Gran Torino

2008 proved to be another busy year for critically acclaimed writer, director, actor, and producer Clint Eastwood. Earlier in 2008, Clint directed the gripping drama “Changeling” starring Angelina Jolie (“Wanted”); yet it was the second film Clint was involved with that year that garnered most of my attention. This film is none other than the recently released “Gran Torino”, which Clint directed and also starred in, possibly in his final onscreen performance. Just like so many of his other films, “Gran Torino” is yet another instant classic from Clint Eastwood, a man of so many talents and a true living legend among Hollywood.

“Gran Torino” is the story of a Korean War veteran named Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), who despite his intense prejudices remains in the house he shared for so many years with his wife, even though the neighborhood has seen a vast influx of Asian-American homeowners. In spite of his disdain for his neighbors, Walt soon finds himself inadvertently saving the life of one of the local teenagers who is being threatened by an Asian gang after he failed to steal Walt’s beloved Gran Torino. As hard as he tries to fight it, Walt begins to realize that perhaps he may have more in common with his Asian neighbors, despite their vast cultural differences and his pervasive bigotry, than he would ever care to admit.

As one of the most accomplished and iconic actors and/or filmmakers working in Hollywood, with numerous films to his credit, it’s a wonder that Clint can still manage to make a film in which he actually may top himself. Yet, with his terrific performance in this film, I believe Clint has given us one of the best performances of his extremely successful career, if not the best. He imbues his character with such subtle nuances, and an irresistible grandfather-like quality despite his abrasive disposition that you can’t help but like the guy; while at the same time, his mere presence on screen demands our attention and respect. I never believed any actor could make this kind of character so entertaining and likeable, but Clint figured out how to do it, and has succeeded brilliantly.

Speaking of performances, the supporting cast for “Gran Torino” was comprised of mostly newcomers to film. I’m referring to the actors chosen to portray the various Hmong characters that live in the neighborhood that Walt resides in. Leading these cast members are two fairly talented young actors Bee Vang (as Thao) and Ahney Her (as Sue), both of their characters’ interactions with Walt serve as the primary crux on which the majority of the story rests. Surprisingly, Bee and Ahney do very well with their roles providing an authenticity to their struggle for acceptance in a culture that they don’t fully understand and vice versa, while at the same time attempting to reach out to a man who has spent the majority of his life despising those who are different. The remainder of the supporting cast was not focused upon in the film nearly as much as the previous two, yet it would be a disservice to them to not mention that they all delivered very solid, and seemingly genuine performances to further enhance the richness of the overall film.

However, if I had to complain about anything in this movie, there is one performance that is weaker than the others. The one in question would be actor Bee Vang, who seemed a bit unsure of himself in places, and at times he would clearly over-emphasize a line reading, causing his character’s dialogue to sound out of place with the other actor(s) in the scene. Although when all is said and done, if Clint Eastwood didn’t have a problem with Bee’s performance in order to make him change it, then who am I to judge.

A few moments back I mentioned that Clint Eastwood was one of the most accomplished actors and filmmakers in Hollywood, and that perhaps he has actually bested himself with his performance here in “Gran Torino”; yet, I never mentioned whether I thought his directing accomplished the same achievement. As refined as Clint’s directing has become over the many years since 1971, when he first decided to step behind the camera, I don’t know if I can say that “Gran Torino” is any better than his previous efforts from that perspective.

One thing that is for certain about Clint’s directing, it’s that he never shies away from hitting the audience hard with an emotional, visceral, or visual impact, and “Gran Torino” is no exception. In this respect he is uncompromising, which is undoubtedly one of the many attributes that has made him such a powerful directing force to be reckoned with over the last few decades. Even though he has the courage to go for the audience’s gut, when lesser men would pull back out of fear that the audience may be turned off, Clint has come to the understanding that you don’t always have to show everything for the full power of the moment to be felt in a scene; which is something that so many other directors would do well to take a lesson in from this living legend.

It’s been rumored that “Gran Torino” marks Clint’s final onscreen appearance, and that the remainder of his career will be served behind the camera. If that is true, then this is definitely a powerful curtain call from the actor, and one he should definitely be proud of.

“Gran Torino” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather Part 3

Sixteen long years after the release of “The Godfather Part 2”, Paramount Pictures along with writer and director Francis Ford Coppola, and co-writer Mario Puzo, delivered to audiences the final chapter in one of the greatest cinematic sagas ever committed to film.

“The Godfather Part 3” finds Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) closer than ever to realizing his dream of transitioning his family into strictly legitimate business dealings. As a part of improving the public’s image of both he and his family, Michael is reaching out to the Catholic Church through the charitable donation of millions of his own dollars. Just as Michael has finally found a viable way out of the life of crime that he’s known for so many years, a rival gangster seeks to move in on the impending power vacuum Michael’s departure will undoubtedly leave behind. Yet this obvious power play may not come without its fair share of bloodshed. Enter Michael’s nephew Vincent (Andy Garcia), an up-and-coming mafia hood who wants nothing more than to protect his beloved uncle and preserve the legacy of the Corleone family for years to come.

For some reason, that I cannot wrap my head around, “The Godfather Part 3” is almost universally panned as being the weakest entry in the trilogy. Personally, I can’t figure out what the problem is with this movie that causes so many people to essentially loathe watching it. For me, no matter how many times I watch the film, and do my best to find some fault in it, I still walk away enjoying it as much as I did its two predecessors. Plus, I can’t seem to find any glaring problems with the film. Perhaps audiences just don’t respond well to the redemptive message inherent within the story, maybe there are just not enough darker elements, such as murder, betrayal, sadness, and despair to satisfy their typical mafia fix. Whatever the case may be, I doubt I will ever understand why this installment is so maligned by most viewers, but I digress.

Now, let’s talk about what I feel is the main focus of this final chapter in “The Godfather saga”. I believe the purpose of this third film is two-fold; first, it is an appropriate vehicle with which Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo nicely tie up any loose ends still left over from the initial two installments, while introducing us to a fascinating final act for the Corleone family. Second, “The Godfather Part 3” can almost be viewed as a thank you to the fans on behalf of the entire cast and crew of the series. What I mean by that is, after “The Godfather Part 2” there was a 16 year gap between films, hinting that perhaps the Corleone family’s story was finished, but by returning to the series for one more film the cast and crew reward the audience for their loyalty (and patience) to the franchise. Not to mention the film brings the entire story of Michael Corleone full circle in a very powerful, yet bittersweet sort of way.

Speaking of Michael’s character arc within this grand trilogy, there is a definite metamorphosis that Michael goes through over the course of his journey. In “The Godfather”, Michael is an idealistic young man, untainted by the dark world that his father and brothers belong to; however, over the course of that film certain events lead to Michael’s eventual baptism by fire into the underworld. Then we come to “The Godfather Part 2”, where the darkness that had once consumed his father and brothers has now consumed Michael completely, and the results of his decisions do not come without a cost. Finally, we arrive at “The Godfather Part 3” and the path he has chosen has resulted in so much death, despair, and loneliness that Michael finally is beginning to realize that perhaps the only way to find some measure of peace is to seek redemption for the sins of his past.

On a side note, as a fan of the entire series, I appreciate that this film’s story includes numerous nods and/or mentions to events that occurred in the previous films in the trilogy. When a film franchise references events within its own history, I find that to be an added bonus, and shows that those involved in the films take great pride in their work, and strive to further enrich the audience’s experience while watching them.

From an acting standpoint, this series continues to be one of the greatest examples of brilliant acting one could ever hope to witness. For Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, I’m surprised that they were still able to find new ground to cover with their respective characters. Al’s performance as Michael is more reserved and at times weary, yet still as emotionally charged as ever. Diane Keaton brings to Kay a quiet strength and an indomitable will power that at times rivals even that of Michael’s, a trait no doubt developed over the course of many years of dealing in his world. Also returning for a third go-round is actress Talia Shire (“Rocky” franchise) as Michael’s older sister, Connie. Finally, Talia is given a character arc that has much more substance to it than what she previously had been given, no doubt a rewarding turn of events for her as an actress. Talia’s arc was much different from that of the previous two films; no longer a victim of any kind, Connie is much more in charge, and accepting of the world that had consumed her entire family for the last two generations.

Newcomers to the franchise include the considerable talents of Andy Garcia, Bridget Fonda, Eli Wallach, and Joe Mantegna. Each of the new cast members brought a sense of newness to the film, something that each of these three films has surprisingly managed to do with every release. Andy Garcia was the standout performance for me out of the new members of the cast. His energetic performance harkened back to James Caan’s volatile character of Sonny from the original film, a character void that had never truly been filled by any other member of the cast within the series.

One thing is for certain after watching not only “The Godfather Part 3”, but the entire trilogy, is that no matter how glamorized the life of the mafia may appear to be (as shown by most movies dealing with the subject), this kind of lifestyle is not worth all the heartache, sadness, and death that surrounds everyone involved. It’s true that even “The Godfather” trilogy glamorized this life to an extent, but at the same time, each of the films took some time within their respective stories to reveal the consequences of the dark choices of life and death that these people make throughout their lives.

”The Godfather Part 3” is yet another triumphant piece of American cinema, expertly crafted by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, serving as the perfect final chapter in one of the most beloved film sagas of all time.

“The Godfather Part 3” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather Part 2

A sequel to any film, whether it follows a smaller movie, a mega blockbuster, or an instant classic, can be a daunting task to undertake for any director no matter how talented he or she may be. In the case of acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola he was faced with one of the greatest sequel challenges of all, making a second chapter, in what would eventually become an epic trilogy, to the magnificent gangster ode, “The Godfather”.

“The Godfather Part 2” takes place a few years after the climactic ending to the mafia war, as Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) oversees all facets of the Corleone family business from their new home in Las Vegas. As Michael continues to lead the family in a similar fashion to that of his father, his vow to move the family into strictly legitimate business dealings is proving much more difficult than he had anticipated. With new enemies appearing in virtually every direction, and treachery around every corner, leaving no one above suspicion; Michael must do all he can to ensure his family’s legacy without losing everything he has worked so hard to attain. So the question is in whom do you trust when even those closest to you may have betrayed?

Here’s the astounding part about director Francis Ford Coppola’s achievement with his second installment in the “Godfather” saga; besides the fact that Francis returned as both co-writer and director for the sequel, a massive chore all its own, is the reality that his sequel may have actually managed to surpass the original movie, which is one of the most iconic films of American cinema. Francis and co-writer Mario Puzo (author of “The Godfather” novel and co-writer of all three films) did an amazing job of crafting yet another gripping gangland saga centered around the Corleone family, without really repeating anything they had done in the previous film; starting with the structure for this one’s storyline.

The first film’s story was very linear from start to finish, whereas in “The Godfather Part 2” the story takes place in two time periods. The primary story takes place within the present day as Michael runs the Corleone family operations, and struggles to maintain his power and keep his family together; the secondary storyline occurs via flashbacks that showcase Vito Corleone (played by Robert DeNiro) arriving in America and his subsequent rise to power within the underworld of organized crime. What I found most intriguing about the two separate storylines is how Francis edited the film together to make them run concurrently with each other, in essence providing the audience a comparison between father and son, and the differences in how they handled their business. An interesting side note is that the flashbacks of young Vito were a part of the novel (which is essentially the original film’s story); however, since these segments were not included in the previous film, Francis and Mario felt they would fit in nicely within the sequel to serve as a parallel between the two men and their families.

“The Godfather Part 2” also included some intriguing story elements that seemed to mirror events that had occurred in our nation’s fight against “La Cosa Nostra”, namely Joe Valachi’s admission to the congressional committee on organized crime that the mafia did indeed exist, and the inquisitions of mafia members that followed that event. The inclusion of the United States government’s investigation into organized crime within the movie’s storyline created an added depth and realism to the proceedings. While at the same time these moments within the film allows the audience to see just how twisted, dangerous and powerful Michael has become, and how far from his original plan of becoming legitimate he has gone in such a short time.

Many of the primary cast members for “The Godfather Part 2” were reprising their roles from the original film. Even though many members of the cast were playing characters that they no doubt had become reasonably familiar with; each actor or actress seemed to bring a fresh approach to their characters, almost as if they were portraying them for the first time. Thus serving as an example of just how different almost every single one of the returning characters had become since the conclusion of “The Godfather”.

Al Pacino and Diane Keaton continued to have great onscreen chemistry as Michael and Kay Corleone. Every one of their numerous verbal exchanges was charged full of emotion and intensity, never once disappointing for even an instant. I appreciated that the story for Kay continued to build upon the revelation she had at the end of the original film, where she realized what exactly Michael had become and just how much she had sacrificed to be with him. Seeing her continued struggle with herself and Michael just building to a crescendo over the course of this film was intriguing, and provided some of the most intensely dramatic moments within the series. I was impressed by the way Al Pacino took Michael into even darker, and at times frightening, areas of his character, to the point that the innocence he once had in the first film is all but destroyed by the darkness he has embraced for his life. “The Godfather Part 2” is the movie where Al Pacino truly began to shine as an actor (in my opinion), and where we as an audience began to see the incredible passion and drive that he brings to each of his performances first beginning to manifest.

Three other returning cast members were Robert Duvall, Talia Shire, and John Cazale; all three delivered solid performances, especially Robert and John, both of whom seemed to receive even more screen time than previously. Talia was strong during her moments on screen, although she wasn’t involved in this story as much as she was in the first one (which even then wasn’t a whole lot); yet her scenes still provided plenty of dramatic punch and she made the most of the time she was allotted. Robert Duvall once again gave a terrific performance as Tom Hagen, the one-time consigliere turned family lawyer. Throughout the mid-section of the film, Robert was given an opportunity to take Tom in a new, more powerful direction which he handled perfectly and even added a hint of menace to the character that surprised me. Lastly, John Cazale as middle brother Freddo benefited greatly from a beefed up story compared to his previous turn as the weak-willed sibling. John showed us in “The Godfather” that he was a good actor, but it wasn’t until this film that we were shown just how talented he really was. One scene in particular near the end of the movie provides John his moment to shine opposite Al Pacino, and in these few brief moments, John completely steals the scene away from Al with a devastatingly emotional performance.

One other cast member worthy of note would be Robert DeNiro as a young Vito Corleone. His scenes in the various flashbacks sprinkled throughout the film are superb. When watching his portrayal, with all the little nods to Brando’s performance, and the flashes of intensity and power, it’s not surprising that Robert won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role.

Achieving what I personally would have believed impossible at the time, “The Godfather Part 2” manages to at least equal its predecessor, and possibly even surpasses it in the end. With a gripping dramatic story that spans two generations, incredible performances, and an ending that will leave you stunned, “The Godfather Part 2” is as perfect a continuation of the story from the original film as anyone could have ever hoped for.

“The Godfather Part 2” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather

The mafia is a subject that has captivated the imaginations of both Hollywood and moviegoers alike for years and years. Generally, when the mob is chosen as the topic for another movie, assuming the film is done with the proper attention and care, it’s pretty much a guarantee that there will be the potential for plenty of money flowing in at the box office. Many of the most successful mafia-themed movies rank amongst some of the best films Hollywood has ever offered to the public. With entries into this particular film grouping including some of Martin Scorcese’s classics, such as “Goodfellas” and “Casino”, to Sam Mendes’ “Road to Perdition”, and even on TV with HBO’s “The Sopranos”, it’s no wonder this is a sub-genre that has lasted for so many decades; however, as great as all of those titles are, there is one trilogy of films that truly set the bar for what all others would be compared to. I’m referring to none other than the best of the best of the mafia film sub-genre…The Godfather trilogy. To kick things off lets talk about the one that started it all, the original classic film in director and co-writer Francis Ford Coppola’s gangland magnum opus, “The Godfather”.

“The Godfather” focuses on the fictional Corleone crime family. The family, as led by Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), vies for money and power amidst the dark world of organized crime. Set in the years following the Second World War, Don Vito Corleone is offered a chance for his family to further expand their empire via the fledgling, yet profitable drug trade. However, the Don is not convinced that this is the way their organization should take for more profits, a school of thought that the other rival families aren’t too comfortable with. As tensions mount and battle lines are being drawn, Don Vito along with his sons, Sonny (James Caan) and Fredo, and consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), prepare to do what must be done to preserve the power they have fought so long and hard to attain. As an all-out mafia war begins to claim casualties on all sides, it seems some new blood may be needed to turn the tide. Enter Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), the youngest of the Corleone children, and the one who had vowed to steer clear of the dark world that has consumed the rest of his family. However, certain events are unfolding that will force Michael to choose whether his destiny lies by his father’s side or on his own path separate from a life of crime.

Based upon the novel by Mario Puzo, who also served as co-writer alongside director Francis Ford Coppola, “The Godfather” is one of the most faithful adaptations of a book that I have ever seen. Having read the book and seen the movie, I find both to be perfect companion pieces to one another. Even though it is cemented within the dark underworld of organized crime, the story is one that can resonate with virtually every person on some level, thanks in no small part to the many themes inherent within the screenplay and the novel.

The biggest theme that this film deals with throughout its nearly three-hour running time is the concept of family, displayed in both a literal and metaphorical sense (as shown in the numerous references to a person’s mafia affiliation and/or organization as a family). For me this was the most intriguing aspect of the film’s richly layered story. Seeing how the various Corleone children grappled with the weight of eventually taking the reins of the family’s various affairs, both personal and business related, was truly interesting and provided the strongest dramatic firepower for the script to draw from. For me, making the primary driving force of the screenplay focus upon the family aspect, made “The Godfather” stand apart from all other mafia themed movies that had come before it, and many that arrived after it, for that matter. Many times in these types of films we get a very violent story, full of intense drama and plenty of colorful language, and even some allusions to the themes found in this film, but it seems to be a bit of a rarity to find a mafia movie outside of this series that takes the time to delve deeply into the personal relationships these people establish over the course of their lives and nefarious careers as criminal figures. We all know that the mafia is all about loyalty, respect and living by certain codes of honor, but what we rarely get to see is where those attributes come from, which can only be found in the personal relationships these characters share with each other over the course of the film. To me, it is the personal touches found in this movie and its sequels that make the story all the more accessible, and elevate it from being just another mafia movie to something far greater.

The casting choices made for “The Godfather” seem to perfectly embody every single character from Mario Puzo’s classic novel, as if they could have walked right off of the page and onto the screen. Marlon Brando (“Superman: The Movie”) as the Corleone family’s patriarch and Don of the Corleone crime family is simply iconic in his portrayal. He brings a warmth and magnetism to the character that instantly draws you in, essentially erasing all thoughts of the evil acts this man has committed either personally or via his organization. Yet behind the almost grandfatherly quality Brando gives the character, lies an extremely dangerous man, who possesses a quiet and powerful inner-strength, along with a worldly power that is unparalleled by any other member of the underworld.

Portraying the other primary members of the story are veteran actors (although at the time they were still rising stars in Hollywood) James Caan (“Misery”), Robert Duvall (“Secondhand Lions”), and Al Pacino (“Heat”). James Caan plays the hot-headed eldest son of Vito Corleone named Sonny, who is first in line to take over the family business whenever the Don steps down or passes on. Caan perfectly portrays the character with a dangerous volatility that is electrifying and borderline insane at times, yet he also brings to the table an unyielding devotion to his family that is both his greatest strength and biggest weakness. Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen the surrogate son and consigliere to the Corleone family, seems an ideal choice lending the character plenty of gravitas, while at the same time giving a sense that he is constantly seeking approval from the other members of the family due to him being of German/Irish descent, and therefore an outsider to the otherwise Italian family. Lastly, we have Al Pacino, giving his most restrained performance of his career, long before he became the iconic actor he is today, as the youngest Corleone sibling and the one member of the family that tries his hardest to remain at a safe distance from the crime and corruption that has consumed the other family members. So, in a sense, even though Tom is an outsider due to his heritage, it is Michael who is the one that is truly the outsider, a position that he finds harder and harder to retain the more the story unfolds.

Other cast members worthy of note would include Talia Shire (“Rocky”), Diane Keaton (“Because I Said So”), and John Cazale (“The Deer Hunter”). To be fair there are so many more actors and actresses that deserve attention, I just don’t have the time to devote to them. Talia Shire played Connie Corleone, the lone girl amongst the Corleone children. Talia does a very good job with her character, even though she isn’t given a very large amount of screen time. Nevertheless, if it weren’t for her character’s involvement many of the major events within the story never would have come to fruition. So, even though she possibly has the least amount of time in front of the camera, out of the entire family, her character’s story arc is one of the most pivotal ones of all. The always terrific Diane Keaton is Kay Adams, the young woman who finds herself inadvertently dragged into this dark world through her romantic relationship with Michael. Diane gives Kay an innocence that balances the otherwise corrupt nature of essentially every other character within the film; however, it’s fascinating to see her character’s temptation by the power and money that accompanies such a dangerous world. To see how Kay grapples with the person she is and the person she may become via her romance is interesting, and provides some very small, yet important moments within the film. Rounding out this particular grouping we have Fredo Corleone played by rarely seen actor John Cazale (“The Deer Hunter”). Fredo is the middle child of the three Corleone boys, and is generally perceived as weak and relatively simple-minded in the grand scheme of things. Even though Fredo is given very little to do in this film, John is spot-on with his interpretation of the character, and it’s a shame that an actor as talented as John clearly is, has for some reason chosen to shy away from movie roles ever since “The Godfather Part II”.

It seems somewhat strange to me that a film such as “The Godfather” has become such a globally recognizable film and essentially a major brand name for games, toys, etc. I feel this is strange partly because of these films’ subject matter (which could be perceived as a reflection on our dwindling morality), but also because this film almost didn’t see the light of day, at least not in the way we all have come to know and love. Prior to anyone really being attached to this film, the head of troubled film studio Paramount Pictures, Robert Evans, was having a difficult time convincing anyone to direct this gangland epic after acquiring the rights to the novel. It wasn’t until director Francis Ford Coppola (“Dracula”) took the gig, in an effort to save his fledgling production company, that the film truly began to take shape. Even so, if it hadn’t been for Francis’ stubbornness, Italian heritage, and cinematic vision, who knows what this film would have ended up as, most likely it would not have been the masterpiece it wound up being, that is if the attempted studio tampering had prevailed. So, thank God for directors who know what they want, and have the courage to see their vision through.

With a gripping story rife with powerful thematic elements, intense drama, and some of the best acting you will ever find in any film throughout history, “The Godfather” is a film that truly defines what it is to be a definitive tour de force of American cinema. If you have yet to see this film or its sequels, do yourself a gigantic favor and rent a copy today.

“The Godfather” is rated R for violence, brief language, and brief nudity.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

After the success of “The Terminator” in 1984, it strikes me as somewhat odd that there wasn’t a sequel rushed directly into production as soon as the original was deemed a hit. Nowadays, it seems like once a movie surpasses what it cost to make the movie then a sequel is virtually inevitable. This also seemed to be the mindset around certain movies back in the 1980’s, especially the slasher type of films; but for whatever reason seven long years passed between the release of “The Terminator” before director and writer James Cameron re-teamed with his stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton for “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”.

“Terminator 2: Judgment Day” picks up approximately ten or so years after the events of the first film. Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) has been locked away in a mental institution after her crazed warnings of an impending holocaust at the hands of machines, and her 10-year old son John (Edward Furlong) is living with foster parents. After the initial failure of the first Terminator to complete its mission of eliminating Sarah, the evil Skynet has sent back an even more advanced model, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick), to hunt down and kill her son John before he can grow up to become the leader of the human resistance. However, John’s future self is not without his own resources as he has sent back a weapon of his own to protect his younger self, a reprogrammed Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) identical to the one that attempted to kill his mother ten years before.

A general rule about movies is that nine times out of ten the sequel may be on par with the original film, but rarely will it ever surpass what had come before; however, I feel very confident in saying that “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is easily one prime example of an exception to that rule. “The Terminator” was an excellent sci-fi movie that mixed futuristic elements with those of the modern day, but some may have wondered what more story could there possibly be since Sarah defeated the first Terminator, which should have saved her son and the future as well. Based on what I saw in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”, or “T2” for short, what happened in the original was merely the beginning of a much bigger problem for mankind.

Writer/director James Cameron has once more crafted an extremely taut, perfectly paced, sci-fi thriller that is leaps and bounds above what was done in the first movie. The story for “T2” is much bigger, the drama is more intense, the action is pulse-pounding, and the visual effects are still incredible even to this day. James Cameron must have known that he was merely laying the initial groundwork in “The Terminator” for a vast mythology surrounding mankind’s future against the evil machines, because that last scene in the original movie hinted that something bigger may be on the horizon. Even though so many of us had seen the first movie and caught on to the hint that there may be more to tell, who knew it would be this massive blockbuster of a film that remains just as popular all these years later. Where the first film briefly touched upon Skynet and gave us brief glimpses at the war that awaits us in the future, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” takes all of that and builds upon it greatly. “T2” explores how events in the original movie actually set into motion the events of the future, shows us a very emotionally raw heroine in Sarah Connor, a different side to the Terminator from the first film, and to top it off gave us even more glimpses into the future battles that will ravage mankind. The only thing I can say about the story for “T2” is that it is simply awesome, and is quite possibly one of the greatest follow-up story’s I have ever seen come out of Hollywood.

The cast of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is comprised of a few familiar faces and some new ones as well. Linda Hamilton reprises her role of Sarah Connor with a much more emotionally charged performance than what was required of her in the original movie. Sarah is a completely different person than she was when we last saw her, now she is this highly trained warrior that is emotionally scarred and torn by what she feels to be her duty to train her son to become the leader of man, and yet to still protect him and care for him as her child. Arnold Schwarzenegger is back, just as he promised in the first movie, as a reprogrammed Terminator, and proves yet again that this was the one role that he was born to play. Even though the character is just a machine, there are very neat moments within the movie where without saying much of anything, Arnold allows the Terminator to convey that there is some kind of connection that exists, a bond if you will, between the Terminator and John. James Cameron’s script really aided Arnold in what he was able to do with the Terminator this time around by exploring the fact that the machines can learn from and mimic humans, which allowed Arnold to show some, albeit limited, emotions while still remaining in character.

Joining the returning cast members we have newcomer Edward Furlong (“American History X”) as John Connor, the future leader of the human resistance. Considering the fact that “T2” was his first acting gig, Edward did an amazing job of bringing John to life in a very realistic way as a troubled kid whose destiny is too big for him to possibly fathom. The way Edward handled John’s interactions with the Terminator was very interesting, because early on John sees the machine as a means to an end, nothing more than an overgrown action figure of sorts; however, over the course of the movie he begins to form a bond with the Terminator that becomes almost like a father-son relationship, that was at times quite poignant. The other new addition to the series was actor Robert Patrick (“We Are Marshall”) as the new, deadlier, and much more sophisticated T-1000 Terminator model. Robert was given a very physically challenging role that required a lot of physical activity, but from an acting standpoint the role didn’t really challenge him all that much. That being said, as unchallenging as it was onscreen in the acting realm, I’m sure the preparation for all of the visual effects associated with his character were most likely quite time consuming and at times daunting.

In the first movie the visual effects were very good, especially given the time at which the film was made, although over time I admit that some of the effects have lost their luster. While that statement is true for 1984’s “The Terminator”, it couldn’t be farther from the truth when referring to the stellar special effects work done for 1991’s “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”. While technology has definitely improved significantly since 1991, the effects within this movie still hold up quite well, and while maybe not as perfect as today’s effects, they are still very impressive in their own right. For example the morphing technology, used to create the numerous effects sequences for the liquid Terminator, was so mind-blowing back in 1991, and yet even today it still looks astonishing.

As I stated earlier, while “The Terminator” was a great movie, what James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger were able to achieve with the sequel “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is simply amazing. Everything about this movie is just bigger and better than what was done in the original film, and this is an example of the kind of sequel that all studios should strive for when making a franchise.

“Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is rated R for violence and language.

Star Wars: The Original Trilogy

In 1977, George Lucas began crafting a series of movies that would shape the way modern cinema was made for generations to come. That series was none other than the ‘Star Wars’ saga, though he began his saga in 1977, the first movie was actually the middle chapter in a 6-part story. After the success of “Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” (then it was known only as “Star Wars”), George Lucas crafted the final 2 chapters in his epic space saga, “Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” and “Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi”. Upon completion of ‘Episode 6′, George took a hiatus from the grand universe he’d created, a hiatus that would last over 25 years, and would leave fans foaming at the mouth with anticipation. During the mid-nineties there were rumors abound that George was working on the first 3 chapters of his space saga, a rumor that was further fueled by the 1997 theatrical re-release of the original trilogy with new CGI effects and scenes added in. Finally in 1999, the time had arrived for the unveiling of the first chapter of the ‘Star Wars’ saga with, “Star Wars – Episode 1: The Phantom Menace”. Three years later he released “Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones”, and in 2005 George Lucas brought his series full circle with the much acclaimed, “Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith”. I have already reviewed the 3 films that comprise what is known as the prequel trilogy, and now it is time for me to finish my series of reviews based on the ‘Star Wars’ movies with my review of the box set of the original trilogy.

“Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” takes place approximately 16-20 years after the events of ‘Episode 3′. The galaxy is in turmoil under the iron fist rule of Emperor Palpatine and his Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Vader, who together are in complete control of the evil Empire. Their are very few heroes left in the galaxy, with almost all of the Jedi exterminated during the ‘Jedi Purge’ that was perpetrated by Darth Vader, all that remains of the former glory of the Republic is a growing group of rebels that hope to one day bring down the evil reign of the Empire. Assisting the Rebellion, led by an ambitious Princess from Alderaan, named Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), are an old man, who just so happens to be former Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi, a young farm boy from Tatooine, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and a space pirate named Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and his Wookie companion, Chewbacca. Together this rag-tag group of unlikely heroes hope to bring down the Empire’s newest weapon, the planet destroying ‘Death Star’, and the key to this mission rests in the most unlikely of places, with that of 2 droids, C-3PO and R2-D2.

“Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” picks up about 5 years after ‘Episode 4′. The ‘Death Star’ has been destroyed by Luke Skywalker, the Rebellion seemed to be on the upswing, but luck would not last forever, as the rebels have been forced to flee yet again to the ice planet of Hoth. Luke and Han have become formidable pilots for the Rebellion, though Han and Chewie are looking to leave in order to pay off a bounty on Han’s head, and Luke continues to strive to learn more about the Force, though his mentor and guide Obi-Wan Kenobi was killed at the hands of Darth Vader. For Luke to learn what he must to become a Jedi, and assist the Rebellion in overthrowing the darkness that is ruling the galaxy, Obi-Wan appears as a ‘Force Spirit’ to Luke and instructs him to seek out an old Jedi Master named Yoda who has exiled himself to a swamp planet called Dagobah. Will Luke be able to become the Jedi he is destined to be, or is it too late to hope for the galaxy?

“Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi” takes place a few months after ‘Episode 5′, as Luke, Leia, Lando, and Chewbacca are planning to free their captured comrade Han Solo from his Carbonite prison and from the clutches of the vile, sluggish-gangster, Jabba the Hutt. Once freed can Han and his friends in the Rebellion manage to destroy the currently under construction ‘Death Star 2′ that is being personally overseen by Darth Vader and his master, Emperor Palpatine. Will Luke become a true Jedi Knight, and lead the galaxy out of it’s darkness that has bound it for so long, or will he succumb to his anger, and embrace the legacy laid out by his father, Anakin Skywalker, by becoming a Dark Jedi? The fate of the galaxy hangs in the balance.

The ‘Star Wars’ saga has been by far one of the most influential film series’ ever created, and after viewing the entire 6-part saga all together, it really comes as no surprise. With groundbreaking special effects, and leading the way from film to Digital media, the ‘Star Wars’ saga has paved the way for how most of the films are created today in this modern age of cinema.

The three films listed above that comprise what has now become known as the Original trilogy still remain my absolute favorites out of the entire saga. Sure, the special effects aren’t nearly as clean or polished, or even mind-blowing as those featured in the prequels, but still considering the fact these films were made from 1977 through 1983, they’re still impressive enough on their own (of course some of them have been beefed up or completely redone over the course of the last 30 years). Aside from the special effects, what made these original three movies so special was their incredible storytelling and characters that are easy to relate to and root for throughout the course of their harrowing journey to save the galaxy from evil. It’s those kinds of qualities that have allowed this series to continue to thrive in popular culture, and for this Original trilogy to remain as beloved today, if not more so, than it was back when the movies were initially released to theaters.

The ‘Star Wars’ saga, and this Original trilogy of films within that saga, is one of those rare film series’ that actually does feature something for everyone in the family to enjoy. With it’s epic 6-part story, to it’s awe-inspiring battles and space flights, along with some comedy and romance thrown in for good measure, this series is not one to be missed, and without a doubt is one of the greatest movie series’ of all time!

“Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” is rated PG for violence.
“Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” is rated PG for violence.
“Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi” is rated PG for violence.

Braveheart

Freedom has always been something man has fought for since the beginning of time. Freedom from those who would oppress us in every way, from the way we dress, to what we are allowed to believe, even where we are allowed to live, we have always wanted the freedom to choose and to live as we see fit. In the Revolutionary War, our ancestors that settled here to form the 13 colonies chose to rebel against the oppressive forces of England that had oppressed them all their lives. Centuries before our ancestors fought for our freedom, Scotland was fighting for theirs from England, and even to this day that fight still continues to some degree. To bring the story of Scotland’s fight for freedom to the big screen, writer Randall Wallace (“The Man in the Iron Mask”) along with director and star Mel Gibson introduced audiences to the struggles faced by Scotland and her people in the dark ages epic, “Braveheart”.

“Braveheart” is the story of William Wallace (Mel Gibson), a brave Scotsman who was lured from his quiet life, when the regional governor kills his wife (Catherine McCormack). Now this once peaceful man has vowed to wage war on his country’s oppressors. Using his now famous long sword, fiery rage, and cunning intellect, William Wallace will rally his countrymen to fight for liberation against the King of England (Patrick McGoohan) and his vast army.

“Braveheart” is truly one of the greatest epic films of all time. Writer Randall Wallace has crafted a story based on the actual events of William Wallace’s heroic efforts to give freedom to his countrymen that audiences could relate to and would not soon forget. Of course a good story isn’t all an epic needs to be considered great, that’s only one significant piece to the puzzle, it also needs a great director with a vision that can give the story a grand scope. Directed by Mel Gibson, whose previous directing credit was the small drama “The Man Without a Face” (in which he also starred), “Braveheart” is filled with beautiful scenery that showcase the sweeping landscape that makes up the highlands of Scotland. Not only did Gibson capture the beauty that the land had to offer, but he also gives audiences some of the most brutal action sequences depicted in film that accurately portray the up close and personal nature of war in the days before guns or cannons, when the only way to fight a war was with swords and bows and arrows. This movie is a true no-holds-barred type of epic that is intended to not only entertain audiences, but also to enlighten them as to what has happened in other regions of the world far removed from our country and even our time.

The acting in this film is exceptional; each and every cast member gives their absolute best in every single scene. I can’t think of a single moment in the film where I thought some line or anything an actor did could have been done better. I think part of the reason that the acting is so great in this movie is not only the fact that Mel Gibson cast nothing but the best actors for the parts, but also because he himself is an actor that the other actors greatly respect and he knows exactly what it takes on the part of a director to get the necessary performance out of his actors. I also appreciated that this movie featured, or at least appeared to, many cast members that spoke with genuine accents that coincided with their character’s country of origin. Many times in these types of movies the actors are mostly American, and adopt an accent to portray their character, when this occurs it is with mixed results. Some actors can do accents very well, and you wouldn’t know the difference from their accent to a legitimate one from a native of that country, but other times the accent is so horrible that it’s insulting to anyone from the country that speaks with the same accent. So, when actual Scottish, Irish, and British actors and actresses were cast for this movie, it was a sure sign that the accents for “Braveheart” would be delivered accurately. As far as I could tell the only main cast member who wasn’t from any of those countries was Mel Gibson, and he handled the Scottish accent with what appeared to be great ease.

“Braveheart” is definitely not a film to be missed by any history buff or just movie fans in general, and should be on everyone’s must see list. I know that this review hardly does justice in regards to the praise that this film deserves, so to assist in praising this movie I give you the following evidence: In 1995 (when this film was released) “Braveheart” received 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Now, I know from my personal experience with watching plenty of movies that have been named Best Picture or even been nominated, that it doesn’t always mean that I will like the movie, because often times it seems those movies are so artistic or dull and depressing that I could care less whether I even finish them, but trust me “Braveheart” is not one of those cases, it is rather the exception to that rule.

“Braveheart” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

007: Casino Royale

Have you ever wondered what events helped make James Bond into the man we have known for the last few decades? Ever wanted to know how he achieved his ‘00’ status or why he treats women the way that he does? Well, if you do then you will no doubt want to watch the movie that is being called ‘the best Bond movie ever made’. The movie I’m talking about of course is “Casino Royale”. After over 20 movies, the producers of the ‘James Bond’ series felt it was time for a restart, a way to make Bond fresh for today’s audiences. So, what better way to do that than to begin this reboot of the franchise with the story that started it all, and let audiences everywhere discover just how James became Bond.

“Casino Royale” begins with a different kind of James Bond (Daniel Craig), as we are first introduced to him at a point in his career where he doesn’t even have his ‘00’ status as yet. However, it doesn’t take Bond long to achieve this level after he succeeds in assassinating two enemy agents in quick order, and the timing couldn’t be better. It turns out while James is becoming agent 007, a terrorist financier known as Le Chiffre is gambling heavily with his client’s money. It’s a risky move for sure when playing with other people’s money, especially when those people are terrorists, but it’s a move that has paid off time and again with very lucrative profits. But when Le Chiffre gambles his most recent client’s money on the stock market and loses, he quickly realizes that in order to survive he will have to pay back the money in short order before the terrorists notice that their money is missing. To accomplish this, Le Chiffre has organized a high-stakes poker tournament, and one he is confident that he will win. That is until ‘M’ (Judi Dench) the head of MI-6 assigns 007, who just so happens to be their best poker player, with the task of defeating Le Chiffre so that he will have no where to run from them or those he’s indebted to.

After more than 20 movies have utilized the character of ‘007’, and 5 actors had previously played the part, it’s hard to believe that MGM would want to just start over as if all that had never happened. Especially if they expect audiences to go along with them on this little endeavor, and I’m sure the fact that the previous ‘Bond’ movie “Die Another Day” being the most successful ‘007’ film to date didn’t make the decision any easier. But as difficult as it was to understand MGM’s reasoning, and as much skepticism regarding the casting of the first blonde James Bond caused amongst fans; after viewing the movie I have to say all my skepticism, along with everyone else’s was all for naught, and that MGM had made a very good choice.

“Casino Royale” is by far one of the best ‘James Bond’ movies ever to be made, if not the absolute best. The story for the movie was the most realistic of any ‘Bond’ movie, and also had so much ground to cover. It’s surprising the movie didn’t feel cluttered with the amount of groundwork that was laid for the already established franchise, but the writers delivered brilliantly. One terrific choice that was made for this film, and yet this was a decision that was possibly opposed even more vehemently than a blonde Bond, was the lack of gadgets that were to be included in this ‘Bond’ movie. Opting to go with a more realistic approach, there are virtually no special gadgets with which Bond can accomplish his various missions, and this decision proved to be just what “Casino Royale” needed to set itself high above its predecessors. Assisting in making this movie become so terrific was the excellent direction by Martin Campbell (“The Mask of Zorro”), who delivers an even better, more polished movie than his last foray into the world of James Bond, when he launched Pierce Brosnan’s career as MI-6’s most famous agent in “Goldeneye”. With this movie Martin Campbell proved that he was definitely the right man to bring James Bond back to reality.

As far as the actor chosen to portray agent 007, Daniel Craig was superb, though panned by fans and critics as not looking the part; after the movie was finished I believe almost everyone was in agreement that he is one of the best Bond’s ever in the franchise’s history. Craig’s performance shows audiences a much more gritty, battle-hardened agent who will do what it takes to get the job done, while at the same time he can show a vulnerability that hadn’t been seen before in these movies, as a Bond that makes mistakes and sometimes loses. It was nice to see Judi Dench return as ‘M’, though for continuity this doesn’t work since she didn’t become ‘M’ until the Pierce Brosnan movies, but that is a fact that can easily be overlooked, much like the various actors playing the title role. Rounding out the main cast of characters is Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the newest Bond girl, who James falls in love with only to have his heart torn apart, delivering him his most valuable lesson: Trust no one. While I had not seen Eva in any other movie prior to this film, or even since then, that I can recall, her performance here was very strong, and she portrayed a more conflicted Bond girl than most. Perhaps it was this conflicted nature that made her a more believable choice for Bond to fall for completely, as she had more to offer him than just her beautiful body.

Regardless of all the skepticism and nay-saying that surrounded this relaunch of Hollywood’s most enduring franchise, in the end “Casino Royale” had the absolute last word; proving to audiences and critics everywhere to never underestimate the man known as “Bond, James Bond”.

“Casino Royale” is rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality.

Aliens

After achieving huge critical and box office success with 1979’s “Alien”, it is surprising that 20th Century Fox didn’t rush a sequel into production, although at the time sequels were not so quick to arrive after their predecessors, but still the property was hot and the decision would have made them a lot of money. On the flip side, if a sequel had been rushed, the story may have suffered which would have lent to reduced box office and possibly the death of the franchise, so it’s probably a good thing that Fox exercised patience with this franchise and waited 7 years before releasing the James Cameron directed sequel, “Aliens” to excited audiences worldwide.

“Aliens” begins with Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the only surviving member of the Nostromo crew, being discovered by a salvage ship a half century after the events in “Alien”. Upon arriving on Earth, she discovers that a human colony has been set up on the very planet her former crew had found the creatures on. Not surprisingly, contact with that colony has been lost, and a squad of Marines are being prepared to be sent to the planet to determine what happened, if there are any survivors, and exterminate whatever creatures are left. However, the best bet the Marines have for success is if Ripley returns with them to the planet, so after just recovering from her fight with the first alien, and her excessively long sleep, Ripley finds herself face-to-face once more with the creatures of her nightmares.

James Cameron (director of “The Terminator”) was given no small task when he wrote and directed this sequel to the incredible 1979 film “Alien”. A major decison that Cameron made in creating this movie was changing the tone and type of movie this is from that of its predecessor. Instead of being a methodical game of cat-and-mouse, relying heavily on atmosphere and the audience’s imagination to craft the horror like the first movie, “Aliens” was a much more action-packed thrill ride with a little bit of horror thrown into the mix. The decision could have been costly by isolating fans of the work Ridley Scott had done on the first film; however, the decision worked out for the best, delivering audiences what is quite possibly a superior movie to “Alien”.

The story was much faster paced, yet still not skimpy on the details or the fear factor, with more action involving the aliens. Though shadows were not used as heavily in this film as they were in the original, the suspense surrounding when and where the aliens would strike next was equally thrilling to that of Ridley Scott’s creation. The special effects work in this one was better than the original (as it should be considering advancements made during the 7 year gap between films), but the best part about the effects for this movie was the practical effects work that was done to create the massive alien creature known as the Queen. The effects for that alien is some of the best practical effects seen in almost any movie, and the final fight between the Queen and Ripley is incredibly fun to watch.

The cast, led by Sigourney Weaver (the only returning cast member from the original), was full of talented actors such as Michael Biehn, Paul Reiser, and Lance Henriksen who each brought a depth and reality to each of their characters that is often lacking in action/horror films. The success of “Aliens”, coupled with that of the first film brought even more acclaim for actress Sigourney Weaver, who solidified her place in the pantheon of great action heroes (or heroines), and even garnered her an Oscar nomination for her work in this film.

“Aliens” is an excellent sequel to one of the greatest monster movies ever made, and is still regarded to this day as one of the best sequels ever created.

“Aliens” is rated R for violence and language.

Goodfellas

In the 1970’s director Francis Ford Coppola treated audiences with possibly the most accurate, yet somewhat romanticized, depiction of life in the mafia with his brilliant films “The Godfather” and “The Godfather 2″. Ever since those two movies, no other movie has come close to touching the quality that is displayed in these two films for this genre, some have tried and come close (“The Godfather 3″ being chief among them), but none have succeeded. That is until director Martin Scorsese released his biopic on the life of mobster Henry Hill with “Goodfellas”.

“Goodfellas” follows the life of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a small-time hood who happens to participate in a robbery with Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro), calm and calculating individual, and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), a psycho with an incredibly short fuse. Little did Henry know that this robbery would place him on the path to becoming a ‘made man’ in the very mafia family that Jimmy Conway eventually becomes head of. As Henry Hill rises through the ranks of ‘La Cosa Nostra’ he manages to find some peace and stability when he meets a young woman (Lorraine Braco) that he marries and begins a family. However, the excesses of mafia life eventually begin to get the better of Henry, as he begins to unravel, and making matters worse his one-time friend and Don, Jimmy Conway believes Henry may be a threat to him and plots to ‘whack’ him. With his life in possible jeopardy, Henry has two choices, one stay true to the family and face possible execution, or two, become a government informant and be placed into Witness Protection, becoming a rat in the eyes of the ‘family’.

Director Martin Scorsese’s work here is by far some of his best. His gritty, realistic approach to this true story, really shows the audience the great wealth and success (if you can call it that) that mafia life can have, while at the same time showing the pitfalls that can occur in that same life. The cast that Scorsese has managed to bring together for this film is truly excellent, and the performances by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Ray Liotta are so powerful, and at times scary, that you can really appreciate the great talent that these actors possess. The supporting cast is equally talented, and just as worthy of praise as the three leads. An interesting note is that for his role of the psychotic Tommy DeVito, Joe Pesci improvised some of the more extreme moments the character has, earning him great critical praise and somewhat typecasting him in this type of role.

The story is an excellent cautionary tale on what can happen when your choices lead you on the wrong path, even though it’s the only path you ever dreamed of. The movie is probably just as strong as “The Godfather”, maybe even stronger due to it’s even greater authenticity and lack of romanticizing life in the mafia. For those moviegoers that enjoy mafia themed movies, but have never seen this gangster classic, you must do yourself a huge favor and watch this movie, you will not be disappointed.

“Goodfellas” is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/brief nudity.