Judicial Retention Elections: Director’s Cut

We movie critics take a lot of flac. People accuse us of lazily taking cheap shots at directors, actors and techs who break their backs and offer up their work. Occasionally, someone will say “Why don’t you just make a movie yourself, if you think it’s so easy?”

So, I decided to try it. It was a few months ago that I was introduced to Xtranormal.com, the website that allows ordinary people to make movies by selecting characters and locations from a menu, and typing dialogue. And I have to admit, having actually put my nose to the grind stone, that … movie making is really easy! I don’t know why all those studios, with billions of dollars at their disposal, couldn’t get it right, when I did this with a laptop and a few hours. I’m partly joking of course, but I do want to draw attention to three good things that Xtranormal will contribute to the American cinema: One, it puts a bit more of the power in the hands of ordinary people to counteract the Hollywood propaganda machine. Two, you can’t fill your movie up with car chases and explosions, so it forces the audience to focus on dialouge. And three, most of the people who will use Xtranormal will likely be people who have something worthwhile to say to the world, as I did when I made the film below. Enjoy.

Thor

The Marvel universe continues its expanse as Thor plunders into theaters.  The god of thunder comes from Shakespearean-auteur Kenneth Branagh who blends dynamics of action and character to create one of the better superhero thrill rides this side of The Dark Knight.

Riding the lightning as the title character is Chris Hemsworth in his first major leading role, and I must say, like Downey of Iron Man, the lead actor makes the movie. Hemsworth owns the character, he owns the film, and he will surely own this franchise.  Balancing out the silliness of the plot and otherworldly English of proper, Branagh’s newfound star plays Thor, the son of King Odin (Anthony Hopkins)—ruler of the Asgard realm.  About to be named heir to the throne during a planetary ceremony, the walls of Asgard are breached by enemies of another world.  Luckily the mighty fortress is protected, but Thor isn’t satisfied.  Egged on by his younger brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor becomes impassioned with delivering the intruders a message and sends out with a group of warrior pals to meet his foes at their doorstep which ignites a war of the worlds.  Thor and his comrades are vastly outnumbered as King Odin comes to the rescue.  Aggravated with his son’s arrogance and recklessness, Odin strips Thor of his metaphysical abilities and casts him out to Earth along with his powerless weapon of choice—the mighty hammer.

Now stranded on Earth, the mighty warrior enters the lives of a team of physicists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), dodging SHIELD authorities in the process.  There’s a lot of hooey talk of portals and disturbances in the upper atmosphere as the studio is desperate to explain the existence of Thor from a scientific perspective—mainly to tie him in with the ‘Earth-bound’ avengers Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and others.  Once Jane accepts her discovery of a chiseled slab of man as a warrior god, Thor’s jealous younger brother no sooner sends enemies to Earth to erase the existence of his stranded sibling once and for all.

As a studio tentpole and comic-book adaptation, Thor is far better than anything we would’ve seen ten years ago.  Writers have been approaching this material with earnestness and passion, determined to deliver first-rate products.  Because of this, audiences have been spoiled with such impressive offerings as the first Iron Man, the new Batman films, Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2, that we sort of forget that these movies can’t all necessarily be A+ features.  Thor, however, is more in line with the latest trend of quality superhero films than other stink piles of recent memory (Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Elektra, X-Men Origins: Wolverine).

Special Effects and action can be hit-or-miss as far as first-rate techs go, but the sequences are consistently involving.  Thor’s world is particularly designed and detailed, giving us a sense of the character’s background and struggle.  The characters are particularly well-developed, especially those occupying Asgard.  The actors do their best to participate in a magnum opus of silliness, with straight faces and a sense of fun at the same time.  Thor only seems to come up short when much of the story centers on Asgard rather than forces that threaten our planet.  Once the god of thunder finds himself stranded on Earth, his human companions stir up comedy and human interest, but the movie begins to lull periodically.  That’s alright with me.  Branagh gives his film time to settle down and breathe without relentlessly retreating to attack mode.  Since the film is designed to lead straight into The Avengers a year from now, I’m certain Earth will finally see Thor protecting our vulnerable little world to great extent.

As Marvel continues to conjoin these franchises, I’m curious to see how Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, and the Hulk survive once the fellowship is broken after Avengers rakes in hundred of millions of dollars.  Iron Man 3 is already in the works, as is a sequel to Thor.  Luckily, Thor seems to have more story to tell as the character relationships have space to blossom, specifically between Jane and Thor.  The filmmakers took notes from the first Iron Man as Stark and Pepper slowly but surely evolved their relationship.  Romance and sparks only tease the audience throughout most of Thor‘s first outing, leaving us wanting more.  Hemsworth and Portman have plenty of chemistry, and that’s where Branagh succeeds in delivering a superhero film about likable and believable characters amidst an outrageous plot, dorky costumes, and oddball creatures.  Forget about the whirlwind of action and useless 3D conversion (yes, skip the 3D).  Marvel and Branagh have given us another sensational hero and a major star to fill his shoes.  Bring on another round.

[Rating:3.5/5]

Fast Five

The Summer movie season has kicked off a week early with Fast Five, sneaking in the schedule a week ahead of Marvel’s Thor.  Fast Five (for the uninitiated) is the fifth installment of The Fast and the Furious franchise—a series of films that at one point had lost its two leading stars Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.  Once both men needed career revivals two years ago, Justin Lin, the director of Tokyo Drift (the third installment) brought back Diesel and Walker for the most lucrative film in the franchise.  Now that it has been ten years since the original film debuted in 2001, I am shocked to find this franchise finding any relevancy in a busy market.  Look at how Scream 4 was recently burned alive.  But I suppose if you build a flick around macho guys, babes, fast cars, guns, and explosions, audiences will find it.

Fast Five picks up where Fast and Furious left off.  Dominic Torretto (Vin Diesel) has been convicted of his past run-ins with the law and is off to prison.  Do you think he gets there?  Neither did I.  Former Fed Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Dom’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) take on a major rescue operation involving the rollover of a bus carrying the prisoners.  The team reunites in Rio for a heist of pricey sports cars.  The plan is ridiculous—torch the side of a train moving at 70 mph or so, align a moving loading ramp along the side, and drive the cars from inside the locomotive off the train via the ramp.  Unfortunately for the gang, the men they are working with have alternative plans, and the job goes sour.  Dom and Brian escape in one of the stolen cars (in a ridiculous physics-defying sequence) and soon realize they are in possession of a computerized microchip installed in the vehicle that has the personal accounting information of the notorious druglord they were pulling the job for—worth $100 million.  Dom sees this as an opportunity to pull off “one amazing last heist that will have him walk away from crime forever.”  Brian, having just realized he is a father-to-be with Mia, is down.  But they need to assemble a team, featuring a herd of F&F series veterans: Tyrese Gibson, Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges, Sung Kang, and others.  The band of thugs meet up in Rio to plot the smash-and-grab, but the stakes become greater as a Special Forces strike team led by Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson—bulky and sweaty as ever) is on the trail of Torretto and O’Connor, and will do whatever it takes to bring them down.

If Fast Five is to be enjoyed, it can only be enjoyed as a cheesefest.  I still don’t know if I actually liked it, however, I can say I was entertained.  The series has been off and on for me, but it never quite works without Vin Diesel behind the wheel.  Luckily Justin Lin has decided to shift the series and turn it into a straightforward action franchise and shed much of the street racing antics.  We still get some of that, and several shiny autos, but F&F is now all bang-bang mayhem with lives at stake.  The action reminded me of Peter Berg film.  It’s gritty, intense, fast-moving, merciless—all the while in a PG-13 landscape.  A lot of people get brutally killed in Fast Five, but there is little-to-no bloodshed to be seen.  The ‘heroes’ continually manage to narrowly escape being hurt or killed as bands of assault-rifle wielding good guys and bag guys pursue them, so much so that it doesn’t take long for them to mirror a pack of roadrunners being chased by a bunch of witless coyotes.  The mano-a-mano brawl between Diesel and Johnson (soon to be infamous) has them bludgeoning each other to pulps, but there is hardly  a blood drop, and by the next scene they are just fine.  I picture these two freight trains crashing into each other in a very impressive and violent duel, and walking away without a dent.  It doesn’t make sense at all.  But, hey, the franchise wouldn’t sell as an R-rated film.

In the end, Lin’s film is a walking vegetable.  It may be completely brain-dead, but it sure has a pulse.  Luckily the man knows how to stage action sequences and film them in such a way that the audience can comprehend what is going on and to whom it’s happening.  I appreciate a visual style that makes sense in a market so influenced by those Jason Bourne films.  Granted, the action in Fast Five is completely impossible—and I won’t dare to spoil the outrageous howlers of sequences boiling over in this installment—but at least you can follow it and appreciate it as an over-the-top exercise in macho excess.  Diesel and Johnson bring charisma and presence to the table and ultimately make this movie, one that’s about 20 minutes too long and full of actors meant to ‘function’ rather than ‘act.’  So if you’re in for some hich-octane stupidity, constant eight-word catchphrases, and a series that is now dangerously becoming the next Saw franchise in terms of re-appearing characters and loosely connected plot threads across the previous installments, then Fast Five is exactly what you’re looking for in mindless entertainment.

[Rating:3/5]

The Naked Gun and Police Academy

The Naked GunPolice AcademyBefore delving into a real comparison of these two movies, I should probably offer a disclaimer.  While I am using the category “Comedy” to file these movies here on Walking Taco, only one actually qualifies.  The Naked Gun is indeed a comedy by any definition: it’s smart and quick-witted, with a host of jokes ranging from cheap visual gags to elaborately constructed setpieces that go to great lengths just to get a laugh.  It also stars one of the funniest comic actors in the last three decades: Leslie Nielsen, whose deadpan delivery and impeccable comic timing have yet to be replicated.  Police Academy, however, is about as far from a comedy as a movie could possibly be.  Full of a cast of dull one-dimensional characters, painfully obvious setups leading to head-smacking punchlines that are an insult even to middle-school humor, this cinematic travesty is a turkey I would not wish upon anyone.  And it’s big star?  That dubious distinction goes to…(drum roll please)…Steve Guttenberg.  *sigh*

So what’s left to write about?  A lot, actually.

Frank Drebin

Frank Drebin, kicking criminal behinds and taking names...if only he could find a notepad.

Nearly every comic send-up today owes a huge debt to comedies like The Naked Gun and its forebears, Top Secret! and of course Airplane! (Because sometimes a title just needs an exclamation mark to, you know, really nail the point.) These types of spoofs work well because they offer pitch-perfect parodies of their subject matter (police movies, Elvis movies, and disaster movies, respectively) while never taking themselves seriously.  The Naked Gun, like most good parodies, has a plot that would actually work well in and of itself: the queen of England is coming to town, but her visit is put in grave danger by the threat of an assassin.  Veteran detective Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is called upon to protect the queen while also investigating the attempted murder of his longtime partner Nordberg (O.J. Simpson, who flexes an impressive set of comedy chops).  This fairly mundane premise offers fertile ground for all kinds of jokes and sight gags, and hardly any scene goes by without some kind of pun, joke, or visual absurdity.  While some fall flat, creators David and Jerry Zucker take a quantity-over-quality joke, flooding the movie with such a massive amount of comic moments that it’s impressive to behold.  From the opening credits, which are shown while the camera sits atop a police car, siren blaring, that careens through all kinds of strange locales including gritty city streets, a car wash, and a suburban living room, we know exactly what kind of movie it’s going to be.

Carey Mahoney.  Um...yeah.

Carey Mahoney. Um...yeah.

Police Academy, by contrast, stumbles from the opening scene and only gets worse from there out.  During the opening credits we are told point blank (violating one of the most basic rules of storytelling, show don’t tell) that the mayor of the city has declared that the police academy will accept anyone regardless of age, physical fitness, or education level.  Get it? Lots of crazy people are going to be put through cop training!  Oh gosh, I wonder what kind of wacky hijinks they will come up with!  …*sigh*…  Sure enough, we get a checklist of stupid characters so generic it almost hurts:  the dumb fat guy, the over-zealous military wannabe, the suave Latino, the silly black guy, the serious black guy, the hot chick, and finally our (supposedly) good-looking bad boy Carey Mahoney (Gutenberg).  Any and all attempts at humor land with a dull thud, such as when the fat guy (honestly, character names don’t even matter) shows up and asks Mahoney about the Academy.  Mahoney, who is desperate to get thrown out of the place, tells him that the Commandant’s house is the main office.  Gee, I wonder what will happen next?  Yup, you guessed it.  The stupid fat guy goes in the front door, continues through the living room, and accidentally walks in on the Commandant’s wife while she is taking a shower.  I mean seriously, it’s such an insipid setup for such a dumb joke I just about shut the movie off right then and there lest I actually get dumber while watching.  And the hope that maybe, just maybe, things would improve.

Nope…every single “joke” is just as stupid.  I honestly tried to find something funny in Police Academy, but like The Hangover, the film relies on raunch, substituting filth for funny.  It’s a startling contrast to The Naked Gun, which is funny because it takes serious situations and turns them on their head in hilarious ways you would never expect.  E. B. White said that analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies. Rather than taking apart an amphibian, I would suggest that anyone interested in finding out what makes something funny just watch The Naked Gun and Police Academy.  Or better yet, just skip the latter and watch The Naked Gun twice.

Rating:

The Naked Gun[Rating:4.5/5]

Police Academy[Rating:0.5/5]

Unstoppable

UnstoppableTony Scott is kind of like the Toyota Corolla of directors.  He’s not your go-to guy when you want creativity, exceptional storytelling, or cinematic wonder.  But he’s reliable, always gets the job done, and you will probably have some fun along the way too.  Having never achieved quite the level of notoriety as his older brother Ridley Scott, creator of groundbreaking films like Alien and Blade Runner, he has nonetheless careved out a comfortable niche for himself over the years by churning out action films ranging from decent to pretty darn good.  You might have never heard of his movies Deja Vu, Spy Game, or Crimson Tide (and if not, you should definitely check them out) but titles like Days of Thunder and Top Gun will definitely ring a bell.  Unstoppable fits perfectly within the Tony Scott catalog, offering an engaging thrill ride with likable characters and just enough explosions to keep the crowd cheering.

Like another movie about a fast-moving vehicle that cannot be stopped, Unstoppable is about as straightforward as they come: a runaway train full of (what else?) toxic waste must be stopped before it ravages the Pennsylvania countryside, not to mention another train full of (because if you’re gonna go, you might as well go all the way) young schoolchildren. The Commonwealth’s only hope for salvation from certain doom lies in the hands of grizzled “I’ve seen it all, son” train engineer Frank (Denzel Washington, doing his working-man schtick) and young wet-behind-the-ears punk conductor Will (Chris Pine, whose steel-blue eyes lit up the screen a couple years ago as Captain Kirk).  Sure this unlikely pair starts off on the wrong foot, what with Will’s penchant for disobedience and Frank’s insistence on always following the rules.  But when a typical day of switching train cars and hauling freight goes spiraling out of control, who ya gonna call?

Unstoppable: Denzel Washington

Because there aren't enough hero shots of Denzel Washington on top of a train.

The curious thing about Unstoppable is that our heroes spend pretty much the entire movie confined to a closet-sized train cab, while most of the action happens entirely out of their control.  Frank and Will are not on the runaway train, but on another train traveling on the same tracks.  If this were The French Connection, Bullitt, or another prototypical chase movie, vehicles would be careening about while exploding all manner of flotsam and jetsam. But Scott wisely builds tension with escalating doomsday scenarios that start with the possible impact of the train with a couple of horses and ends with the possibility of the runaway train essentially transforming a good chunk of blue-collar Pennsylvania into a toxic wasteland.  And while the archetypal corporate types at Railroad HQ want to simply derail the train and cut their losses, Frank decides to take matters into his own hands and essentially run down the train with the locomotive he and Will are riding in, couple to it, and throw their engine in reverse.  It’s a plan that’s so crazy it just might work.

The real life scenario upon which this movie is based was nowhere near as dramatic as Scott’s version, but the conductors were no less heroic than their Hollywood counterparts.  But the other characters are a little too overwrought and one-dimensional to be taken seriously.  From the railroad president, who pauses his game of golf just long enough to ask if the runaway train will affect his company’s stock price, to the horrendously incompetent train engineer who is responsible for the train’s escape in the first place, everyone whose name is not on the movie poster is pretty much here to deliver obvious exposition or blatantly further the conflict.  It’s not a bad thing, though, as this keeps the focus of the movie sharp and uncluttered.  And through smart pacing and a couple decent side-plots involving other characters attempting to bring the runaway train to a halt, Unstoppable succeeds at being a thoroughly entertaining action movie that really does a good job of keeping viewers engaged and (dare I say it? Yes I think so) on the edge of their seats.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Tangled

Every woman who has ever known me well enough to talk about such things has told me that Disney movies made her wish that she had blond hair, as so many Disney heroines did. I never really understood it at the time, especially since there are non-blond Disney heroines. Not only that, but I’d always thought jet-black hair was far more attractive than blond. The Fates smiled on me, and one day I met the beautiful, black-haired Asian woman who is now my wife. However, she is always talking about wanting to dye her hair other colors, especially (of all things) blond. Yuck. But I digress. More recently, I’ve begun to see why so many women feel the way they do about Disney and hair. Disney’s latest animated fairy tale makes the picture pretty clear, as it comes right out and declares the two points Disney has always been making.

First point: brown-haired girls are useless. Disney has always hinted at this. While the hair colors of their leading ladies are more diverse than some people acknowledge, there has only ever been one brown-haired Disney heroine (unless you count Megara, who is a pretty small part of the Hercules plot, not to mention terribly drawn). However, in Tangled they just come right out and say it. The villainess, Mother Gothel (Donna Murphey), discovers a magic flower that has the power to keep her young forever. Centuries later, the flower is uprooted and made into medicine to save an ailing, pregnant, brown-haired queen. The queen then gives birth to Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), who has long, flowing blond hair, that contains the flower’s power. Gothel kidnaps her and spirits her away to a secluded tower to keep herself young. We later learn that Rapunzel’s hair can never be cut, or it will turn *gasp!* brown and lose its power. Isn’t that a slap to the face of every brunette in the audience.

On the upside, Disney may have found their most likable heroine ever in Rapunzel. The princesses of Disney’s golden age (e.g. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) were justifiably criticized for being overly passive, depending on a man for their happiness, and waiting to be rescued. On the other hand, Disney’s silver age reeks of overcompensation for this. In the early ‘90s Disney subjected us to a whole generation of Kimpossible-esque princesses spouting musical rhetoric about making their own choices and marrying only for love. It wasn’t terrible, but it was an obvious attempt to be politically correct in an age of commercials full of girls playing soccer and shouting about how girls kick butt. Then, as Disney descended back into mediocrity, they had their heroines attempting near-suicidal stunts and fighting more than Lara Croft. Esmerelda slapped and kicked her way through innumerable guards in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It was all pretty forced.

Lara Croft as a Disney Princess

Rapunzel transcends all of this. On the spectrum between pining prince-craver and emasculating bitch she really doesn’t show up anywhere. She’s a pretty simple character; all she wants is to get out of her tower for a day. She’s humble, yet full of life. Adventurous, yet real and relatable. She’s warm, human and caring. Far less sexualized than Esmerelda, Jasmine, or even Ariel, she’s still thoroughly female. She’s spontaneous, pretty and, yes, blond.

Not only that, but Rapunzel actually has a legitimate grievance in her life. Just when I thought I’d go insane if I had to listen to one more spoiled brat sing about her desire for “adventure in the great wide somewhere,” it was easy to sympathize with the plight of a girl who just wanted to see what was outside her bedroom.

Our male lead (Zachary Levi) is a bit more of a stock character; not too different from Aladdin or Phoebes, but he’s still a lot of fun to watch.

This horse is a better fencer than his rider.

Of course, you can’t have a good story without a villainess to antagonize the primal couple. Disney has been through a real dry spell of villainesses in the last couple decades; the last one I can name was Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I am happy to report that sinister femininity is back with a vengeance in Tangled. Which brings up the second point Disney is trying to make: Black-haired women are evil. The queen in Snow White, Malificent in Sleeping Beauty, The Queen of Hearts, Cruella Devil – they all had black hair (or black horns). Even Ursula had black hair once she transformed into a young woman for the last act. It’s also worth noting that, while Disney does have black-haired heroines, none of them are Caucasian, except Snow White.

True to form, our antagonist in Tangled has black hair. Not only that, but director Nathan Greno uses this hair extensively to emphasize her evilness. Time after time it frames her face for a menacing close-up, or flows into a black cloak that she’s wearing. In all fairness, though, Gothel is a pretty three-dimensional character, especially for a villain. It actually took me almost half the movie to be sure that she was the villain, and that’s rare. Early on, she’s mainly a doting, if over-protective, mother for Rapunzel. It just makes it that much more fun to watch her true colors come out later.

All in all, this is a genuinely terrific movie, and you owe it to yourself to check it out. Disney succeeds here where they’ve often failed – in making a movie just as enjoyable for adults as for children – and they did it with almost no violence or sensuality. Tangled deliciously skewers every Disney cliché, from emotive animals to ridiculously spontaneous musical numbers. The story is loaded with hilarity from start to finish, and it’s also a story full of true love, overcoming one’s fears, and often heart-wrenching self-sacrifice. It reminded me of why I once loved Disney. And while I no longer do, and never will again, it was really good to go back for an evening.

[Rating:4.5/5]

Battlestar Galactica: Season 2.5

Battlestar Galactica Season 2.5One of the challenges when doing serial television is that the plot always has to move forward.  It’s sometimes difficult to put things on hold and explore characters or issues in isolation from the main story arc, especially when the entire premise for a show is based on an overarching plotline.  Of course the main draw of serial television is that it always gives viewers something new to look forward to: how will this get resolved? What will happen next? Will they make it out alive? Or, in the case of shows like Lost, there’s always the hope of finding out answers to deep-seeded questions.  Battlestar Galactica straddles the line between episodic and standalone, with the constant threat of the Cylons looming like a shadow over the remnants of humanity while single episodes are also devoted to tangents that go deeper into the character side of things.  Season 2.5 continues all the threads set forth in Season 2, though in a bit of a departure there are also a couple of episodes that could feasibly stand entirely on their own and have virtually nothing at all to do with the Cylons.  It culminates in a two-part finale that throws caution to the wind and takes the series in an entirely new direction altogether, setting up some major changes in the plot for both humans and cylons.  In short, Season 2.5 in many ways lives up to the promise of the show when it first started.

In typical Battlestar Galactica fasion, things start to go bad pretty quickly after the reunion of the Pegasus and the rest of the fleet at the end of Season 2.0.  Power struggles, military coups, and strained relationships are the name of the game as the fleet struggles to deal with a change of leadership and shifting political alliances among the various fleet ships.  This kind of political intrigue is actually one of the best things about the show, as a constant theme of fallibility is reiterated throughout several episodes.  Leaders, even the venerable Commander Adama, make mistakes even when they think they are doing the right thing, and it often costs valuable resources or even human lives.  This sets Battlestar Galactica apart from other science fiction shows in that actions have very real and lasting consequences, not neat little bows that are perfectly tied up at the end of each episode.  A couple of prominent characters meet their end in Season 2.5, and their loss does not come across as a cheap ploy to up the dramatic tension but seems like the natural result in a series of tough choices made by them or others around them.

Battlestar Galactica: Starbuck

Starbuck, fighting cylons and taking names.

One of my earlier criticisms of the show was that it often focused more on shock-and-awe rather than exploring characters and human issues, and a great many strides are taken to rectify this in Season 2.5. One particular episode, Black Market, explores some particularly heavy issues for Apollo as he comes to realize some harsh truths about the unvarnished side of humanity that flourishes even in the ragtag collection of spaceships and traders all struggling to survive.  Echoes of desegregation struggles and present-day cultural tensions are brought to light as well through the fleet’s struggle to accept Sharon, a cylon who becomes increasingly integral to the human remnant. There’s even an episode titled Scar that sheds an entirely new light on the cylons when we discover that even though they are essentially programmed computers, they have personalities and even the flying ship drones might be far more human-like than was previously thought.  Of course there are still what seem like requisite soap opera storylines with various characters hooking up, getting jealous, and retaliating, but thankfully these are severely toned down.

The series culminates in what is easily the most dramatic departure for the show yet, and the final two-part episode brings some incredible changes to the Battlestar Galactica we have grown to know so well. And it’s a good thing too, since the cylons-hunting-humans storyline begins to wear a little thin.  As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the problems with this kind of premise since things continually point to a culmination or climax, but should that point ever be reached the show itself might cease to have a reason for existing.  And the drastic change of events at the end of season 2.5 is somewhat of a bellwether for the show as a whole, keeping enough of the former storyline intact while allowing for sweeping changes in order to keep things fresh and new at the same time.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

The Towering Inferno

The Towering Inferno isn’t exactly a complicated movie.  The premise here is pretty simple:  A gigantic building catches fire.  People are trapped, and the fire department has to come put it out.  Sure there are other storylines going on, and an ensemble of interesting characters to follow, but these periphery elements are really just there to advance the story about the fire and ratchet up the tension even more.  The Towering Inferno is a big-budget disaster flick in the grandest tradition of the genre, starring some of the biggest names in movie history, and for the most part it gets everything right.  From the start we are introduced to Paul Newman, an architect who has just finished putting up San Francisco’s newest skyscraper:  a 130-story tall behemoth that makes all other skyscrapers seem like LEGO projects.  There’s a big party right near the top floor where all the most important people in town have shown up for a gala event in order to commemorate the opening of the structure.  And on the bottom floor an electrical engineer is worried about the potential for fires due to low-quality wiring and other cost-cutting measures.

Gee, I wonder what will happen.

Sure enough a fire breaks out, and it’s up to our hero to save everyone.  Well, along with a little bit of help from the fire department and Chief O’Hallorhan, played by Steve McQueen.  Several decades ago, movie stars didn’t get any bigger than Paul Newman or Steve McQueen.  But just like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino in their heydays, these two stars rarely shared screen time together.  So putting them in the same movie was virtually guaranteed to produce a hit, not to mention tossing other names in for good measure like Faye Dunaway and Fred Astaire.  It all adds up to a tension-filled action movie that starts off a little slow but once it gets going, never lets up clear through it two-and-a-half hour run time.

"And then I'll launch myself over the building on a motorcycle..."

Audiences today have grown accustomed to big-budget disaster flicks and massive destruction scenes like those in the spectacularly overblown epic 2012.  And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as modern visual effects wizardry can put us right in the middle of the path of destruction like never before (not to mention the 3D technologies that are becoming increasingly common in movies).  But part of the appeal of The Towering Inferno is seeing the building catch fire, watching massive sets being destroyed right before our eyes, and knowing that the flames are real even if the walls and windows are fake.  If this movie were made today, we would be subjected to all sorts of zooms and pans through CGI fire while actors were safely prancing around in front of green screens.  Newman and McQueen even did many of their own stunts, including some rather dangerous ones near the end during the final last-ditch effort to quench the blaze.

Several bits of the plot are so contrived it’s practically groan-worthy, such as the introduction of a deaf character who doesn’t know the fire alarms are blazing, the mere existence of the cocky son-in-law of the building owner who instructed the construction workers to cut corners, and even (yes they actually went there) a kitty cat who needs rescuing.  But the real star of the show is the enormous blaze and the sheer futility of all the efforts of the firemen to stop it.  A couple different schemes are attempted in order to rescue the party guests, and some of them fail spectacularly and even a little unexpectedly.  Even though the end is never really in doubt, it’s a fun ride and a fantastic disaster movie that could easily hold its own against anything Hollywood has to offer today.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]