing. Like 80% of all films that begin well, you have to forgive the disjointed ending a little.

RECENT FILMS

THE FORGOTTEN (2004) – This is not quite a remake of Bunny Lake, but it does share the story of the missing daughter that no one believes exists. From there is heads into otherworldly territory that might intrigue Dude and his recent studies. The trailer doesn’t give this part of the movie away. Good character actors, Alfre Woodard, Gary Sinise, and Anthony Edwards help make this a little better than the average genre picture.

HOSTAGE (2005) - I like Bruce Willis enough to watch his average action films hoping for another DIE HARD. He made his money in films like this, but movies like PULP FICTION, SIXTH SENSE and even NOBODY’S FOOL show his range much better. This is full of the petty villains that grow more psychotic, the authorities that are clueless and the big overarching super villains that always keep their poise. While entertaining enough at the time, you’ll forget it by the end of your next meal.

KINSEY (2004) – Commentators have always treated Kinsey as a pretty straight-laced guy in real life, but the filmmakers make him out to be a pervert by modern standards and a freak by the standards of his time. Interestingly enough is that the movie seems to be designed more to normalize his behavior than explain his importance on the scientific study of sex. Liam Neeson does a decent job. The secondary characters played by Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton and Peter Sarsgaard aren’t developed quite enough outside the little petty rivalries they develop. John Lithgow plays Neeson’s father as a derivative of the character he played in Footloose. I don’t think Bill Condon decided whether he was making a comedy or drama, because the movie weaves back and forth. And although it’s just under two hours, it still seemed 30 minutes too long. Condon also directed GODS AND MONSTERS, another acclaimed film that left me cold.

THE NOTEBOOK (2004) Nick Cassavettes has cashed in his father’s indie credentials for a studio directing career. His mother Gena Rowlands and the reliable Jim Garner provide the sentimentality, while the youngsters including the fetching Rachel McAdams provide the sex appeal. It’s hard not to like, but guiltily so.

BRIDGET JONES: The Edge of Reason (2004) – While the Notebook was in response to the wife’s insistence that I stop throwing art house movies at her, Bridget Jones is a full capitulation of my aesthetic tastes to the art of compromise. Trish loves these books and forgives this sequel despite the 20% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The first movie is actually better than I would have thought and the second one suffers from repetition more than anything else. It goes to show that $100 million at the box office dictates sequels, not rich storylines.

Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) – Sean Penn is believable playing the sympathetic loser that slowly blames his problems on Richard Nixon. There are some sad scenes of him trying to reconnect with his ex-wife and kids. A couple of other scenes with him working as a furniture salesmen seem realistic too. Frank Capra said that movies are real life with the boring parts cut out. Here the boring parts are left in.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, this movie gets street cred not for being great, but for outperforming at the box office. The filmmaker has a quirky sense of humor that reminded me of Wes Anderson. The scene where Napoleon meets Pedro and the scene with the uncle and the time machine seemed to be a B movie version of Anderson. Overall, I got kind of tired of it and it didn’t end particularly well.

Undertow (2004) – The latest film from David Gordon Green has a couple of recognizable actors including Dermot Mullroney. Roger Ebert loves this guy’s filmmaking and I have to admit that it’s not without interest. I didn’t love his debut GEORGE WASHINGTON but I respected it. I did admire his follow-up ALL THE REAL GIRLS. This runs hot and cold with me liking a good deal of it, but not really believing the ending.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004) – Geoffrey Rush is one of my favorite actors. Peter Sellers was brilliant. Geoffrey Rush plays a stellar Sellers. The movie isn’t much more beyond that. It’s just one more example of how a humble enough guy becomes a heel through too much adoration and fawning.

+AVIATOR (2004) – One of the better movies from last year. Scorsese has been a little spotty lately with even the entertaining GANGS OF NEW YORK becoming forgettable. There is nothing about this film that would make me think he directed it, which might be a positive if you compare it to his work during the last ten years.

TWO STEVE MCQUEENS

+THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) I saw this again right as it came on DVD. Depression era New Orleans makes a great setting and the supporting players, Karl Madlen, Ann-Margaret, Rip Torn, Jack Weston and Tuesday Weld add production value. The essence of the film is the showdown between Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson and although the final poker hand is a stretch the drama is quite good. Commentary tracks by Norman Jewison and another by Phil Gordon and David Foley add something too. The old VHS ending had McQueen alone. The TV and DVD version has McQueen reunite with Weld.

THE WAR LOVER (1962) – Based on the novel by John Hersey, Steve McQueen is the guy you like early on until he reveals himself to be a dirtbag. Robert Wagner is his pal and co-pilot. This was one of McQueen’s early breakout roles and you can see the star power come through. Wagner’s career was already longer than McQueen’s but you can see why it never really took off. The movie itself was less interesting with every exposed frame.

REVISTING FILMS I LIKED

+LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992) – Mark Twain hated the novel by James Fenimore Cooper so much that he wrote an entire essay on it. Michael Mann and Daniel Day Lewis do a great job of making a compelling film. I liked it in the theatre years ago and I still liked it on this my second viewing. Very few films tackle this pre-Revolutionary war period well. This might be the best effort I have seen.

HONKEYTONK MAN (1981) – The critics have never much like this Eastwood film, but I have always found it charming and understated for this period in his career. Eastwood is an obscure country singer dying of TB trying to become famous before he leaves the world. Eastwood’s son Kyle makes a good co-star. James Stewart was offered the role as Grandfather, but since he refused to ever play grandfathers, he turned it down flat. The Grandfather is instead played by Stewart’s FAR COUNTRY nemesis, John McIntire. What a small world. It’s overly sentimental and a stretch and yet I fall for it every time.

+HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) I just finished Ben Hecht’s autobiography last week and Trish wanted to see something funny so this movie played into both of our desires. The lightning fast dialogue and interplay between Cary Grant and Rosiland Russell will hold up 100 years from now, I suppose. It’s not realism, but the kind of zany world that’s much more fun than the life.

OTHER FILMS

+BRUTE FORCE (1947) – This is a good testament to the lasting influence of those commie blacklisted filmmakers and the support they still garner by the zillionaires in Hollywood. Before the openly communist, Jules Dassin was exiled to make films in Europe, he was undercover in America making films like this. There’s great drama here with Burt Lancaster leading a group of prison inmates that are either sympathetic for their innocence or the mitigating circumstances that led them to crime. It’s almost funny that the only real bad guy is sadistic prison guard Hume Cronyn. It certainly foreshadows Shawshank Redemption. Warner Brothers may have let gangsters become leading men, but they were always shot for cause in the last reel. Their ends here are treated as less than just. The over riding villain is not even Cronyn but the cold free market system itself that brought these little angels to crime. While this was a shockingly anti-American position in 1947, it’s become so standard in modern film its no wonder the Left hates HUAC and Kazan more than the Rooskies. Brute Force is one of those superior efforts with B material that is both entertaining and historically significant for its influence on modern themes.

MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA (2004) – It’s not the negative film that the title suggests but a look at the positive things about America that Moore ignores for the sake of his own drama. Michael Wilson presents some interesting ideas about documentary film especially talking with Penn Gillette. He traces Moore’s steps in Flint Michigan to show it’s not such a hell hole. He also visits the bank from BOWLING FROM COLUMBINE to prove that the storyline behind the gun giveaway is totally misrepresented for the sake of drama. Wilson mostly shows how Moore plays into the dominant media bias enough that critics refuse to see beyond their own prejudices to critique the actual truth behind Moore’s claims.

+George Stevens: A filmmakers Journey (1984) – This is the second time I have seen this documentary on the forgotten filmmaker. Stevens’ son, George Jr. runs the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center and he narrates this movie. Stevens began shooting Laurel and Hardy films in the 1920s and all but stopped making films when his big budget GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD flopped despite 5 years of production to get it just right. Stevens made some real classics, GUNGA DIN, WOMAN OF THE YEAR, A PLACE IN THE SUN, and GIANT that I have seen numerous times. This documentary makes you want to see his movies all over again.

VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964) – Elvis movies are something you like as a kid, dislike as a film student and then learn to like again on their own terms. Elvis wasn’t a good actor (or at least he didn’t try much) and his movies are usually shoddily written and yet the camera loved the guy. I tend to think his pre-Army movies are the best. Even the somewhat underrated LOVING YOU (1958) has a lot of charm. This is probably one of his better 60s movies and although you don’t believe it one moment, it’s still fun enough to watch.

TALL IN THE SADDLE (1944) – The Duke in a B-Movie Western known best by the Junto as the movie where Wayne calls the Queen dead during a poker game. “He’ll be back, he’s the type.” Kevin saw this before me and re-told the poker scene in great detail that had me laughing. When it came on DVD I decided to jump on it for old times sake. I wish Dude had been in the director's chair, because the poker game is a humorous scene, but I prefer Dude's telling of it a little more.

(+) denotes exceptional film