Redbox delivering movie gold

As much as I like going to a theater to watch a movie, I don't do it much anymore because it is too expensive.  Unfortunately, it is becoming tougher and tougher to find a theater that sells tickets to a matinee for less than eight dollars.  It's not that I can't afford the ticket.  It's just the principle of the matter because eight dollars is too much for a matinee ticket.

The last movie I saw in a theater was at the two-dollar theater near the old Hickory Hollow Mall in Nashville.  I'm glad I went because I saw Gravity and it is a film that really needs to be seen on a big screen.  On the negative side, that is not the safest part of the city, and I feel a little uneasy there after sunset.

Because of this, Redbox has become an invaluable resource when seeing films I want to view.  Of course, this means a person has to wait a few weeks/months before seeing new releases, but I think saving the money is worth it.  In recent weeks, I've caught up on many of the critically-acclaimed films from 2013.

American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Dallas Buyers Club have all gotten close inspection at my house in recent weeks.  Of that group, I believe American Hustle and Inside Llewyn Davis are the best.  Of the two, American Hustle is slicker, but it tells its story well and has a strong ensemble cast (Amy Adams, Christian Bale, etc.).  Inside Llewyn Davis is another strong film from the Coen Brothers and is a well-told story about a folk singer who is frequently unlikable but still compelling.

I guess the point of this post is that if a person likes movies but is sick of theater high prices then use resources like Redbox.  It does require some patience, but the savings add up.

New movie 'Argo' worth your time and attention

I recently caught the new Ben Affleck film Argo and I heartily recommend it.  Set in the late 1970s and early 80s, its plot focuses on attempts to rescue American citizens hiding in the Canadian embassy in Iran just after the United States' embassy was seized.

I have read some criticism of the film because some feel the Canadians' role in the event was watered down somewhat.  I do not know about that, but remember this is a Hollywood movie and not a historical documentary.  I believe the essence of the event was communicated to the audience, and we often see movies where filmmakers might have to manipulate some events for the sake of the plot.

The film co-stars Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin.  It is rated R mostly for language so it is not a film to take the kiddies to.  It is worth your time.

Click here for a more in-depth review.

Choosing between jewels: 'The Godfather' and 'GoodFellas'

Brando's last great role

Films about the mob have been a staple of entertainment since the earliest days of movie making. For example, the original Scarface was made in the early 1930s and presented a graphic view (for that time) of how Hollywood interpreted a life in crime.

Of course, movies like this are fantasy no matter how realistically they are presented. Still, the world of the Mafia has always been fascinating subject matter that seems like a perfect match for people in Hollywood.

Recently, I came across a crime film marathon presented on one of the movie channels I frequently watch. A few of the films were throwaways, but two of them are among the greatest films ever made. The Godfather and GoodFellas are films that stand up to repeated viewings. In fact, if I am searching channels for something to watch and stumble across one of these two, I drop whatever I am doing and watch them. They are that good.

The Godfather was released in 1972, and it focuses primarily on the inner workings of a Mafia family headed Don Vito Corleone (played by Marlon Brando). The film unfolds and is told only from the viewpoint of the family. 'Honor' is perhaps the most valued trait in this family though it plays itself out mostly in terms of loyalty and not honesty. After all, these guys are big-time thugs so there can only be so much honesty.

However, 'loyalty' is key for them. Traitors appear to be the biggest villains in the film, and as the character Michael (played by Al Pacino) says: "Don't ever take sides against the family."

Brando's character is the moral compass of the film (if it can be called that). For example, he does not have a problem being involved with crimes related to liquor and gambling, but draws the line at drugs. He is more focused on what he considers victimless crimes, according to film critic Roger Ebert. It is an odd form of morality, and director Francis Ford Coppola presents it in a brilliant way.

GoodFellas was released in 1990, and it presents the mob through the eyes of three characters: Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta), Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) and Tommy (Joe Pesci). While The Godfather presents a weird form of morality, GoodFellas is almost totally lacking in morality.

While there is loyalty among those three characters, there is a brutality and ruthlessness throughout the film that takes no prisoners. Don't get me wrong; there is plenty of brutality in The Godfather but at the heart of it was a loyalty to the family. This is not seen in GoodFellas.

The film ends with Hill ratting out everybody else in order to save his own life. He goes into the witness protection program while everybody else goes to prison. It is as if Hill had spent his entire life using people for his own purposes, and by the end, there was nobody else left to stab in the back other than his 'friends.'

Joe Pesci's performance as Tommy so dominated the film that he won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. He plays a psychopath so tightly wired that people suck up to him to avoid his murderous wrath.

Perhaps the film's most famous scene takes place in a restaurant, and Hill innocently calls Tommy a 'funny guy.' Tommy pretends to take it as an insult and verbally intimidates everybody so completely that everybody is left sitting in stunned, awkward silence. After he reveals he is only joking, Tommy tells Hill that he may fold under questioning someday.

Both films are jewels, but if I had to pick one it would be The Godfather. It feels more like an epic.

The Marx Brothers remain funny after all these years

From top: Chico, Harpo, Groucho, and Zeppo Marx

For better or worse, it takes a lot to make me laugh. I do not understand why, but it has always seemed that way.

I have a very particular sense of humor. It usually is not mainstream, and it can border on the eccentric. Because of this, most of what passes for humor in movies or television these days does not interest me. I do not necessarily consider it bad, but it does not tickle my fancy.

However, if an artist does stroke my funny bone, I typically will stick with them through thick and thin. When looking back through the history of films, the Marx Brothers made endearing films that were ahead of their time.  I have watched them since I was a boy, and they still make me laugh.

Film critic Roger Ebert said of them: "The brothers broke the classical structure of movie comedy and glued it back again haphazardly, and nothing was ever the same."

The Marx Brothers were vaudeville and Broadway stars who did not make their first movie until relatively late in their careers in 1929. This is understandable because talking movies did not begin until two years before that and an important part of their humor relied on the use of language.

Obviously, there was a lot of physical humor in their act. As part of the act, Harpo Marx did not speak so his humor had to be communicated in a physical way. He was a genius at it, and as a boy, he was my favorite of the brothers.

It was Groucho who understood how to use language, and as I have aged, he has become the one I have gravitated toward the most. His preposterous greasepaint mustache could distract some listeners from grasping the bite and intelligence of his humor. As Ebert also pointed out, the greasepaint was not makeup so much as a mask.

Groucho knew how to turn a phrase, and some of them are catch phrases that we still hear today if we will take the time to listen. Just ‘google’ his name, and I am sure numerous quotes will appear that most of us know.

Their early movies are my favorite, and if I had to pick one, it would be Duck Soup. Made in 1933, it looks dated in some respects. However, any film almost 80 years old will appear dated in some way, but that does not mean it is not great.

In the film, Groucho plays 'Rufus T. Firefly' who becomes dictator of the nation of Fredonia. Rival country Sylvania wishes to overtake Fredonia, and because of this, Firefly brings in Harpo and Chico (another of the brothers) as spies.

The premise is pretty lightweight, but it provides the brothers ample elbow room to do their thing. Groucho fills the movie with double entendres and puns, while Harpo and Chico handle the physical comedy. In one inspired sequence, they perform a three-hat sequence with one of the supporting actors in which the hats move as quickly and effortlessly as cards being dealt in a card game.

As for the absurd title, it really has nothing to do with the plot. As critic Tim Dirks wrote: "It is claimed that Groucho provided the following recipe: 'Take two turkeys, one goose, four cabbages, but no duck, and mix them together. After one taste, you’ll duck soup the rest of your life.'"

I have no idea if Groucho actually said that, but it does sum up the absurdist approach of the Marx Brothers. Keep in mind, absurdist humor can be quite intelligent, and the brothers definitely fall into that category.

Seek out their work.

'The Dark Knight Rises' should be on your list of movies to see

I recently caught The Dark Knight Rises, and I was impressed.  It began a little slowly, but the middle and ending were strong.  I thought the filmmakers missed an opportunity to make a strong statement about personal sacrifice by how they ended the movie, but I understand why they went with a more uplifting ending.  I will not be any more specific than that for those who have not seen it yet, but do not let that comment detract from the overall quality of the movie.  It is really strong.  I do not know if it is as good as The Dark Knight.  I may watch that one again so I can more accurately compare the two.  Still, go ahead and see The Dark Knight Rises.  It is really good.

The power of 'C'

I was recently re-reading film critic Roger Ebert’s book The Great Movies and I have reached the conclusion that if a person wants to make a great film he should probably begin the title with the letter ‘c.’

In the book, there are only four films that begin with that letter, but three of them are: Casablanca, Citizen Kane and City Lights. If a person has never seen these films, I highly recommend them.

All three are remarkable movies. I have had an avid interest in films for most of my life, but as I have gotten older, I have gravitated more toward older ones. Obviously, there are some good modern movies, but I guess tastes change as we age.

Casablanca is fantastic. Starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, the film says a lot about personal sacrifice during crisis even if means giving up the very thing (or person) we want the most. Bergman’s character is the love of Bogart’s life, but he knew he had to let her go. And he did.

Though it is 70 years old, the theme resonates loudly today considering what a self-absorbed culture we live in. Let’s face it – many people tend to look at our culture in terms of what it can do for them and not vice versa. This thinking has sent us down a road that will likely take a generation to reverse.

Citizen Kane is often at the top of lists for the greatest movie of all time. Though many can have a great debate about that, there can be no debating that it is a great film. Produced, directed and co-written by 25-year-old Orson Welles, it is a biography loosely based on yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst.

The story behind the film’s making is almost as interesting as the film itself. Hearst did his best to kill it and destroy Welles. Back in 1941 when it was released, it appeared Hearst had succeeded, but the movie has withstood the test of time. Welles’ biggest dilemma was that he peaked at such a young age. He never again made a film as great as Citizen Kane.

City Lights was released in 1930 or ’31 (depending on the source) and is one of Charlie Chaplin’s great films. Though talking films had been around for a couple of years when it was released, the film is mostly silent.

The film is a classic blend of comedy and pathos. Chaplin’s character ‘The Little Tramp’ befriends a blind girl and helps her raise the money needed for an operation to restore her vision. Through a series of events, the two are separated when she is operated on and go their separate ways.

The film concludes when the two meet each other by chance. He is still a tramp, but she has become a successful business woman. She does not recognize who he is at first, but when she touches his hand she realizes who he is.

The expression on Chaplin’s face is one of the great reaction shots in film history. Joy and fear flow from his eyes. Joy because he has met his love again. Fear because of the rejection he may face because of her success and his status. Remarkable.

We live in an age where most movies are drivel. I do not mean to come across as a movie snob, but it seems that way to me. The advances in movie technology in recent years have been great. However, I fear our films have become cleverer while losing their hearts.

Cleverness has its place. It’s just not an enduring trait when it comes to great movies.