Iron Man was many things upon arriving on the big screen. These things included: fun, loud, colorful and a career savor *cough* druggie *cough*. It also served as a almost tutorial example of how to mix the real world and the super hero world. An example as learned by and improved on by X-Men: First Class and one of the many things on which the Green Lantern film managed to find a sharp edge on which to cause itself even more pain. By taking a witty, brash and arrogant businessman (like we all used to know and love/hate until Patrick Bateman came along) and fitting him into a mechanized power armor and very uplifting character arc made for not only massive entertainment but also I suspect a good deal of good old fashioned capitalist empowerment. This empowerment was only enhanced when his chosen foe was some deranged megalomaniac in his doom fortress but rather corrupt businessmen and a loosely defined terrorist threat. This odd mixture of an over the top hero battling down to earth villains added to both the suspense and the immersion of the action. Though not a perfect film or even a perfect super hero film it was certainly a throwback to a brighter and maybe slightly dumber era. That dumber era possibly being responsible for The Dude in a small scale Mecha-Kong, a phrase which even on reflection induces a sense of awesome.

And here’s where the game went through some changes. Due to Iron Mans addition to the roster of Marvels upcoming crossover extravaganza: The Avenger’s, suddenly Iron Mans choice of sparring partner wasn’t looking all the kosher. Whereas within a self contained universe the battle of good and evil taking place with some dodgy physics and very aggressive objectivist politics is fine and dandy. When mixed with characters such as Thor battling the Rock Biters answer to the smurfs and Captain America taking on the might of sun burnt Nazi Agent Smith, you suddenly have a recipe for disaster. For this reason I suspect the villains of Iron Man 2 where made considerably more cartoonish, using the old favourite: Russian wielding Whips of Lightning. Therefor for all its delightful casting and outlandish fight sequences we notice a definite and not entirely welcome shift in tone from the first of the series. It is this glaring alteration that I would pin as the focal point of many peoples complaints with Iron Man 2 for almost all its major flaws can be traced to the decision to make him more in line with a comic book hero and their more exaggerated circumstances.

All in all however, I hold my head up high as I stagger to the bathroom with my more cartoonish morning after. For its flaws in continuity and leaps in logic it was at its heart a barrel full of playful, heavily weaponized and rehabilitated monkeys and to be honest, I wouldn’t have them any other way.

Cameron in both his artistically grand and generically bland days has been defined by his sheer profitability. Many have ragged on the lack luster plot of Avatar (myself definitively included) in its similarity to stories we have heard a hundred times and how we expected more from it. There’s a thing to be noticed here though in a preceding statement, that being ‘financial success’. If anyone wanders how Cameron feels about your dislike of his chosen plot, I would recommend you take some scuba courses, because to find him so as to ask you will likely have to dive through his enormous pool of money. Avatar cost more than 200 million dollars to make but earned over 2 billion dollars worldwide. It is due to numbers like that you realize that faulting Cameron is a futile gesture because the man is quite obviously doing something very very right for his work to be accepted and consumed in such staggering volumes.

It should also be noted however a more neglected fact. That being that Cameron has had many opportunities in which to outright sacrificing his powers as a film maker so as to exert his abilities as a money maker. I would ask you to imagine for a moment how a project like avatar would have looked in the hands of a man like Michael Bay. Cameron for all his monetary accomplishments is still one of the true cinematic masters of this age and though perhaps not as emotionally empowered as Spielberg, Classy as Coppola or forcefully accurate as Scorsese it is he who has mastered, as none of them have, the ability to make quality cinema for the largest possible audience to enjoy and enjoy thoroughly. Is the man a hack? Though it pains me to admit it, I think not. But is he a talented film maker with a big taste for the Benjamin’s? Oh hell yes. And you know what, we cant really fault him for that. However we may well start by the end of Avatar 3.

The first film (released in 1981) is often remembered today as the final work of the great Ray Harryhausen, a man for those unfamiliar who can be easiest explained as the Stan Winston of his day (that day being the 70′s). His mastery of stop motion monsters and their movements set him apart as one of the true founders of the art and a massive influence to film makers to this day. The films story and actors both portrayed the ancient Greece feel that was sought after by many similar films and achieved a sense of the epic by its use of set, scenery and (for the time) truly amazing creature effects. Laurence Olivier as Zeus masters his surroundings and Harry Hamlin provides a likable and interesting leading man as Perseus. Despite this however this film is remembered mostly for the world it constructed and the fantastical creatures who inhabited it and it is this effects wizardry which sets the film apart from its many historically epic cousins. This is mostly due to its safe and at times bland approach as well as a slight yet constant lack of coherency as it seems to take for granted a familiarity with both basic Greek mythology and Greek story structure leaving many of the characters motivations and abilities as half formed suggestions to be understood by those perhaps more learned.

The new version (from 2010) is for renowned for being converted to 3D in post production thereby increasing the cost of the tickets and pain of the migraine that followed. This film became a central point in the argument against 3D, especially in its post-production applied form. It however did not need any gimmick to make it the subject if ridicule and scorn. The film as a whole fails on several critical levels due mostly to the choice of director Louis Leterrier. Leterrier though a skilled action director and the man behind a personal favorite Danny the Dog lacks the budget and skill set required to achieve the sense of epic scale that such films require, relying heavily on CGI and prolonged fight scenes to provide large if shallow pieces of spectacle. The new screen play though certainly based on the same story concept deviates from the original in so much as to be a new story altogether and in so doing loses the rather familiar Mythological story and character arcs such films are expected to provide. In losing this all important sense of the familiar and expected the film fails to compensate rather allowing for a much more Hollywoodesc interpretation constructed from cheap thrills and cliche. Taking the hard to penetrate plot of the original and in an attempt to make it approachable drop it into the IQ equivalent of the Mariana Trench. This makes for visual pomposity married to a range of talent which makes for a cinematic baby of odd and often conflicting proportions. This clash in abilities on the actors parts is most apparent when seeing the impressive combination of Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes who provide truly theatrical and potent performances as Zeus and Hades giving a true sense of godliness and drama only to be immediately offset by the action hero stereotype of Sam Worthington whose accented and macho character seems wholly out of place and his often aggravating entourage of muscle men, comic relief and by-the-book love interest.

Though both flawed it is the elder we remember more fondly due perhaps for its nostalgia or its nature as a legacy to a great artist. It is however always for these films the matter of capturing a sense of the grand and fantastical and for whatever reason this is the greatest strength of the first and greatest weakness of the second and for this we can proclaim truly which is to be ,if not superior then, the more beloved of the two.

Now this is going to be an uncomfortable review for me to write because it see’s two aspects of me as a movie lover meeting in what could be compared to mental armed combat. Firstly I am what might call a very big fan of David Fincher. Now for the none film obsessed he is the man responsible for Se7en, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and generally rocking the movie world like an absolute champ. Intelligent intriguing film making with powerful artistic influence, few does this combination as well as Fincher. However as a movie lover I also have something of a attuned empathy when watching a movie. When a topic or set of images which could be conceived as emotionally impact-full appears I see not only the emotions at play but also the way in which the film uses and portrays them, which in this movie is more than a little of the problem. I will get back to that in a little bit though.

The story centers around Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) who is in no shape or form Stieg Larsons Mary Sue character. Due to his ruination as an investigative journalist at the hand of an industrialist villian he accepts an offer from the tormented industrialist Henrik Vagner. Vagner charges Blomkvist with finding the murderer of his niece 40 years ago. Called in to assist him is private investigator Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) with whom he develops a close relationship. A close working relationship which involves a great deal of Miss Salanders naked gyrating body on full display. They investigate the family and its Nazi connected history and in so doing discover the trail of a serial killer.

The visual style of the film is very much the Fincher we know and love, with exception of a bizarre and jarring opening credits sequence which so out of place I spent the full two minutes of its run staring at the screen in numb confusion. This little drug fueled frenzy aside however, the cinematography and directing style is all very crisp and minimalistic as fans have come to expect. This however is where the first of my complaints really has to be raised because for all my love of all things Fincher, the film seems to have been a lesser effort than I have come to expect from him. The editing and plot reveals take on the feel of an overblown CSI episode with the audience merely watching musical montages as our characters make discoveries and follow paths laid as clearly as the yellow brick road. In and of it self this follows something akin to the style of the book (from what I’ve been told) but it is the story of the book itself which must bear the greatest brunt of my contempt (except that elephant in the room we are coming too).

The story itself though interesting in its basics is at its best pulp crime fiction and at its worst a child like self insert fantasy. Despite the films serious tone of criminality and its several more horrific details either in its visuals or merely in description, the story of the piece itself seems more a flimsy vehicle with which to portray the main characters and display to us their supposed array of amazing talents. That being said the characters are in their own way both interesting and entertaining and much like the recent Sherlock Holmes movies go a far way in both their separate portrayals and in their chemistry to making up for the several gaping narrative flaws. Credit here goes to the assembled cast who all do a very fine job. Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skargård both give strong dramatic performances and Daniel Craig digs deep into the days of his part in Layer Cake to give a sympathetic and likable leading man. But as most have already heard and with good reason the main credit here goes to Rooney Mara who almost single-handedly carries the brunt of the films dramatic weight and gives a compelling and dark performance. By being both extreme in her character and in many ways almost inhuman Mara also manages to convey a sense of humanity and mental separation many can relate too or at least recognize. It is to be found however that the shear humanity of her character and Mara’s great portrayal adds to the bigger problem at hand.

I invoke here the spoiler warning and a warning of distressful content as my big problem with film and my reason for not giving a recommendation stand mainly on a single scene. Due to a ‘sordid’ past Lisbeth is at 23 a ward of the state and as such not in control of her own money or activities unless it is allowed by her ward. Said ward however suffers a stroke leaving Lisbeth at the mercy of her new ward who chooses to use his control oh her finances to extort sexual favors. This leads to one might be the most graphic and horrible to watch rape scene’s I have ever seen on the big screen. Without entering into graphic detail allow me to warn that any of you out there who have suffered a sexual assault or know someone who has, may want to either miss the movie entirely or close your eyes shut when you think this scene is coming. Now where one would usually begin such a scene and then cut away so as to not assault your audience, this film seems to relish its ability to emotionally attack you. My issues with this scene are not so much its inclusion of rape as it is the portrayal and purposes of it. The scene is not required for the plot of the film, and is merely a way to allow for the representation of Lisbeth’s graphic and well deserved revenge. In a film with a central mystery plot this unnecessary condensed Rape-Revenge subplot is both awkward and in many ways insulting. Though the horror of the act and the graphic and aggressive way its thrown at the audience may well have served as a central element on a much more serious film dealing with the event and its consequence it is here merely a throw away scene used for some minor character establishment and as an emotional roundhouse to the audience assembled. This scene for me overshadows the film as a whole and causes me to question and be distasteful of the rest of the narrative. A combination of both bad writing and poor directorial decisions this one scene spoils my opinion on the film as a whole as I, knowing someone who has been assaulted, cannot justify its inclusion.

As a whole I will say that the movie has a strange combination of good and bad which make for at least an interesting movie experience on whole but due to the inclusion of certain scenes which honestly this film cannot support I must forgo a recommendation. Should the scene above not bother you however you can expect a taught fincher style thriller if perhaps lacking his usual enthusiasm and intelligence. All in all 5 out of 10.

(P.S. Swedish one is better)

The film centers on Hanna (Ronan) who is the daughter of a former CIA man Erik (Eric Bana) who has for mostly undefined reasons decided to raise his daughter to be the perfect assassin isolated in the forests of Finland. She then is given the objective for which she was trained her whole life, the murder of the woman from both she and her father have hidden all her life and as such is introduced to a world she has never before known. This ladies and gentlemen is a very, very good basis for a movie. In the hands of someone like Luc Besson it could probably have played out as a youthful empowerment fantasy as portrayed by tiny female Jason Bourne. To be honest Besson is the name that first came to mind as the plot unfolded as it seemed at least in story to be something of a spiritual evolution of Leon. A young girl raised by a trained professional killer in his ways to craft the ultimate and unsuspected weapon, only here from birth rather than middle school. And thats where this could have gotten so very good, by allowing Saoirse to take her surprisingly convincing bad ass moments and carry them as the major action focus this film could have achieved both its biggest appeal and that delightful money making twinge of controversy.

As hinted however, that film has yet to be made. What we are left with however is a clever thriller concept shoehorned into a pretentious art house drama. With such a potential laden premise a film must be sure to back it up with a firm foundation of cold hard intelligence and reason. This film however must have decided that such things must be cast aside to make room for the almost staggeringly pretentious cinematography and hammy attempts to frame the narrative in the style of Germanic folklore. Other than Saoirse none of the cast seems believable or interesting, with the possible exception of Tom Hollander who if nothing else makes for a fairly creepy perverted German hit man with a taste for whistling. Bana though a good actor is never given enough to work with to make any kind of impression and Cate Blanchett as the big baddy is really just down right painful to watch. And then there is the family.

This has got to be one of the most aggravating sub plots I have encountered on the big screen in years. Hanna while on her travels is temporarily adopted by a travelling English family while she tries to meet her father in Berlin. Not only do they choose to seriously under utilize the talents of Jason Flemyng, who is much too good for the small role they gave him, but also make the daughter the most annoying piss ant since little Anakin Skywalker. It’s strange because at one point in the film she achieves a level of honesty and emotion so as to be likable, but before you know it she is right back to spouting some of the most inane and insistent drivel you ever heard in your life. The little brother could have been cut entirely for the amount of use he is and the mother seems to be directly related to the director from the air of arrogant artiness she applies to her dialogue. This family serves no purpose but to annoy the audience and grind the little plot there is to a complete halt while we wait and pray for Hanna to snap and use some of that deer killing skill from the trailer. But no, they serve no point and are even dropped as a topic entirely and never mentioned again around the one hour mark. In some small way their implied blood on the hands of Blanchett go a ways to forgiving her performance, as well as her choice of accent.

Strangely for a film with a premise that lends itself to so many possible creative action scenes, the film seems to have forgotten to put most of them in. Most scenes are merely exercises in awkward camera angles and trying really hard to convince us that the Chemical Brothers can make even half a good a score as Daft Punk. The little action we do see is usually fairly dull, lacking the strange fantastical feel they try so desperately to force on the rest of the film. With both Ronan and Bana very capable of bringing some true kick when needed, its a shame that the style of the film allows for almost none of the impressiveness both these actors can carry in a fight. I realize that not every film requires action to push narrative or violence to be powerful, but when your films entire point is a talented young actress playing an assassin raised from birth to kill a top ranking member of the CIA, yes oddly I do expect to have entertaining violence.

This is where the film fails for me most entirely, the strange hybrid creation of an all out thriller premise as heavy handedly forced into the role of a dramatic character piece. Lacking both the subtlety to carry out the latter and the passion to be the former the film merely exists lacking either reason to follow its narrative course and yet great reason to be infuriated by the shear lack of closure or caring provided by the ending. The same cast and style as applied to a piece of Germanic drama may well have been fairly well received by certain circles, much like the same premise as envisioned by a director catering to the masses and respecting the need for entertainment would make for a great summer sitting. This film as it is simply falls flat and stays there.

Hurrr Durrr

Now I will imagine many of you reading are at this point raising both eyebrows and wandering if not what I smoked, at least where you can get some. However I point to the often and overwhelming flaw in romantic films. Films are defined by conflict; be it with an opposing force, an angry boss, a bad set of choices, or mental debilitation. Films who focus on romance will almost without fail make a romantic incident the central conflict of their story. These however leads to a problem, for such conflict to exist one of the characters for whom we are supposed to care has to make some kind of dick move. Be it angrily walking away from your partner over a misunderstanding, having a one night stand as some form of revenge, hiding your feelings due to social pressure or deciding that something else is more important. This act has to be obvious enough that the audience understands immediately that this is a mistake and the rest of the film centers on resolving the conflict. Andrew Stanton (director and writer) does not ignore this concept but chooses to make it a much less a central focus of the film. EVE upon realizing that she did not treat WALL-E as she should have immediately moves to make amends and expresses emotional commitment in response to WALL-E’s own. Notice that I have not mentioned love specifically for also unlike most romantic films we see only the beginning phases of WALL-E’s and EVE’s relationship rather than its entire scope. WALL-E does not win the girl entire, WALL-E wins his chance and the beginnings of her affection only after the movie shows that he is truly worthy of them and the films closes with the beginning of the rest of their lives.

WALL-E is however much more than a simple romance and is if nothing else an adventure. Pixar brought its best game to the table for this and in working with experts from every field made a true master piece. The characters are individual, interesting and often hilarious. The humor often falls between an amused chuckle and full out laughter which is nice to see as it hints at the more subtle writing at play. In three things particularly does WALL-E excel outside of its romantics.  Firstly it has a roster of robot characters who are likely the cutest characters designed since Winnie the Pooh and WALL-E alone almost steals the entirety of the movie with his almost silent 20 minute introduction. It secondly has a wonderful understanding of its animation which leads to a truly amazing blend of colors and textures which make for an awe inspiring realism channeled through a child’s world. And lastly they have created a wonderful chemistry between WALL-E and EVE which becomes the heart of the entire film and serves as a truly emotionally evocative piece of cinema for adults and children alike.

I admit freely that romantic films are not my usual choice and that as a general I dislike many for their choice of conflict and lack of characters and choices I find remotely human. In simplifying a love story so as to be understood by children of all ages, Pixar has made a love story which we all truly hope to live ourselves. That if you are a small and lonely but good hearted person (robot) there is always that chance that you will meet the one who is right for you and with effort, dedication, and heart you can win her affections and earn the chance to live happily ever after. All the romance with none of the romantic drama. This when combined with a truly wonderful set of characters, as well as some truly amazing animation is why I find a little love to name WALL-E my romantic genre gem.

The story focuses on the titular Josey Wales a man who lost his family to the ravages of the civil war and in his grief joined the South. When the war ends and his last fighting unit decides the time has come to turn themselves in, Wales chooses to allow no such acquiescence on his part and stays behind. The offered peace at his units surrender is discovered to be a ruse and with a surviving comrade Wales goes on the run from the Yankee’s who with the help of his broken and corrupt commander give chase across the breadth of the states. Now if I may say so, that is one hell of a set up.

Now many see this film as the greatest of the westerns, now Eastwood made many many westerns and this leaves many wondering what made this one so special. The answer is that Eastwood in his directorial efforts has created an almost unparalleled atmosphere to the movie. Tone is key and the tone as it is remains dark and strong throughout, allowing for less of a good versus evil fight and more a study of Wales through his interaction with the strange and yet symbolic characters who litter his path. Each of Eastwood’s small group as it slowly assembles through the film can find a direct link to an aspect of the old west this film see’s the end of. With the war over, this old west dies and it is Josey Wales who embodies this downfall of a kind. Never though does the film attempt to force such connections through exposition or odd cinematography. In a style which would come to define Eastwood’s work we see here a true film for all men. The film operates on several layers, infusing a simple and exciting action western with layers of historical commentary and true character studies and development, without ever compromising the simplistic entertainment value of its foundations.

The film is as said filled with an array of memorable and interesting characters who not only have their own stereotype in which they fall but also a further development which reveals more human characters beneath the cliche veneer. Acting is well above average with Eastwood delivering some truly emotionally inspiring scenes. Chief Dan George is an absolute treat as the ancient Indian side kick and nods to Bill McKinney and John Vernon as the films surprisingly intriguing bad guys. Now the odd note in the piece for many is Sondra Locke who made her name in several Eastwood films, her character however is a unusual but fitting cord to the harmony given a little time and excusing her grating singing voice (you will see what I mean).

This film is a personal favorite and one of my top three westerns of all time. Its beauty lies within its simplistic raw entertainment which on its own would make for a good solid western but is here elevated by the characters discovered depth and attention to tone, atmosphere and location. Many see Sergio Leone as Eastwood’s mentor and it is clear here to see the combination of Leone’s attention to characters and story as mixed with Eastwood’s grimmer perspective and rawer visual style. Not to be missed for lovers of westerns and actions and easily a guilty pleasure for the more high brow viewer out there.

Each of Leone’s westerns have something new they bring to the table, be it a social commentary, a taught network of betrayals (ripped of from samurai movies) or in this particular case a truly engaging set of character connections. The film is set as a duel between good and evil by four great powers clashing over a land dispute, yet all in some way connected or affected by the lovely but rough Mrs. McBain. I will not try to describe the plot in much greater detail as it is surprisingly intricate and worth being experienced first hand. The characters however deserve mention due to their intricacies and interestingly opposed personalities. The films morals are typically western with the clearly defined good and bad guys all lined on the different sides of the court. The bad, is here represented by genre old timer Henry Fonda as the ever efficient and slightly psychotic Frank. He and his band of ruffians are in the employ of Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti), a rich train tycoon who is slowly dying from tuberculosis of the bones which has rendered him severely crippled and with but a few years of life with which to complete his mighty railroad. The two men are opposed in all things but their love of power and money. Morton absorbed in his own corruption is both unable and unwilling to do what is needed for his railroad to progress and so it falls to Frank to clear the way. Though Frank is the main villain of the piece both men are despicable in their own way, and Morton many times comes across as the worse of the two as his lack of morals is hidden under the veils of luxury, class and hypocrisy with which he surrounds himself.  Frank however, by the far the more sadistic of the two, is under no illusions as to his nature and his methods and embraces them wholly. These men battle the hero’s but also among themselves as each wrestles to control the other in an effort to come out on top so as break their dependancy on the other.

The good they are set against is the duel threat of Charles Bronson and Jayson Robards each embracing and transcending their own stereotype. Bronson plays the unknown stranger who arrives on a train with a quick gun and vaguely defined vendetta. For lack of his name he becomes known as Harmonica as he plays one throughout the film as both a calling card and general expression. His simple repeated riff stands as the reason I am today a decent harmonica player who rarely leaves the house without one in his pocket. In direct contrast to Bronson’s quiet and cold protagonist we find Robards kicking up a storm as the witty and lovable outlaw Cheyenne whose quick humor and charismatic delivery is sure to win over any audience. These men form a strange bond of respect one might call beyond mere friendship which leads to a truly emotional yet restrained scene between the two which is the films closing note. Filling the positions of ‘most definitely not ugly’ is Claudia Cardinale as Jill McBain the widowed owner of the aforementioned land. Cardinale lends the role a true strength and holds her own against the great performances of the men who step into her destiny even backing some of them down when needed. Forming a bond with both Cheyenne and Harmonica and tasked with great responsibilities of her deceased husband Mrs. McBain is much more than a role to be filled and Cardinale carries this with a performance which may even exceed her stunning looks.

With five top performances and under Leone’s direction the film takes the western stories of old and injects them with fresh passion and intelligence, never allowing itself to fall into the pitfalls of irony or cheap plot tie ups. The action is here relatively sparse compared to other Leone films allowing for solid character development and several scenes carrying true dramatic weight. For as much as I do love Eastwood and his collaborations with Leone which came to embody the western genre, I find in Once Upon a Time a film which embraces and exceeds the genre they established making a true epic. For as much as I have written here I assure that nothing but the film itself can do these characters or this story justice and so I give Once Upon a Time in the West my fullest recommendation and my definite classification as a Genre Gem.

The Hero, so stop being so scared

Good, I’ll assume now that you either saw the film or have no respect for reviewer authority. The films success as a piece of cinema can be attributed to the powerhouse trio to whom the credit of its making fall upon. John Carpenter, Sam Neill and Michael De Luca who crafted this little piece of true old school horror. With a strong and deliberate pace set from the get go, the films constantly shifting tone does not become unwelcome as seen in so many other attempts at introducing the horror of internal madness to a distinctly external visual medium. By allowing the effects and secondary characters to take a supporting role, rather than the central focus, we receive an experience truly based in the perceptions of our leading man. Sam Neill carries the massive burden of conveying this strange and truly arching characters perceptions with almost unparalleled strength. This makes Trent both a true character on his own, defined with flaws and an individual personality, but also the bare canvas on which almost all viewers can find some aspect of themselves to project onto. This above all else takes the abstract and almost deranged thread of the story and anchors it with foundations so as to keep it understandable and reachable to the audience.

The writing of this film, though heavily demanding of its characters performers, is truly stellar. No film before or since has so clearly given me that Lovecraft like feeling of fear at the unknown and yet deep uncontrollable curiosity to learn more. This when combined with Neill’s earthbound performance the narrative stays in that almost unreachable area between the understandable and the incomprehensible, rationing its audiences abilities to connect so as to leave them understanding but ever grasping for a further foothold and that elusive feeling of safety. I should note here that to say the screenplay was merely inspired by H.P. Lovecraft is, if nothing else, a mild understatement. I would imagine that any mentions of native american history or mythology was removed with utmost care so as to avoid the hungry lawyers of many esteemed publishing houses. The story is Lovecraft in all but name but the true and almost remarkable similarity is to be found in the atmosphere of doubting ones reality which is to be found in many of Lovecraft’s most famous works. That and the ever present theme of ‘man becomes ancient horrifying monster’ as demanded from all Lovecraft related works by intergalactic law.

This film is recognized by many (including myself) as John Carpenter’s best film. To call that merely high praise is in the realm of the ludicrous considering the man has likely one of the most impressive cult film filmographies ever seen*. However this little gem never saw the recognition it deserved as it was Carpenter’s return to the big screen after what was his biggest flop ‘memoirs of an invisible man’. This film made great efforts to end the careers of both Carpenter and Neill and sad as it may be, their greatest creation was undermined by its predecessors shear lack luster input. Sadly this was to be the Swan song for Carpenter of old as he never regained his old momentum nor unique touch. His following works where to range from the hilariously dumb (ala Vampires) to the downright unwatchable (Ghosts of Mars), a film so bad that it punched a large whole in more than a few of the actors careers. However we are here to sing praise, and praise is there indeed to be sung. As horror goes, this is as good as it gets for me. Where the common jumps and predictable shocks of so many a film before it failed, I find ‘In the Mouth of Madness’ a creepy, intense and downright nerve jangling answer. I think, therefor you are.

*The Thing, Halloween, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, Assault on Precinct13, Escape from New York. Catching my drift yet?

Before the world was atwitter at the ‘match made in heaven’ pairing of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, there was a duel act which pretty much set the bar for the edge of the newly acquired cinematic sword back in the 70′s. That coupling being the calm deliberate power of Scorsese when joined at the hip to the raw acting prowess of Robert De Niro. Though beginning their journey together with Mean Streets the true wonder of this pairing was realized when Taxi Driver hit the big screen with enough force to scare most of middle class america into the country side. Since then the duo have applied themselves from film types ranging from sports too full out mobster mayhem. In 1991 however the two put themselves together on a film that despite its line up seems to have slipped many people by. That film being my genre gem for today: Cape Fear. The film is a wonderful mixture of political commentary, smart thriller and downright scary horror film. Despite its many different aspects I chose CF as my genre gem for its qualities as a Thriller. In a slight break with regular tradition I feel I can give something of a plot summary without spoiling the movie watching experience behind this one seeing as the basics of the plot are pretty much lined up after the first 10 minutes.

Nick Nolte plays Sam Bowden, the middle class american dream, a small town layer with a beautiful wife and lovely daughter simply trying to figure out which part of his existence could be any easier. Introduce into the serene landscape Max Cady. Trying to describe Cady in any level of detail is pretty much impossible because he stands as one of my favorite film villains for very good reason. The man is a complete and utter thrill ride. A complete jumble of contradictions and unpredictability somehow becoming the spiritual love child of Hannibal Lecter, The Terminator and the most frightening guest to ever appear on Jerry Springer. To have such a defiant and warped genius housed in such an oddly manic body sets the tone for the film as a whole. Max Cady is this film entire and is the reason behind every touch of tension even when not appearing on screen due to his almost impossible to predict character. His charming, jovial nature as combined with his trailer trash speech leaves an audience uncertain as to who is the protagonist. And though Cady may be worthy of fear, it doesn’t detract from cathartic joy of seeing Nick Nolte’s pristine suburban life crumble before his eyes. Much like the much more know Taken this is in essence a revenge film whose sole guiding power is the sheer ruthless single mindedness of its leading role. Difference being here is that Cady is far from the good guy.

This is only one of the two times Scorsese has handled this genre and to be honest to expect anything less than a real punch in the gut kind of film could only be due to your unfamiliarity with the mans style. I think that a secret smile was hidden behind those massive bushy eyebrows during this films production as it seems to almost resemble a highly polished yet unrestrained live action portrayal of every suburban, judgmental, all-white parenting pairs the worst possible nightmare. If that wasn’t enough to get you serious I will also note that this film brought us Juliette Lewis whose role in this film at age 19 got her nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar… for what Hollywood saw as a deliberately edgy horror film. You want to know how she managed that, watch the movie. This girl at 19 could hold pace with Robert Fucking De Niro. That’s like being in your mid teens and being able to match Usain Bolt in a running race, it simply shouldn’t be possible. Stellar cast, brilliant directing, excellent editing and all in all one of the genre’s best additions.

Ladies and Gentlemen start your fleeing