Tin Star

Stars: Henry Fonda, Anthony Perkins. 

Plot: A Bounty hunter (Fonda) helps a Small Town Sheriff (Perkins) and a Lonely Widow

Pros: An excellent Liberal "Town Western". Well acted and cast, especially by John McIntyre as the Wise Ol' Doc and Brand/Van Cleef as Villains. All these old pros do a very good job with some familiar material. Mann's greatness at action scenes still amazes me. 

Cons: (1) I don't like "Town Westerns" in general (2) the movie was very low budget (3) the story was VERY familiar and cobbled together from other Westerns. We get all the familiar scenes: the sheriff facing down a lynch mob, the old hand teaching the young guy how to be sheriff, the girlfriend not wanting to be a widow, the little sermons on racial tolerance and respect for the law, the lonely widow meets wandering hero and wants him to settle down, etc. 

And of course, since this is a 50s Western, the town-people (except for our heroes) have to be shown as rather unlikable. Obsessed with money, cowardly, alternately hot-headed or cruelly indifferent, tolerant of bigotry, suspicious and rude toward outsiders, and generally incapable of anything positive without some strong sheriff, mayor, or hero type protecting them and guiding them. However, Tin Star's treatment of the townspeople is fairly subtle compared to some other 50s movies most of which follow the "High Noon" template. 

Summary: An excellent telling of a familiar story.Rating **1/2

Gone with Wind is NOT racist - for the millionth time

So shut already.  It now seems impossible to discuss Gone With the Wind (GWTW) anymore without some ignorant, 21st century SWPL knucklehead trying to drag "racism" into the discussion.  But let’s take their dull, left-wing talking points one by one: 

1) GWTW shows slaves as happy and contented.  -  Actually it doesn't.  When Scarlett returns from Atlanta, she's told all the slaves have run away except for a few old house servants.  And Prissy doesn't seem too happy or concerned with helping the white folks either.  Later, when Ashley complains about white convicts being mistreated at the Sawmill; Scarlett responds “Well, what about the Slaves?”  and then looks skeptical as Ashley states that “at least we didn't beat and starve them”.

2) GWTW shows reconstruction as a bad thing - Not really. It doesn't really address reconstruction.  It shows the 'scalawags' trying to get Tara for back taxes (true enough), but that's about it.  The whole attack on Scarlett and the "cleaning out" of the criminal’s camp by Frank, Rhett, and Ashley is shown as a "law and order" issue. – having nothing to do with postwar Black-White relations   And when Scarlett is attacked, its by a white criminal with "Big Sam" saving her.  Mammy stays on as a domestic servant, but then why wouldn't she?

None of the other Slaves return to Tara.

3) GWTW reinforces the Racist Confederate view of the Civil war. - Not really. GWTW, at bottom, isn't a history lesson or even a movie ABOUT the Civil War or Reconstruction. Those things are just in the background.  We see everything through Scarlett’s eyes and GWTW is about her struggles, triumphs, and heartbreaks and feelings toward Rhett Butler, Ashley and Melanie.

4) GWTW shows the Yankees in a bad light - This is actually correct. Sherman is wrongly blamed for burning Atlanta during its capture (the fire in the movie was actually set off by the Confederate Army blowing up ammunition trains), Union troops vandalize Tara, a Union bummer shows up to rob Scarlett and we’re supposed to cheer when he’s killed, and Union officer (Ward Bond) tries to arrest Rhett and Ashley for "taking the law into their own hands".  There’s not one good Union soldier in the whole movie.

Django Unchained (2012)

Plot: In 1858 Texas, a former slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) is freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz) and becomes his partner. Both then travel to Tennessee rescue Django's wife from ruthless plantation owned Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his head servant Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson).

Plus: Some excellent Scenes and dialogue, Humor, Good acting, Memorable characters
Minus: Brutality, Too long (165 minutes), Boring last 20 minutes, Simplistic Plot

Django is typical 21st Century Tarantino. Lots of blood, violence, and humor, along with a revenge plot and homage to a 70s B-movie genre - in this case, the "Spaghetti Western" and "Blackplotation". Not as good as "Inglorious Basterds" but better than "Kill Bill Volume 2". Historically absurd and filled with unrealistic cartoon violence, this won't stop ignorant film critics from pontificating on the movie's view of slavery and American history. The best thing about the movie are the 3 memorable characters, Candie, Shultz, and Stephen all played superbly by the actors involved. Sadly, having the created these characters and an interesting situation, Tarintino can't do anything with them except have a pointless, endless, blood bath.

Also noted is the excessive brutality including: 2 whippings and 2 brandings,  a graphic fight-to-the-death, men getting torn to death by animals, and a castration scene. All of which puts a damper on some of Tarantino's delightful anachronistic humor including: having the hero wear sunglasses in 1858 Georgia, having Candie drink a Polynesian (Complete with Coconut and straw), KKK members complaining of badly made masks, and Dr. Shultz's waving Big-tooth.

Summary: A typically violent, excessive, self-indulgent Tarantino film, this one is a little too long and has a boring last act. But with some good elements. Rating ***

Skyfall (2012)

Very interesting Bond movie notable for some good stunts (the opening one is a humdinger), visual brilliance and an excellent sub-plot involving Julie Dench. The only flaws were the sometimes Batman-esque over-the-top, reality free, violence (honestly, the villains shoot at least 1,000 bullets at Bond and miss 999 times) and some perfunctory Bond girl romance.

 The producers seem to have welded together an almost comic-book fantasy with a realistic spy story containing dark, adult elements. They keep re-inventing the franchise (50 years old) and doing a surprisingly good job of it.

 P.S. For some reason the film uses very little of the standard Bond theme (except at the end). This hurts the film overall but is quite stirring when its finally used at the end.

Faulkner on Hollywood

I had just completed a contract at MGM and was about to return home. The director I had worked with said, “If you would like another job here, just let me know and I will speak to the studio about a new contract.” I thanked him and came home. About six months later I wired my director friend that I would like another job. Shortly after that I received a letter from my Hollywood agent enclosing my first week's paycheck. I was surprised because I had expected first to get an official notice or recall and a contract from the studio. I thought to myself, the contract is delayed and will arrive in the next mail. Instead, a week later I got another letter from the agent, enclosing my second week's paycheck. That began in November 1932 and continued until May 1933. Then I received a telegram from the studio. It said: “William Faulkner, Oxford, Miss. Where are you? MGM Studio.”

I arrived at Mr. Browning's hotel about six p.m. and reported to him. A party was going on. He told me to get a good night's sleep and be ready for an early start in the morning. I asked him about the story. He said, “Oh, yes. Go to room so-and-so. That's the continuity writer. He'll tell you what the story is.”

I went to the room as directed. The continuity writer was sitting in there alone. I told him who I was and asked him about the story. He said, “When you have written the dialogue I'll let you see the story.” I went back to Browning's room and told him what had happened. “Go back,” he said, “and tell that so-and-so—. Never mind, you get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start in the morning.”

So the next morning in a very smart rented launch all of us except the continuity writer sailed down to Grand Isle, about a hundred miles away, where the picture was to be shot, reaching there just in time to eat lunch and have time to run the hundred miles back to New Orleans before dark.

That went on for three weeks. Now and then I would worry a little about the story, but Browning always said, “Stop worrying. Get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start tomorrow morning.”

One evening on our return I had barely entered my room when the telephone rang. It was Browning. He told me to come to his room at once. I did so. He had a telegram. It said: “Faulkner is fired. MGM Studio.” “Don't worry,” Browning said. “I'll call that so-and-so up this minute and not only make him put you back on the payroll but send you a written apology.” There was a knock on the door. It was a page with another telegram. This one said: “Browning is fired. MGM Studio.” So I came back home. I presume Browning went somewhere too. I imagine that continuity writer is still sitting in a room somewhere with his weekly salary check clutched tightly in his hand.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Plot: Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.

Well-acted but dull action movie. Seemed like a dumbed-down version of "Battle Royale" and reminded me somewhat of the "Truman Show". The movie seems targeted to teen-age girls  and not being one  may explain my negative reaction.

Tree of Life (2011) - Malick

Plot: An impressionist history of a Texas Family in the mid 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through childhood and his complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt).

Pros:  Photography, acting, heartfelt family scenes
Cons:  Uneven, too long, Dinosaurs and Brahms, often pretentious

The average movie-goer hates Terry Malick movies with good reason, they're deliberately paced with minimal dialogue and plot and include long, lingering shots of nature. And pretentious movie snobs love them.  

And guess what? "Tree of Life" has exactly the same attributes along with a silly 2001-esqe  "Creation and Evolution^^" segment - complete with Dinosaurs and Brahms. And yet I didn't hate it, I actually liked a lot of it. Its well-acted and the family scenes (from Malick's boyhood?) ring true and are often touching and beautiful.  And the characters seem real and likable (unlike those in "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands"). Plus, I appreciate that Malick is doing something different from the usual phony Hollywood drama.

People have compared it to Kubrick's "2001",  which is unjust to Malick.  "Tree of Life" may be pretentious but its trying to say something about real people in real life while "2001" was simply another soulless Kubrick entertainment, full of 'sound and fury' signifying nothing.

Summary: Not for the average movie-goer.  If you're looking for action, excitement, or even a story, you'll hate this movie.  If you want something different or liked Malick's previous movies, you'll like this one. I liked it mostly - but please Terry, no more dinosaurs.  Rating ***

^^ = but no men in ape suits, thank goodness.