Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

“Central Park, mid-July 2008 – 46” photo by Ed Yourdon on Flickr

No, it still isn’t as good as the original Die Hard, but this sequel is fairly original, creative, and exciting in its own right, and that’s certainly an achievement.  It begins on a pleasant summer morning in NYC… with a bomb going off in a department store.  A man called Simon phones the NYPD to claim responsibility for the bomb and threatens more bombings unless John McClane, now suspended from the force, be placed in Harlem wearing a sign with a racial message which I will not write here.  McClane is saved from a group of street youths by clever shop owner Zeus Carver, and the pair learn that Simon has apparently stolen thousands of gallons of a bio-chemical explosive agent.  In order to prevent various bombs from going off across the city, they must carry out various “games” phoned to them by the terrorist.  However, Simon is soon revealed to have a dark connection to McClane’s past, and McClane realizes that his threats are just a cover-up for a massive heist.  With the clock ticking as usual, he and his reluctant partner must stop the bad guys and save the day, and, this being a Die Hard movie, you can guess how it turns out.  While the traditional formula had worked for two films, it was time for a new twist to the series, and the return of original director John McTiernan allowed for just that.  McClane finally has a strong sidekick to banter with and have some serious heart-to-hearts, and his stomping ground is larger than ever.  Furthermore, the series of riddles and puzzles that Simon presents the heroes with is quite interesting, a really inspired plot device that allows for some bloodless suspense before the eventual action sequences.  Kudos to McTiernan and writer Jonathan Hensleigh for running with the idea, though perhaps the speed with which the dynamic duo races around to opposite sides of NYC is a little ridiculous.  In general the writing is quite good, with some amusing dialogue between the leads (the foul-mouthed, quick talking McClane; sassy but highly intelligent Zeus; calm, sophisticated, but evil Simon), though perhaps the initial sign incident could have been toned down a bit, and the ending is somewhat a letdown.  Michael Kamen‘s score is as effective as ever here, and Peter Menzies Jr. does a great job with the cinematography.  Then there is that fabulous starring threesome.  Bruce Willis is still great as McClane, though perhaps he’s aged a little (the hair is starting to go already) and is a little less high-strung.  The humanity, intensity, and sense of humor are still there, however, and that’s what counts.  Willis is the series’ rock, and everyone knows it, but here he finally finds an excellent partner in crime-fighting in Samuel L. Jackson‘s Zeus.  Zeus initially wants nothing to do with the whole affair, but Simon’s threats and his personal sense of duty drive him to join the team.  His intelligence, stoic nature, and wit worthy of McClane are all highly entertaining to watch, and Jackson really makes the most of the role.  And then there’s Jeremy Irons as Simon, chewing through scenery with his thick accent and appearing to have the best time out of anyone.  You can’t help but enjoy him.  Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, and Larry Bryggman also have nice appearances as members of McClane’s squad.  Tired of action sequels that are just weaker versions of the original?  Look no further, here’s a fun summer adventure for you.

3.5 out of 5

Die Hard 2 (1990)

“Aeropuerto de Gran Canaria Tower” photo by Håkan Dahlström

Perhaps it’s incredibly similar to its predecessor, and yes the plot is a little over the top, but this picture is still definitely an entertaining action flick.  And, like the original Die Hard, its heart and soul is undeniably Bruce Willis as scrappy, quick-witted LAPD Lieutenant John McClane.  It’s been exactly a year since the events of the first film, and this time McClane is waiting at Washington Dulles International Airport to meet his wife Holly’s flight.  He soon gets in a gunfight with some suspicious men in army uniforms, at least one of them a mercenary believed to be dead.  However, the airport police captain refuses to respond to McClane’s fears of impending disaster.  Or at least until Colonel Stuart, formerly of the US Special Forces, and a group of armed men take over the airport’s air traffic control system from a secret base in a nearby church, demanding the release of a captured drug lord who is being extradited to the US.  As countless airplanes, including Holly’s, slowly run out of fuel in the air, McClane and the airport team must fight the villains, using various areas and features of the airport to begin picking off Stuart’s team.  When a special forces team arrives, it seems that things are all over for the bad guys, but, a few intense fight scenes and clever plot twists later, the real battle is only just beginning.  Of the three Die Hard sequels, this one is clearly the most connected with the original.  The situations are practically the same: a group of terrorists are threatening innocents and, because no one will listen to him, McClane must slowly wear them down singlehandedly.  But Willis gives the good cop so much humanity and humor that watching him go through it all again is okay.  Whatever new obstacle he might encounter, we know that McClane will find a fun, creative way to overcome it while killing a few bad guys and releasing a few profanities in the process.  And an airport is certainly a fun playground, of sorts, for him to carry out his work from.  Director Renny Harlin doesn’t add anything to the proceedings, but, with Willis and the formula going strong, he really doesn’t need to.  Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson bring a quality screenplay to the table, presenting a plot that does twist and turn nicely, as well as some terrific action sequences.  The scale is a little larger this time around, and it works well, particularly with Oliver Wood‘s strong cinematography.  Michael Kamen‘s score is again fine, though nothing spectacular.  This is truly Willis’ film, but his supporting players are more than entertaining enough.  William Sadler is violent and menacing as Colonel Stuart, a dangerous operator who’s seemingly thought of everything.  Bonnie Bedelia is quite good as Holly, this time showing even more spunk and leadership aboard her hovering plane.  Other returnees are William Atherton as amusingly overdramatic reporter Dick Thornburg and Reginald VelJohnson far too briefly as Sargeant Powell.  Dennis Franz is great as skeptical Airline Police Captain Lorenzo, as are Art Evans as the airport director of communications and John Amos as the highly capable commander of the special forces unit (you’ve got to love the racial diversity in these films).  Franco Nero also makes a nice appearance as the fought-over drug lord.  It’s nothing revelatory, but this is certainly a fun action movie, and, if you liked Die Hard, you’ll enjoy this one too.

3 out of 5

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

“untitled” photo by David Evans

Just making it clear: I am a huge Star Wars fan, and there’s a large part of me that loves the entire saga.  But yeah, this one really doesn’t compare to the originals.  Its visual effects are stunning, true enough, but the film as a whole lacks the joy and brilliance of its predecessors.  The story, legendarily coming before the original trilogy, opens with Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi trying to resolve a conflict between the peaceful planet of Naboo and the hostile, high-tech Trade Federation.  Things don’t go so well, and they end up fleeing the planet with young Queen Padme Amidala, her look-alikes and bodyguards, spunky droid R2-D2, and clutzy Gungan Jar Jar Binks (possibly the most hated character in all of sci-fi).  This group is forced to land on the desert planet of Tatooine, where they meet the young slave boy Anakin Skywalker, a talented mechanic (having built C-3PO) and pilot.  Declaring that the boy is the destined “chosen one” who will bring balance to the Force, Qui-Gon sponsors him in a dangerous podrace to win his freedom.  But the Jedi council, including Yoda and Mace Windu, is skeptical, and the Sith are rising again via the shadowy Darth Sidious and his menacing pupil Darth Maul.  Dear lord, is the plot overly complicated.  Perhaps you could argue the originals were too simplistic, but at least you can follow them fully the first time around.  The story really moves in fits and bounds; saying that we spend way too long on Tatooine is an understatement, and the podracing sequence, while cool, isn’t a worthy payoff for the lag leading up to it.  The numerous simultaneous final battles are all cool, though, and the climactic lightsaber duel between Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon is excellent.  George Lucas returns to the helm after a two decade break, and, while his enthusiasm and vision are apparent, it probably would have been smart to have someone else either write or direct.  Visually, the movie is magnificent, with strong cinematography by David Tattersall, excellent costumes, sets, and makeup, and phenomenal visual effects, ranging from complex starship battles, huge armies of droids, and simply more, cooler aliens.  The film’s undoubtable greatest asset: John Williams‘ absolutely terrific score.  The champ has lost none of his touch, and he has many strong new pieces to add to the original batch, most notably “Duel of the Fates”, possibly the greatest fight song ever written.  A decent cast is hindered by mediocre dialogue.  Liam Neeson is solid as Qui-Gon, though the part is somewhat one-dimensional.  You definitely have to like and respect the guy, though.  Ewan McGregor‘s Obi-Wan Kenobi feels a tad old, and the Scot is still figuring out the role, but he’s certainly not bad.  One problem with Natalie Portman‘s performance as the Queen is that you’re not always sure if it’s really her due to doppelgangers.  When you are sure, she’s fine, but the character really is weak.  Jake Lloyd is tolerable, if a little forced, as Anakin, but not the strong anchor you’d hope for such a pivotal figure.  Ian McDiarmid is good in his dual role of Sidious and Senator Palpatine (his rise to power begins here), it’s nice to see Anthony Daniels back as 3P0, Samuel L. Jackson is a cool addition as Master Windu, and Frank Oz is great as always as Yoda, though the digital-puppet mix looks quite bizarre.  And of course there’s Jar Jar.  Sigh, who approved that character?  Really?

2 out of 5

American Beauty (1999)

“Rose Rouge 01” photo by Michel SCALVENZI

Well then… how exactly to describe this movie?  Unusual… bizarre… more than a little bit disturbing.  The suburbia painted here is hopefully not one like you or I will ever see, a messed-up society where unhappy people face the choice of either enduring their boring lives or seeking pleasure at the risk of destruction.  You honestly can’t like any character in the film, and that’s probably its major flaw.  The plot brings us the Burnhams, a seemingly typical middle-class suburban family.  Lester, the father, hates his job at a magazine and rightly feels that all the spark has fallen out of his marriage with Carolyn, a desperately ambitious real-estate broker.  Their teenage daughter Jane detests them both.  However, all three members of the family seem to find a solution for their problems.  Lester, on the verge of being fired, blackmails his boss for a huge sum of money and quits, taking up marijuana and trying to get in shape to win Jane’s attractive and sexually mature friend Angela (whom he has numerous creepy sexual fantasies about and with whom he incredibly awkwardly flirts).  Carolyn starts an affair with her major business rival and takes up shooting guns.  Jane gets involved with the Burnhams’ neighbor Ricky, a secret drug dealer who spent time in a mental institution, films virtually everything, and has a very difficult relationship with his strict disciplinarian retired marine colonel father.  These really are bad ideas, though, and the ending is a mix of extreme tragedy and an odd sense of almost bliss.  Far and away this film’s biggest asset are its performances.  Kevin Spacey is terrific as Lester, and while it’s hard to support the guy and his actions, you kind of manage to sympathize with him.  Annette Bening‘s Carolyn is well done too, but the character herself is far more flat.  Thora Birch is rather brooding and angry as Jane, and her scenes with Wes Bently‘s Ricky (stoically weird) are both fascinating and painful.  Mena Suvari serves as excellent eye candy as Angela, somehow keeping a straight face through Lester’s wacky dreams, and also gives the part some spark, and Chris Cooper is great as the Colonel, growing increasingly hatable throughout with a shocking conclusion.  However, the characters are all so strange and difficult to connect with, and their increasingly destructive actions grow frustrating.  Alan Ball‘s screenplay is simply downright wacky, and Sam Mendes‘ fine direction can’t change the icky nature of the material.  Drugs, sex, nudity, lots of foul language, even some violence; everything is here right in front of us whether we like it or not, and often we don’t.  Conrad Hall‘s cinematography is strong, though, and the suburban setting at least looks realistic.  Thomas Newman‘s score is fittingly strange, not necessarily in a good way.  As a whole, the movie is the classic story of breaking free from repression and finding meaning in life, just one of the most cringe-inducing, risque versions of it out there.  There’s a great story in there, I really think so, it’s just that I don’t necessarily have the stomach to search for it.

2.5 out of 5

Titanic (1997)

“Ilulissat Icebergs and Esle, Greenland” photo by kaet44 on Flickr

This movie is really two shorter movies in one.  The first is a somewhat predictable and silly love story with cheesy dialogue, beautiful sets, and some surprising nudity.  The second is a life or death struggle with a heart-breaking ending that might be a little long and repetitive but is thrilling and suspenseful to watch.  While the first section is merely decent it leads into a phenomenal second half, and thus the result is a great, if overlong, film that generally deserves its numerous accolades.  The story is “Romeo and Juliet” transported aboard the mammoth title boat: Rose is the only daughter in a bankrupt British family who is unhappily engaged to Cal, the obnoxious son of a wealthy steel tycoon.  Jack is an American artist and drifter who won his third-class tickets in a game of cards.  When he stops Rose from committing suicide, he falls for her, and she soon realizes that she loves him as well.  However, Cal, Rose’s desperate mother, and a giant iceberg get in the way of things, and soon the pair is fighting to survive and stay together on the steadily sinking ship.  As this is based on the Shakespeare play and a historical disaster, we know that the finale can’t be particularly uplifting, and the boat’s dramatic final moments certainly match any expectations, as does the tragic ending to the romance.  Audiences have a love-hate relationship with this movie: some see it as a piece of dumb Hollywood fodder, while others view it as a touching love story.  Though I see much merit in the first argument, I end up basically going with the latter.  Yeah, I’ll agree that the acting isn’t particularly great.  Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as Jack, while endearing and hard to dislike, is not nearly his strongest (but oh does he look young).  Kate Winslet as Rose is hardly better, a weird mishmash of sad passivity and fiery strength.  Billy Zane is fine but increasingly hatable as Cal (with the film’s most ridiculous line; I’ll leave it up to you to figure out which one), Frances Fisher is intentionally irritating as Rose’s mother, and Kathy Bates adds much spunk as Molly Brown.  Gloria Stuart  is also nice as the present-day Rose, giving the film a schmaltzy but pleasant framing device.  James Cameron the writer doesn’t deserve much praise, as the lines are often banal and laughable.  But James Cameron the director earns very high marks, getting us well-acquainted with the characters only to thrust them into a battle for survival that we unquestioningly sympathize with.  Using excellent visual effects, magnificent art direction, and Russell Carpenter‘s gorgeous cinematography, he really puts us on the Titanic, showing us the vessel from boiler-room to bow, and makes its eventual demise spectacular to behold.  James Horner‘s beautiful score helps immensely, though Celine Dion‘s “My Heart Will Go On” is even more vehemently attacked in many circles than the film itself.  Sure, a strong case could be made that this film didn’t merit its gigantic box office draw and record-tying success at the Oscars.  However, if you just sit back and give it a view, the picture truly is entertaining in the best sense of the word, and the grandeur of the piece makes up for the lack of depth.  Call me overly sentimental, but I’m a big fan.

4 out of 5

Braveheart (1995)

“Eilean Donan Castle in Scotland” photo by Shadowgate on Flickr

Just thinking about this movie gives me a cheesy Scottish accent.  Long, somewhat historical, strong on production value, and featuring passionate romance and a heroic but doomed leading male, this picture fits every stereotype for an Oscar winner.  That being said, it isn’t at all bad, just… often amusingly stereotypical.  The story follows William Wallace, a Scot who lives under the subjugation of the English.  When his beloved wife is executed after he kills several English soldiers who try to rape her (the film doesn’t dodge sensitive moments, I’ll say that), he becomes the leader of the Scottish resistance, battling the English through a mix of traditional combat and guerilla warfare.  Wallace is an inspirational commander, and when King Edward of England sends his daughter-in-law, the French princess Isabella, to negotiate with the man, she merely falls in love with him.  He also gains a large following of loyal comrades.  However, while heir to the Scottish throne Robert the Bruce wants to join forces with Wallace, his ambitious, domineering father prevents him from doing so.  Thus, the rebels will have to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds to triumph.  There are numerous good qualities about this film.  The cast, in general, is one of them.  Mel Gibson performs the role of Wallace with gusto, shouting and running around with weapons dramatically.  Though his story gets a little corny and unbelievable at times (particularly his fling with Isabella), we certainly root for the guy, and he is fun to watch.  As the film’s director, Gibson also made the smart move of surrounding himself with some quality supporting players, including a majestic yet hatable Patrick McGoohan as Edward, an excellently-performing Angus Macfadyen as Robert, and the highly entertaining Brendan Gleeson, David O’Hara, and James Cosmo and Wallace’s various buddies.  However, both major women – Catherine McCormack as Wallace’s bride Murron and Sophie Marceau as Isabella – have fairly bland parts, and the actresses add little to them.  Furthermore, the story-telling is a little heavy-handed, with mediocre dialogue from Randall Wallace‘s screenplay (made especially funny by the rollicking Scottish accents) and a run-time that could easily afford to be a little shorter.  While the battles are exciting, with great from John Toll‘s cinematography, the events in between are sometimes tedious.  It takes a long time for the film to get going, since Wallace’s courtship of Murron takes up nearly a quarter of the movie.  The sex scenes in particular are bizarre to watch, especially the early night-time scene in which it’s hard to tell long-haired Wallace apart from his love.  As I said, this film has no qualms about awkward occurrences, including some weird mid-battle rump-baring.  James Horner‘s score is quite good, though, and the beautiful Scottish scenery and excellent artistic quality of the piece certainly help the picture along.  The ending is sufficiently dramatic and emotional, if perhaps overly drawn out.  Sure, it’s Hollywood fodder, and the Gibson ego is on display throughout, but the movie is fairly enjoyable and probably worth a look.

3 out of 5

Forrest Gump (1994)

“Feather” photo by Katie@! on Flickr

What a truly entertaining picture.  Hilarious, heartwarming, and incredibly historical, this movie is so much fun, not only because of the countless awesome references and appearances of notable players and events of the twentieth century, but due to the beautiful tale of love, perseverance, and a little bit of luck that it tells.  Forrest Gump, who narrates much of the film as he tells his story to various companions on a bus stop, grows up in the South in the 1950s.  He is picked on due to his low intelligence and leg braces, but, through the support of his mother and his friend Jenny, he reveals himself as a remarkable runner and receives a football scholarship.  He proceeds to witness the integration of Alabama State, fight in Vietnam, meet three presidents, play ping-pong in China, phone in the Watergate break-in, create a massive shrimp empire, and encounter and influence many historical figures.  All along, however, he hopes to someday win Jenny, who follows a very different path through history, joining the hippies, but resignedly remaining friends with the often oblivious Forrest.  Using countless special effects, achival videos, and other tricks, the filmmakers manage to place Forrest smack dab in the middle of some very important moments in US history, making the film both funnier and more authentic.  Director Robert Zemeckis still focuses on the strong human aspect of the story though, so the effects go beautifully unnoticed.   Characters and history go hand in hand here, each feeding the other.  The charming screenplay by Eric Roth is quite an asset as well, granting Forrest honestly the most wonderful way of putting things.  His analysis of history and of people, while not always the most perceptive, is undoubtably honest and amusing.  Tom Hanks‘ beautiful performance as the title character certainly adds to this appeal.  You can’t dislike Forrest; however absurdly he may act, you know he genuinely cares about everyone and is only trying to help.  His naivete and go-with-the-flow nature works magnificently against all of the other players, each trying to affect history or achieve a deeper meaning to life but failing without him.  These other players are quite wonderful as well, though, including Robin Wright in a touching performance as Jenny, both painful and alluring to watch.  Gary Sinise‘s gruff and grumbly Lieutenant Dan, Forrest’s commander in Vietnam who loses both of his legs, while at times a sorry sight, contrasts perfectly to Hanks, making their eventual friendship all the more sweet.  Sally Field is great as Mrs. Gump, providing a strong moral root for her boy.  Other assets to the film are Don Burgess‘ nice cinematography, portraying Forrest’s many adventures and tangents quite entertainingly, and Alan Silvestri‘s score, though the musical highlights are the numerous rock numbers which help set the viewer in the proper time period.  The film as a whole is remarkably enjoyable, a cool romp through forty years (or so) of history with a guide like no other.  Yes, Forrest may be a metaphorical feather floating through the winds of time, but my is his journey a blast to follow.

4.5 out of 5

Schindler’s List (1993)

“Auschwitz – Birkenau” photo by MegaBash on Flickr

How can I criticize the most powerful, tragic, and unforgettable film ever made and the undeniably greatest picture of the past two decades?  I really can’t.  After creating a number of fun, entertaining movies, director Steven Spielberg brought to us his masterpiece, one painful to watch yet absolutely breathtaking.  The plot, based on true events, follows Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who comes to Krakow after its capture by the Nazis in the hopes of making himself a fortune.  Using bribery and charisma, the gregarious and philandering Schindler is able to start a factory, and initially he hires Polish Jews simply because they’re a cheaper labor force than Catholics.  However, his Jewish manager Itzhak Stern begins trying to use the factory as a way to save Jews from the death camp.  Over time, Schindler is moved to join this effort, using every cent and trick in his possession to gain as many Jewish employees as possible and give them tolerable conditions without creating too much suspicion.  In the end, he manages to save over a thousand Jews from the Nazis, himself becoming a far better person in the process,  The movie is profoundly moving all the way through, from the opening images of Jews lighting Shabbas candles to the final moments at Schinder’s real grave.  Spielberg takes incredibly difficult subject material and doesn’t gloss through any of it, showing us both the Holocaust as it truly happened and ultimately the light that can come out of darkness.  The performances are all terrific, especially the three leading men.  Liam Neeson is fantastic as Schindler, making his remarkable transformation (which several screenwriters considered too good to work on film) feel natural.  His partying, devil-may-care profiteer is highly interesting to watch, and his eventual great protector of the weak is a joy.  Ben Kingsley (11 years and a lifetime removed from Gandhi) is wonderful as Stern, Schindler’s conscience when he lacks one.  He is the stoic, wise, gentle rock next to Neeson’s wavering hero, though his intelligence makes his near-deportation to Auschwitz particularly frightening.  The real wild guy of the bunch, however, is Ralph Fiennes as SS Lieutenant Amon Göth, truly one of the evilest villains to appear onscreen.  His casual nature as he slaughters Jews is mesmerizingly terrifying, his moments of apparent humanity all the more painful because of his violent rage.  This trio is aided by a great ensemble of supporting players and countless extras who calmly suffer through nudity and murder to allow this story to be brought to the screen.  The screenplay by Steven Zaillian, in multiple languages and always aware of when words aren’t needed to capture true horror, is phenomenal, and the story never flags in intensity.  Particularly dramatic are the massacre in the Polish Ghetto and the mistaken transport of Schindler’s female workers to Auschwitz.  Janusz Kaminski‘s cinematography (almost entirely black-and-white except for a couple of powerful occasions) is exquisite, perfectly portraying the terrible events of the Holocaust, and John Williams‘ score, while not as flashy as Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, is emotional and sublime, particularly the main violin theme so wonderfully played by Itzhak Perlman (expect it to make you cry).  Really the whole Spielberg gang comes together masterfully here.   The fact is, this movie must be viewed.  Both in a cinematic sense and in a historical one, it simply cannot be ignored.

5 out of 5

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

“augusto el canibal” photo by tabitum on Flickr

Wow, this is one creepy film.  While not exactly a traditional horror picture, this movie is undeniably unsettling, often genuinely frightening, using a perfect blend of freaky images and psychological terror.  Obviously it manages to leave quite an impression: despite its February release, Oscar voters were still thinking about it nearly a year later, voting it the first ever Best Picture winner regarded as a horror film and the third movie in history to sweep the “big five” awards.  The story follows Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee, who is assigned to interview imprisoned psychotic cannibal Dr. Hannibal Lecter in the hopes that he might shed some light on “Buffalo Bill”, a serial killer who has recently kidnapped then mutilated several women across the midwest.  Lecter seems to take a liking to Clarice, and she begins to use his clues and her own intuition  to pursue the murderer.  However, she violates one of her boss’ fundamental instructions: don’t let Hannibal Lecter into your head.  Following Lecter’s “rules”, she tells him about her life in order to gain information, and the brilliant doctor soaks it all in.  When “Bill” takes the daughter of a US senator, the time for games is over, and Clarice must gain Dr. Lecter’s aid to stop him before he kills once more.  In few films is it harder to decide which of the two leads is more spectacular and more essential to the movie’s success.  Anthony Hopkins is absolutely flawless as Lecter, who deservedly was voted the greatest movie villain of all time by AFI.  On one hand, he is a polite and pleasant gentleman, a good listener, and an intelligent professional.  On the other hand, he is a deadly killer who knows exactly what to say to make people cringe and actually enjoys biting off jaws or tongues to achieve his goals.  Both of these sides are put on magnificent display, and each is horrifying yet glorious to behold.  Jodie Foster completely stands equal to him as Clarice, though, and she too is a joy to watch.  Bright and determined, Clarice is ready to do whatever it takes to solve the mysteries surrounding her, but she is also rather vulnerable, with a sad past, and sometimes quite naive.  Her natural manner is easy to connect with, and the viewer roots for her all the way through.  Scott Glenn is fine as Clarice’s superior, Jack Crawford, and Ted Levine‘s Buffalo Bill is a disturbing counterpart to Lecter, so demented, inhumane, and completely unsophisticated.  Jonathan Demme does great work directing Ted Tally‘s screenplay, generally keeping both major players in focus and managing to create moments of humor and warmth amongst the darkness.  The film is also nicely rooted in the real world, with many middle America locales adding authenticity.  Howard Shore‘s score isn’t quite his usual work, but it is decent as well.  Perhaps the Clarice-dominated ending is overshadowed a little by Lecter’s brilliant preceding sequence, but the film flies along all the way through, keeping the audience glued to its seats (except for the occasional terrified leap) and scared out of its mind.  And Hopkins’ final line is arguably the greatest in the movies.

4 out of 5

Dances with Wolves (1990)

“Broken Arm, Ogalalla Sioux” photo by Boston Public Library on Flickr

Okay, so some cinephiles will probably disagree with me on this, but I really am a big fan of this picture.  I agree, the first half is rather boring, but the second half is just so fantastic, such a beautiful and powerful piece of work, that you can’t help but enjoy it.  The plot follows Civil War veteran Lieutenant John W. Dunbar, who requests to be posted at Fort Sedgwick right on the edge of the western frontier.  He works to restock and fix up the dilapidated place, and initially comes into conflict with the nearby Sioux tribe.  However, he soon attempts to start a dialogue with them, and when he rescues Stands With A Fist, the white adopted daughter of the tribe’s medicine man, he gains the respect of the tribal leaders.  Using Stands With A Fist as an interpreter, Dunbar soon becomes a member of the tribe, receiving the name Dances With Wolves, and both grows romantically involved with the woman and turns into a war hero.  But when United States troops come to displace the Native Americans, Dunbar finds himself in the crosshairs of a sad battle, one which the Sioux cannot hope to win.  You’ve gotta give Director-Producer-Star Kevin Costner some credit: he took on a big-budget picture by a little-known writer in a long-dead genre that made the United States look bad and featured a supporting cast of relative unknowns often speaking in Lakota with English subtitles, and made it into a smash hit.  He does a great job on all fronts, and while Dunbar sometimes seems a little too heroic, Costner generally keeps him human and connected with the viewer, revealing to us his struggle as his two worlds collide.  Mary McDonnell is also quite good as Stands With A Fist, endowing the character with a mix of weakness and emotional trauma (her parents were murdered by Pawnees) and inner strength.  Perhaps the romance and sex scene are a little overdone, but as a whole she performs well.  Graham Greene is excellent as her father Kicking Bird, Floyd Red Crow Westerman brings much gravitas to the role of Chief Ten Bears, and Rodney A. Grant steals the movie, particularly in its closing moments, as Wind In His Hair, a mighty Sioux warrior who turns into one of Dunbar’s closest companions.  These Native American characters are depicted with far more respect and humanity than in most westerns, and it sure feels nice.  The horse Cisco and wolf Two Socks are wonderful as well, often honestly more touching than the human actors.  Michael Blake‘s screenplay, adapted from his recent novel, takes a long time to get going, and watching Dunbar set up at Fort Sedgewick and first encounter the Sioux is not the particularly exciting.  But things certainly pick up as he joins the tribe, and the ending is absolutely magnificent and tear-inducing.  The incredibly beautiful landscape of the west, nicely captured by cinematographer Dean Semler, adds a lot to the picture, as does John Barry‘s terrific score.  Production value is not a weakness here, I’ll say that much.  The film generally manages to match its surroundings in greatness, though, so give it a viewing, and make sure to have some hankies handy!

4 out of 5