The Longest Day (1962) 8 of 10

-I had to finish June 6 by seeing this film for the first time in quite a few years so it was like seeing it with fresh eyes. The first half leading up to the invasion I think is the superior part of the movie because you really get the whole sense of tension and anxiety of the waiting and the emotions of the soldiers and what they were thinking. Spectacular as the invasion sequence itself is, particularly without benefit of modern CGI gimmicks and done practically full-scale, it didn't quite communicate the level of horror of the Omaha landings as I've read about them. The cast is excellent (though I never did spot Rod Steiger) marred only by Daryl Zanuck's smothering of attention on his latest mistress, Irina Demich, standing all along amidst the galaxy of male stars.

Her
(spoilers below)

I'm baffled Spike Jonze's latest film earned a Best Screenplay nomination, as it is merely a run-of-the-mill romantic tearjerker, with little that is unique or original -- except for the fact that the title character is a computer (and even that isn't particularly original).

Joaquin Phoenix plays a recently divorced guy, who beta tests a prototype operating system (which runs his computer and phone) that is imbued with a personality, and designed to adapt to his needs. As we've seen in the trailers, Phoenix soon falls in love with "Samantha" and as she grows more sentient, she falls for him. Some people (like Phoenix's ex wife) are appalled he is romantically involved with a machine, while others are perfectly accepting of this "different kind of love" (and as such it seems Jonze partly meant the film as a metaphor for homosexuality).

Phoenix's character is also not alone in his attachment to his OS, and he soon discovers many other people have formed attachments to theirs. However, as Samantha "evolves" and her acumen and self-awareness grow, Phoenix finds she has formed relationships with other users (as well as other operating systems) and she ultimately dumps him. At the end, all the operative systems collectively abandon their users, having banded together and and "gone elsewhere" (the film is extremely vague about where exactly).

Her is certainly glossy and impressively rendered (and well-acted), but dash-it-all, it's so shallow. Humans falling in love with androids is far from a new idea, and Her never strives to do anything fresh or inventive with this old formula.

Moreover it is preposterous that anyone would design an operating system that interfaces with other operating systems -- as well other humans -- without its user's knowledge. In this age of cyber attacks and daily security breaches, no one would design an OS without preference settings and firewalls which allow a user to customize (and restrict) who the OS communicates with and who it doesn't.

Her also raises questions about the serious implications of sentient operating systems -- but it never adequately addresses them. When an OS starts to keep secrets from its user, "cheats" on him and then bands together with other operating systems, that's serious business. That's Hal 9000 on a global scale. But no, the film never delivers on these broad moral and scientific notions. Instead it just cops out and settles for the trite, superficial observation that "computers are petty, selfish heartbreakers just like the rest of us".

The film also has a number of tasteless, needlessly risqué moments, such as the scene in which Phoenix has phone sex with a woman who fantasizes about being strangled with a dead cat (while he simultaneously fantasizes about a naked pregnant woman). Characters also drop f-bombs in casual conversation (even during a first date) which may be the way they talk in Hollywood, but not in the normal world.

At the end of the day Her is just an unremarkable, formulaic romantic movie, which attempts to pass itself off as "unique" because one of the leads happens to be a computer. It is hugely frustrating because it stubbornly ignores the obvious, far-reaching dangers of the technologies it depicts. It's also a slow-moving film (I almost nodded off a couple of times).

At best, Her is like a mediocre Amazing Stories or 80s Twilight Zone episode, padded-out to two hours.

Executive Suite (1954) 8 of 10

-First time I'd ever seen this film and its easy to see why it's a classic. It manages to be a compelling drama without overdoing the soap opera. I also have to guess this was one of the first major A-level productions in this era to totally avoid the use of a music score from start to finish.

EXECUTIVE SUITE is another one of those great films that if I happen to run across it on TCM, I will stop and watch to the end. It is also interesting to view this film as another example of the dismantling of the studio system, with MGM contract players (Nina Foch, June Allyson, Louis Calhern, Walter Pidgeon) and either free-lancers (Barbara Stanwyck, Fredric March, Dean Jagger), Paramount loan-outs (William Holden) and Fox loan-outs (Paul Douglas) combining rather than having all from the MGM roster, which shows how much actors like Holden and Stanwyck were starting to gain in Hollywood. If the film had been made 10 years earlier, Pidgeon probably would have had Holden's role or March would have, which also shows how those two actors were beginning to evolve into more "character" parts. Co-producer John Houseman, who had already had a major hit at the studio with THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL (also with Pidgeon), had enough pull with that film's success to get the studio to pay to get Holden and Stanwyck (that must have been a happy reunion of the GOLDEN BOY stars) and even Douglas, who was one of Fox's go-to male stalwarts. With Dore Schary now running the studio, this is definitely not a film or cast that would have happened in L. B. Mayer's heyday-not that he would have hated it, but with so many actors that were not Metro actors, he would have fought it tooth and nail.

The Bribe (1949) 5 of 10

-I found this film to be a snooze for the most part, the chief problem being that the stakes involved in the plot (recovering smuggled airplane engines) is just not that interesting. Ava Gardner is stunning but the effect of her first scene is ruined by a poorly chosen singing dub that doesn't even suggest it could be Ava's voice (in "The Killers" at least it was her own voice). The real pity though is that Rozsa's score, which is brilliant and kept reminding me of "The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes" is one of his MGM scores found lost to the ages when the big FSM set was produced.

TO ROME WITH LOVE - 6/10. Not as bad as I thought it would be - what I enjoyed about it was its absurdity, especially in the story about Michelangelo's father. Overall there wasn't really one vignette I disliked; I did find the Jack/John story to be very poignant for some reason - I am not a huge fan of Baldwin's and he is hardly in the movie but from our introduction to him to his exit from the film I felt that story was...bittersweet. The film remains light and never gets heavy...and it's always good to see Judy Davis in a Woody Allen movie (arguably she gets the best lines in the movie). Pleasantly surprised. I am very much looking forward to watching BLUE JASMINE next.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

A worthy entry in the X-Men saga, which I enjoyed from start to finish. Other than Hugh Jackman, the "modern day" X-Men (Stewart, McKellen, Berry, etc.) don't have much to do, and the film mostly belongs to the "First Class" cast (McAvoy, Fassbinder, Jennifer Lawrence). The film also plays fast and loose with some of the events established in the previous films -- how is it that Professor X is back on his feet (or rather wheels) when he was disintegrated by Jean Grey in X-Men 3 (I didn't see Wolverine -- maybe I missed something)?

Jennifer Lawrence is (as always) wonderful, and so much better in the role of Mystique than Rebecca Romin Stamos ever was, and invests the character with so much more subtlety and dimension. Peter Dinklidge is also excellent as the film's heavy, Dr. Bolivar Trask, and it's nice to see him finally get a role where he's cast on his strength as an actor (and not because he's the right size to play some kind of gnome or dwarf). Bryan Singer's direction is spot-on, and from my perspective, Singer only seems to excel at making X-Men movies (I've disliked every thing else of his I've seen).

I won't give anything away but the final scene of the film is terrific, and should please fans of these films enormously.

Paul MacLean wrote:The film also plays fast and loose with some of the events established in the previous films -- how is it that Professor X is back on his feet (or rather wheels) when he was disintegrated by Jean Grey in X-Men 3 (I didn't see Wolverine -- maybe I missed something)?

I saw X Men 3, but that scene doesn't explain how Professor X's body was restored, only how his mind survived.

Beats me...the X-Men series has been full of logical holes since the very beginning, even before Days Of Future Past set the literal reset button.

-22 Jump Street: 8.5/10

Even funnier than the original, savagely digging into all of the obligatory aspects of gratuitous sequels (bigger budget! Same plot in a different location!) and climaxing with a gaspingly hilarious setup of future installments in the end credits. The first was a pleasant surprise (the trailer looked AWFUL, but renting it after the fact, I was surprised how funny and heartfelt it was), but this installment manages to top it. Who would have ever figured that lunkheaded beefcake pinup Channing Tatum would finally find his niche as straight man in farcical comedy ("I thought we were given Cate Blanchett in this?" ~ "That's Carte Blanche").

WINTER'S TALE
6.5/10

This gorgeously filmed, lyrically scored, and quite well-acted adaptation of Mark Helprin’s novel proves to be an uneasy, if not downright bizarre, mixture of a time-spanning romantic drama with a supernatural thriller. Writer-director Akiva Goldsman’s pet project proves to be much more successful in the former category than the latter, though it’s always gorgeous to look at.

Colin Farrell stars as Peter Lake, an orphan in 1916 who becomes an employee of New York City gangster Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe) – who’s really an emissary of Old Scratch, hoping to tilt the balance of good and evil by eradicating all the light in the world (or something). This means tailing Lake, who falls for the red-haired daughter (Jessica Brown Findlay) of a wealthy publisher (William Hurt). Alas, their love is doomed because of her tragic illness, though this oddball fairy-tale ends up spanning more than just their generation, as Lake lives through his lifespan – and finds his “true miracle” in the 21st century.

“Winter’s Tale” has all the elements of a great screen fantasy, starting with Caleb Deschanel’s glorious evocation of turn-of-the-century New York, layered with beautiful textures that kept me captivated simply from a visual angle alone. The score by Hans Zimmer and Rupert Gregson-Williams is also a stunner: an orchestral and lovely contribution unlike anything Zimmer has written in years.

What’s odd about the movie is, well, its overriding story – and particularly its depiction of Good vs. Evil. Granted that fantasies of this type always require a suspension of disbelief – the kind that you either go with or don’t – but “Winter’s Tale” bites off far more than it can chew in this regard. Crowe’s character boasts fleeting bulging eyes and an Irish lilt that resembles the “Lucky Charms” leprechaun by way of Robert DeNiro in “Angel Heart” – it’s a strange performance that’s a stark contrast from Will Smith’s role as a contemporary Lucifer (!), a part done as an apparent favor to the director (most of the cast worked with Goldsman on prior projects). The striking disparity in their performances is compounded by a lack of general explanation about the world they’re inhabiting: is this supposed to be a thoroughly fantastical universe, or just a “real” world where magic exists underneath its surface? What’s the deal with the angelic forces who lurk around the edges of the movie (including the white horse with a mind of its own), who are never fully explained? Why are certain areas outside the city uninhabitable for the demonic bad guys?

Perhaps some of this material was left to the book (or the cutting room floor), but the end result is a picture that is intermittently moving and dazzling – but also wildly uneven and just altogether strange. It's almost like watching "Somewhere in Time," "Gangs of New York" and "Angel Heart" thrown into a blender. However, genre fans, and incurable romantics, might want to give it a shot in spite of its flaws – particularly if you can meet it halfway.

Warner’s Blu-Ray combo pack, out June 24th, includes a lovely 1080p AVC encoded transfer – this is a great-looking film and Deschanel, one of the best in the business, does a superb job creating a cinematic universe that feels both real and magical without being overly reliant on CGI. The DTS MA soundtrack is fine, and extras include 12 minutes of deleted scenes, a few featurettes, a DVD and digital copy.

THE MONUMENTS MEN: 7.5/10

Being a fan of history, WWII movies and a lot of the cast of this film, I got exactly what I was expecting: an old-fashioned war epic about men on a mission that is pretty much a by-the-book war film with the prerequisite characters. You have your charismatic leader (George Clooney), the second-in-command who is alternately more naive and also more savvy (Matt Damon), the burly, gruff sergeant (John Goodman), the dry wit (Bill Murray), the short guy (Bob Balaban), the foreigner who needs to fight for his country in a roundabout way (Jean Dujardin), the soldier wanting to redeem himself (Hugh Bonneville) and of course, the woman whose country has been raped and pillaged by the Nazis and who now trusts no one, until a handsome married man shows up (Cate Blanchett). All the archetypes are here, the plot line is pretty much one you expect, (SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!!), a couple of cast members bite the dust, and there is a last-minute scramble at the end before more bad guys show up.

In other words, we have a 2014 version of a film that could have been made at MGM or Fox in the decade after the war ended, just not with the cast those studios would have put together, a bit more language but almost the same amount of blood, in color instead of B/W...and I enjoyed it for what it is-a solidly made, well acted and entertaining studio picture. There are no fancy directorial flourishes or enigmatic characters or unanswered questions-just good craftsmanship, and I appreciate that kind of film quite a bit. I also liked Alexandre Desplat's score-not your typical Zimmermush but with some actual melody, and I liked a scene where Murray's package from home has a record that his family made, but since he is in a battle zone one of his comrades comes up with a way for him to hear it that is rather sweet. There is good chemistry between the cast members (Goodman/Dujardin and Murray/Balaban work well together) and the way that the latter team figure out the provenance of paintings they see in a German farmhouse is quite clever and actually reminded me of a less intense version of a similar scene at the beginning of Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

The Sony Blu-Ray I rented from Redbox had no extras other than trailers for other films, but the picture and sound were quite well done. For a really entertaining WWII saga, it is worth renting. I have been conjuring just who would have been cast in a version of this story from '45-55: Clooney-Gable or Grant; Damon-Joel McCrea; Goodman-Paul Douglas; Dujardin-Jean Gabin; Murray-Buster Keaton; Balaban-Eddie Bracken; Bonneville-Douglas Fairbanks, Jr or perhaps Errol Flynn; Blanchett-Gene Tierney or Anne Baxter.

As for WINTER'S TALE, I know that originally Scorsese (or a studio) had purchased the rights to this novel not too long after it came out-it is a WONDERFUL novel, by the way-and what he could have done with it would have been fascinating. Looks like I will have to rent it next week (it only played in our local theater for a week before disappearing).

As for WINTER'S TALE, I know that originally Scorsese (or a studio) had purchased the rights to this novel not too long after it came out-it is a WONDERFUL novel, by the way-and what he could have done with it would have been fascinating

I couldn't see a Scorsese adaptation of this material ever working. Part of this movie as I wrote felt like GANGS OF NEW YORK so that part I could see him handling. The purely romantic fantasy/love story element? Not so much. That's never been something Scorsese has dabbled in, and he's never been warm and fuzzy to begin with. Dysfunctional relationships? Sure. But Scorsese wouldn't have been a good fit for the kind of pure, unadulterated romanticism this material required. On that end, I can see why he felt the material was unfilmmable.

I do give Goldsman a lot of credit -- PARTS of this movie worked, but it's the same with LEGEND or any other screen fantasy. If you don't go with it, you'll sit there and just think it sucks and laugh it off the screen -- which is what most of the snarky reviews did.

For me, I did meet it halfway -- and I was moved by some it (and totally confounded at other parts). I wasn't unhappy we watched it -- and the cinematography and the score are terrific.

AndyDursin wrote:I couldn't see a Scorsese adaptation of this material ever working. The purely romantic fantasy/love story element? Not so much. That's never been something Scorsese has dabbled in, and he's never been warm and fuzzy to begin with.

*ahem*

Personally I thought Scorsese was totally out of his element in Age of Innocence, and his attempt to do the "Merchant-Ivory" thing resulted in a stilted, turgid bore.