An innocent abroad in a less-than-innocent world is a standard story template. It has been used over and over. Decades ago I read Robert Heinlein’s A Stranger in a Strange Land. That was one take on the innocent story. Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, with his main character of Billy Pilgrim, was another.

It shows up in movies frequently as well, such as The Truman Show. When it is used, it is often with a satirical purpose. Through the innocent’s eyes, we see how the world really is (or how the author or filmmaker thinks it really is). It’s usually comic, at least to some degree.

But the satire isn’t just intended to illustrate what is wrong with the world. It is also to illustrate what could be right and how we’ve gone off track from pursuing it.

That is really what is at the heart of The Truman Show. It isn’t about the misguided nature of television and its audiences, though it is that in part. And it’s not simply about the hazards of over-the-top commercialism, though it’s about that too.

The story of the innocent is really about what the point of our lives is and what we could be doing with them.

Truman’s story is about a man who wants more. Not more “stuff,” but more meaning. Yes, his life is comfortable. But for Truman, that’s not enough. He wants to know, “What else is out there?”

The Truman Show (1998)
directed by Peter Weir

“You never had a camera in my head.”

Those words, I think, capture the essence of The Truman Show best. There’s much in the world that can be controlled, but controlling what someone thinks and, maybe more importantly, feels is not so easy.

For me, this is one of the best movies of the 1990’s, and one of my favourite movies, period. Now, with the recent release of it in a special edition, I have the DVD I had been wanting – better image, informative features. (Note: this review was written in 2005 and refers to the Special Collector’s Edition DVD.)

Slightly preceding the current glut of reality TV shows, the film’s concept seems simple enough, though perhaps less clever now than when it first appeared, before our reality TV world.

While the concept may seem simple – a movie about a guy whose entire life is broadcast live on television – imagine how you would execute that and make it interesting. It comes across more like a clever notion on paper, but the kind of thing that could lead you into a cinematic fiasco.

But between Andrew Niccols’ script, Peter Weir’s direction and some great casting, it works brilliantly.

Jim Carrey is Truman Burbank. His life , from birth, has been broadcast live to the world (unbeknownst to him). He lives in a town called Seahaven – always has, he’s never left – but what he doesn’t know is Seahaven is a television set in California, not a town on the Florida coast. He lives in a not-quite-perfectly controlled world.

“We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented,” says Christoff (Ed Harris), the show’s creator and mastermind.

But as much as Christoff controls Truman’s world, he can’t control everything – including Truman.

There are small errors in Truman’s world and they might go unnoticed by him except the life scripted for him is not the one he would live. The more the show’s creator, actors and crew try to steer Truman and keep him on script, the more he resists.

And so Truman embarks on discovering his world, though that’s not his initial motivation.

As mentioned in the special features, Peter Weir made one change to the script that was bang on the money. Originally set in New York, and a darker film, Weir understood that for people to watch such a show (not the movie, but in the script’s world, The Truman Show), it would need to be lighter, more comforting.

So the movie is set in Seahaven, a somewhat heightened reality. It’s roots are more in the world of 1950’s television than the real world, though not to such an extent that it lacks credibility.

Another great notion in the film’s making was the casting of Carrey. He is perfect as Truman. Charismatic and affable, he brings the right amount of innocence to the role of Truman. It might not have worked in another movie, but in the world of The Truman Show it hits the mark.

I also like that there are several ways of seeing The Truman Show. There is the obvious satire on television culture and the issue of personal freedom.

(I like the irony of Christoff “a very private man” being the architect of a very public life – Truman’s.)

Another way of seeing the film, however, is as a fable of a child leaving home.

Christoff is an obvious father figure and Truman is clearly a young man trying his damnedest to leave and find his own life – but not the one Christoff dreams for him (rather like a parent trying to impose his vision on his child.)

In fact, however you view the film, it’s essentially a fable. Perhaps this is why I like the movie so much – I’ve a weakness for these types of films when they are well done.

Weakness or not, I consider this one of the best films of the last decade or so. It’s also one I think will continue to be watched over the years as it captures, quite succinctly and in an engaging fashion, something in the nature of freedom that is deeply woven into the human fabric. The film’s ending captures an archetypal, mythic moment and it’s one that resonates. I can’t recommend this one highly enough.

The Truman Show (the trailer)

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s summer. Surely that calls for a “popcorn” movie? I suggest The Core (2003), a “world facing imminent destruction that only a well chosen quirky few can save it from,” kind of movie.

You don’t look to disaster movies for credibility. A disaster movie that takes itself too seriously … now that is a genuine disaster. They’re suppose to be fun and you are suppose to watch them with your brain turned off. When they are well made, they are fun. And there’s a great sense of relief in turning off the mental works every now and again.

The Core doesn’t have the best special effects but neither does it have the worst. It does, however, have some very good actors and while movies like this aren’t famous for great dialogue or character delineation, the actors here manage to bring something more to an otherwise two-dimensional script.

In other words, I like this movie. Sue me.

The Core
directed by Jon Amiel

Simply put, The Core is a guilty pleasure. I watch a disaster movie like this and think, “This is junk. I shouldn’t like it.”

But I do. Sometimes junk is exactly what you want. And when you’re in that mood, nothing fills the bill better than well-made junk.

And that is what The Core is: well-made junk.

The movie starts with the world going wonky. People with pacemakers suddenly drop dead and for no apparent reason. In Trafalgar Square, birds go mad, swirl wildly, fly into people and buildings, and die.

Called in my the U.S. government, a brilliant university professor (Aaron Eckhart) goes, “Hmmm.” He divines that the earth’s electromagnetic (EM) field is going all to hell. After some pondering, it’s discovered the Earth’s core has stopped spinning (made of two layers — inner solid, outer liquid — the movement of the inner is what creates the EM field, we’re told).

What to do? As it turns out, the answer is to travel to the core and jump start the laval ring with nuclear bombs. (Seems obvious, right?)

The plausibility of any of this is irrelevant. Movies of this kind are not about reality. They are essentially fantasies, science fantasies, and we’re expected not to question too much. It’s part of the bargain you make when you sit down with this kind of a film.

And that’s okay. You don’t watch these movies for the credibility of the extrapolations. You watch them for the thrill, the special effects, the suspense.

The Core delivers on all of these, though the special effects are … well, not top of the line. I think the movie works because it is well-paced. It seldom lets up; once you’re strapped in to your chair, agreed to the suspension of disbelief, you’re there for the duration. The g-force of the pace keeps you in your seat.

But The Core also works because it gets such good performances from a well-chosen cast.

In this kind of movie, the characters are all caricatures. There is not a great deal of depth to any of them. But with a good cast they flesh out and transcend their two-dimensional quality and become compelling.

As the DVD features reveal (a “Making of” featurette) the director, Jon Amiel, was focused on the characters. He wanted to make a popcorn disaster movie but with more character emphasis than normally associated with these kinds of movies.

It’s not surprising from Amiel, given his background. As this part of his IMDb bio says, “After studies in English literature, Jon Amiel graduated from Cambridge University and ran the Oxford and Cambridge Shakespeare Company, which often toured the USA. He became the Hampstead Theatre Company’s literary manager and began directing there, relocating to the Royal Shakespeare Company.”

Yes, I can see why there is a focus on performance. For example, Bruce Greenwood gets what might be a thankless role as Commander Richard Iverson, the stereotype of the all-American good guy, a tremendously dull role. But Greenwood is so good in it, so compelling and credible, the character becomes interesting and you sort of wish he had been the one playing the President in Independence Day. (On the other hand, he’s such a good actor we probably shouldn’t wish such bad lines on him.)

Hilary Swank also plays her part perfectly and again in what might have been a pretty colourless role. Once more, the all-American hero is what is called for, the good guy (or gal). Yet she manages to enunciate certain nuances to give the character a depth it might not otherwise have.

Of course, this isn’t to say the movie is a character study – far from it. But in this kind of a film, great performances add a dimension to the film that it otherwise would not have had and make it much more engaging.

The movie also boasts two of my favourite actors, both of whom give wonderful performances as eccentrics of a kind: Delroy Lindo as a desert-living, oddball scientist and Stanley Tucci as the other great American scientist, celebrated and feted wherever he goes, and who has the misfortune of being an enormous, self-centred ass. Both Lindo and Tucci add tremendously to the film.

Like any guilty pleasure, The Core is the kind of movie you feel a little embarrassed liking. But it’s unashamed junk and revels in its quality as such. Like movies such as Anaconda and Independence Day, it is simply a fun ride.

Who cares if it makes sense?

The Core (trailer)

Click here to view the embedded video.

You may have heard of a guy named Christopher Nolan.

He’s directed a few movies such as Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and the currently in release, Inception.

He made his first really big splash with a movie called Memento (2000). Insomnia is a relatively lesser known movie he made. It’s the one he made after Memento.

Nolan is a director Hollywood must love. He has artistic stature because his films are creative and brilliantly constructed. Better still, for Hollywood, they are often big successes at the box office. What could be better?

Insomnia is a movie that is a bit lost in his body of work but one well worth seeing. It had some baggage when it came out: 1) it was the film that followed the brilliant Memento, 2) it was based on a Norwegian movie of the same name, thus suffering from comparisons, 3) it had the go-to guy for weariness, stress and/or crankiness, Al Pacino, an actor who suffers from being so good at portraying those kinds of characters the world often parodies them and thus obscure the quality of his performances.

But make no mistake, this is a really good movie and the performances are even better. Unfortunately, my review below doesn’t really do it justice. I wouldn’t call this a great movie; it’s a good one. However, amongst good movies it’s heads above the others.

Insomnia
Directed by Christopher Nolan

I’m at an advantage in that I’ve never seen the original, Erik Skjoldbjærg movie Insomnia. The truth is, I knew almost nothing about the Christopher Nolan film of Insomnia. I picked it up as a PV disc (previously viewed). Well, was I ever pleasantly surprised.

Of recent films, it’s one of the best to be released on DVD this year. It’s exciting, intriguing and intelligent. It’s shot beautifully, skilfully constructed, and gets great performances from its entire, well-chosen cast.

It’s very mysterious. While you know what the surface story is about, a murder and a cat-and-mouse game between the killer and a detective, you’re never quite sure what the undercurrents are about, not till the very end. And the movie is about those undercurrents.

While their department is undergoing an internal investigation back in L.A., two detectives are sent to Nightmute, Alaska, to help solve a murder case. While there, they set a trap for the killer.

He shows up but escapes in a heavy fog.

During the confusion of the chase in the fog, one detective (Al Pacino as Will Dormer) shoots and kills the other (Michael Donovan).

It appears to be an accident, but as the movie unfolds this becomes unclear.

Detective Dormer’s troubles then begin to snowball: the investigation in L.A., the investigation into the shooting of his partner, and a growing relationship with the killer, Robin Williams.

The killer appears to know some of Dormer’s secrets so he has a power position, which he uses. He plays with Dormer, trying to get the detective to help him deflect guilt in the murder he’s committed.

As all this is going on, Detective Dormer can’t sleep. He’s far north, and it’s in the late spring of the year, so it is daylight almost constantly. Struggle as he might, he can’t evade light; he can’t find sleep.

He starts unraveling and Pacino plays it dead on, showing us in his face the stress and anxiety the detective is experiencing.

The movie is about guilt. The light acts as a kind of spotlight in the film. No matter what Dormer does, he’s anxious he’s going to be found out.

Wonderfully constructed, played and executed, Insomnia is a very good movie.

Insomnia (the trailer)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Depending on your age, you may remember seeing Glenn Ford in movies and on television. I’m thinking roughly of the 1970′s, perhaps late 60′s. He usually had an avuncular quality. He was a nice, friendly older man. He often played fatherly types. For example, in 1978′s Superman: The Movie he played kindly Pa Kent.

So for us, seeing his work from the 1950s comes as a bit of a shock. The actor we see in movies like The Big Heat is anything but Pa Kent.

It’s hard to know where to begin with The Big Heat. It is about as dark as movies get, and that sort of makes sense since it’s directed by Fritz Lang, a man Roger Ebert refers to as, “… one of the cinema’s great architects of evil.”

How does Pa Kent wind up in a Fritz Lang movie? If you see the domestic scenes in the movie, and the contrast between them and the rest of the film, you’ll see why. Lang explores evil, both its extremes and its subtleties. Ford plays his part perfectly, enunciating both sides convincingly and leaving us wondering just what kind of man this really is.

I’m not sure the review below is quite how I think about the movie today. I want to watch it again and possibly revise it. I’m wondering now if Glenn Ford’s Det. Sgt. Dave Bannion might not be the original Dirty Harry.

The Big Heat
directed by Fritz Lang

Now this is what a noir film should be. Good guys, bad guys, and a lot of dubious ground between them. (Mind you, it’s not a noir film in the strictest sense.)

Perspective is everything, I suppose, and perhaps that is why (for me) noir works best in black and white. It’s how I came to know them when I was younger. This doesn’t mean more recent, colour noir movies don’t work (just look at Chinatown and L.A. Confidential), but black and white just seems more appropriate.

Maybe it’s the sense of shadow and gray that comes across. It reflects the heart of these stories, an uncertain, dangerous world where it’s hard to tell who is on your side, or even what side you’re on.

As in Gilda, the casting of Glenn Ford is perfect. He plays these parts well. He’s the hero, but not so heroic as to be unbelievable. In fact, the type of hero he plays here is the same type Clint Eastwood got so much mileage out of for so long. He’s the ambiguous good guy.

Then there’s Gloria Grahame who gives a wonderful performance as Debby, the gangster’s girl.

But where The Big Heat really excells is in casting Lee Marvin, an actor who gives Robert Mitchum a run for his money as one of the meanest s.o.b.’s to appear on screen.

Marvin’s explosive and sadistic temper come across as so natural you would be afraid to meet him anywhere but on the screen.

In many ways, The Big Heat is a template for certain types of films (though it certainly wasn’t the first to use this pattern). This is a revenge story. But watching it from this point, over 50 years after it was made, it’s easy to forget that some of the set-ups and patterns were not established in the way they are now so, while in some ways they appear to have a certain stale, over-used quality, the truth is they were fresh and even alarming in 1953.

For example, there is the set-up scene where the domestic life of the Ford character is shattered. The scene becomes the catalyst for the character’s later actions. This pattern has been used over and over again since (again, particularly by Eastwood).

Regardless whether it’s perceived as new or cliche, it works. From start to finish The Big Heat holds you and carries you through its dark unwinding. To be perfectly true to the noir genre, Ford’s character is not as corrupt as he should be (though his revenge could be considered a form of corruption, I suppose). But this is quibbling. It certainly has the noir feel and that is far more important. Noir is really about atmosphere; it’s about tone.

This one is highly recommended.

I can think of no better place to start my list of twenty movies than with one of my favourite kinds of movies, the western, and specifically one of my favourite westerns, Tombstone from 1993. If you want something to watch this summer, try this one.

While there are many aspects to the movie that are excellent, the one that truly stands out is Val Kilmer’s portrayal of Doc Holliday. If you have never seen the movie, or if you haven’t seen it in a few years, it’s time to watch one of the great performances. In some ways, Tombstone is a variation of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Kilmer’s Holliday is a new take on John Wayne’s Tom Doniphon.

Here’s my review of the movie that I wrote a few years ago:

Tombstone
directed by George P. Cosmatos

This movie frustrates me because I don’t know what to write. It’s one of the best westerns I’ve ever seen and, to be truthful, that’s really all I have to say about it.

Of course, I love westerns. But I’m not sure why. I think it’s because of the simplicity of the stories and the fact that they are, essentially, all mythical.

I suppose you could say this about all movies but westerns, in particular, access mythic elements and use them to engage us. They really are the same damn story played over and over again.

The best westerns do this; the least successful ones try to play with the genre.

Having said that, I think director George P. Cosmatos and writer Kevin Jarre do play with the genre just a tad … but they rigidly adhere to the essential elements. For example, one of the staples of westerns is the opening when the bad guys come in and do something really, really bad. I can’t think of a single Clint Eastwood western that doesn’t do this. What this does is immediately set the context of the movie – a wild and lawless landscape that is crying out for order.

The next step is to introduce us to the good guy (or guys) who are reluctantly drawn in and eventually save the day.

Simple stuff, and exactly what Tombstone does.

But within this simple framework, Cosmatos and Jarre do much more. Chiefly, they give us characters with much greater delineation and far more contradictions that the average B western.

In particular, we get the incredible performance of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday. It’s not the usual Doc Holliday; this one is true to history and, within that, Kilmer gives us perfect and unexpected nuances.

And while the Doc Holliday character may be the one we walk away remembering best, Kurt Russell’s Wyatt Earp is equally masterful. He’s less interesting only because his character is the good guy. But he has his own contradictions and, more importantly, it’s the apparent paradox of his relationship with Doc Holliday around which the movie revolves and succeeds.

There are, of course, a few minor problems with the film, as with all movies. For example, there is the scene when Bill Paxton as the youngest Earp, Morgan, is shot and Kurt Russell is with him. Russell’s hands and arms are covered in blood. He runs his hands over Paxton’s forehead – he seems to touch just about everyone in the place, including himself – yet no blood rubs off on anyone. Huh? How’d that happen?

But it’s a quibble. The movie is pure western, from setting to music to story. It also avoids that sepia nonsense so many westerns have. Rather, they have shot this movie to show the colour of the mythic west and it’s a tremendous relief to see a western with this much confidence in itself as a western.

Tombstone (the trailer)

Click here to view the embedded video.

I dislike posts and articles that say “you have to” or “you must” and so on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people online who appear to like being told what to do because such posts tend to do well as far as getting traffic goes.

For me, it goes against the grain. Hence, the headline you see above. Now, let’s move on to what this post is actually about …

I’ve decided to post over the next four weeks a list, including reviews, of 20 movies that I really love and have watched over and over. It will be a Monday to Friday thing, with one being posted each day.

I’m tentatively scheduled to start Monday, June 26th. (I thought of running it through all of August but decided it might be nice to have a few posted prior to that in case anyone wanted to track them down prior to the August long weekend.)

I won’t number these because I don’t have a sense of hierarchy about them, as in numbering them in terms of merit, number one being best. In fact, “best” will have nothing to do with what I post. These will simply be movies I really like. Sometimes, I like bad movies. (No, I don’t understand that either. But I’m not the only one that likes a bad movie now and again. I’ve argued before there is good rubbish and bad rubbish.)

One last thing … These twenty could easily be a completely different twenty a year from now. This is not an “all time favourites” list. It’s just an excuse to point out some good movies that have given me a great deal of pleasure.

You may not like them all but my guess is you’ll like most. Maybe even all them!

After having it on my computer for about two months in a half-finished state, I’ve finally posted my take on A Lady Takes a Chance (1943). It stars Jean Arthur and John Wayne and, yes, it’s a romantic comedy.

It’s not, however, the best romantic comedy. It’s pretty mediocre. However, both Arthur and Wayne are wonderful, each in their own way.

If you are a fan of either actor, you should see this one. The film, as a whole, is pleasant but not anything that would have change the world of cinema. My review can be found here.

I saw on the TCM home page something that caught my eye: The African Queen (1951) being released on March 23, 2010 in a “Commemorative Box Set.” I care less about the box set business than I do about this note (found in the information on Amazon): “Fully Restored using state-of-the-art restoration process.”

I have been waiting forever to get a decent copy of this movie on DVD. You would think this would have been one of the movies that had been released as a DVD long ago — and released several times over. But that has not been the case. I believe rights problems may have made a mess of things (if I recall correctly). Maybe it was public domain? I no longer remember.

The point, however, is that it is finally coming, if a little pricey because it’s a box set. On the other hand, I find what is included intriguing. Amazon lists the special features as:

- Fully Restored using state-of-the-art restoration process

- Includes all-new hour long “making of” feature with never-before-seen images and commentary

- Collectible packaging highlighting Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn

- Second disc with the original Lux radio broadcast of The African Queen starring Humphrey Bogart and Greer Garson (Audio CD)

- Reproduction of Katharine Hepburn’s out-of-print published memoir: The Making of The African Queen or How I Went to Africa with Bogart, Bacall and Huston and Almost Lost My Mind

- Collectible Senitype®: a four film frame card illustrating the Technicolor® process

- 8 images inspired by original theatrical lobby cards

The release date is March 23. And apparently there will be a Blu-Ray version too. I am waiting.

On the right, you’ll see a see an image/banner for the Film Preservation Blogathon, organized by Self Styled Siren and Ferdy on Films with the goal of creating greater awareness for the need (and urgency) of movie preservation and to raise funds for the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF).

You can learn more about it by visiting their Facebook page and by having a look at the short video that has been created for it:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ignoring artistic merit for the moment, let’s look at movies strictly from the financial point of view. From what I can tell (and I’m no accountant), your best ROI (return on investment) is low budget. That seems to make intuitive sense and you have to wonder what thinking is behind the big budget movies.

I love going over the box office listings on this page (Box Office Mojo) not because I care about things like top ten movies but because I like looking at the estimated budgets and weeks on the chart relative to what they’ve made. On the current listing (which changes every week, of course) I can see three movies with budgets of $200 million or more. One of them, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, had a budget of $250 million and has earned $301,948,049 after 21 weeks. (This ignores ancillary products like books, toys etc., and also ignores DVDs etc. It is strictly the movie as it performs in theatres.)

Harry has made about $50 million more than its budget. Now let’s look at two other movies.

The Blind Side has currently earned $128,867,559 after 3 weeks. It had a budget of $29 million. So it has earned almost $100 million over its budget and after only 3 weeks. Then there is the other one we keep hearing about, The Twilight Saga: New Moon.  It has earned $255,363,052, also after 3 weeks. That’s more than $200 million more than its budget and again after only 3 weeks.

After 5 weeks the movie Precious has made $36,252,012 having been made with a budget of $10 million. After just 2 weeks the movie Old Dogs as made $33,924,385 from a budget of $35 million. Anything further it makes is essentially money beyond its budget cost.

Lastly, look at two of the most costly movies (both pegged at budgets of $200 million). After 5 weeks A Christmas Carol has earned $115,249,331, falling short of budget so far by roughly $85 million. After 4 weeks the movie 2012 has made $148,958,486, about $50 million less than its budget.

From an investor’s point of view, what movies would you want to have your money in? Which ones have the best ROI?

As mentioned, none of this includes all the ancillary material. You can be sure Harry Potter and 2012 are games, or will be, and there are DVDs and so on. But you would have to be sure you get a percent of those revenues before investing. Movies appear to have the best ROI when the budget is low (and that makes sense) but to repeat, why then would studios spend $200 million on something? Even when they make money the ROI ratio isn’t great by comparison. (It has to relate to the franchise aspect, meaning all the other products that spin off from it.)

To a large extent the movies that get made are based on numbers, at least as far as Hollywood goes. Did anyone need to see yet another inspiring sports story? You would not think so since they seem to get made with a regularity that makes my bowels envious. As it turns out, we did want to see another inspiring sports story. The numbers indicate that.

Yes, I know. There is a heck of a lot more to the financial end of movies and public taste and so on. Still, looking at earnings relative to box office and weeks in the market makes a fascinating study. However, what I would really like to see is the budgets relative to everything a movie makes in return – all in, as car dealers like to say.

The other thing that intrigues me is the marketing budget relative to overall budget for individual movies. Why do we hear so much about movie A before, and sometimes after, its release date and far less, if anything, about movie B? I’d like to see a kind of comparative chart on this.