Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse

Francis Ford Coppola made four masterpieces in a row in the 70's, three of which are cultural touchstones even beyond the limits of cinema. The greatest of those, in my humble opinion, being his final film in the Vietnam war epic Apocalypse Now. A film less about the war in a political or social sense, but rather the madness within man illustrated through war. This was Coppola greatest undertaken in the decade, and he never made another masterpiece, this documentary perhaps tells you why that is, and perhaps also why so many the firebrand directors that came to prominence had some strange moment of clarity all around the same time near the end of the decade. This is not the simple story of a the making of a film, even if it is that, but rather an examination of what it would taken to even endeavor to create a film as ambitious as Apocalypse Now. We see Coppola who is a mad man, here, a mad genius perhaps, but also an exasperated craftsman driven to that madness by his own ambition and the madness needed to fulfill it. Apocalypse Now is not a typical film, and its production matches this which this film examines in particularly intimate detail, as found through footage shot by Coppola's wife, Eleanor. The documentary is fascinating not only in that detail, but as a juxtaposition to the film being made. Much like Willard, Coppola struggles within the jungle attempting to discover meaning, and perhaps like Kurtz tries to wield the elements themselves towards his mad vision. No single person is so simple even beyond Coppola from poor Martin Sheen who suffered a heart attack that Coppola covered up in shooting, the egomaniac that was Marlon Brando, or even Dennis Hopper who once again is a few scenes wonder but now as a man who is perhaps mad enough to be on the wavelength as the production of the film. It is unlikely a film like Apocalypse Now, and this is in many ways an explanation of why. As it not only captures the extremes of the conditions, the struggle, the personalities in terms of hardship, but also the extremes in terms of the daring to take such a excursion. 
5/5

Hot Fuzz

Hot Fuzz is the second film in Edgar Wright's thematic trilogy dubbed the cornetto trilogy. This film creating a parody of cop/action movies through the story of a city cop being sent to a small town where all is not as it seems. As with Shaun of the Dead in that surface look the film is a smashing success being consistently hilarious as it plays around with just about every trope and cliché it can fit a single film. Wright's signature style only grows and feels all the more fitting to the usual kinetic style of action films to begin with. Wright replicates that and seems to even master it and some of the humor is even found within a quick edit. Again though Hot Fuzz goes even further than expected. This is in part its horror elements where it alludes to the original Wicker man in the best of ways, but also again in the personal story. This one in regards to Nicholas Angel, whose personal story is a little lighter than Shaun, essentially Nick just needs to lighten up a bit, but still offers the film the right emotional connection through the central friendship between Nick and the hapless PC Danny. The cast is particularly strong here, as with Shaun Nick Frost and especially Simon Pegg excel in their roles. Pegg somehow making a surprisingly believable action hero. The film goes further with its all-star character actor cast including Jim Broadbent as seemingly such a nice police chief, fittingly Edward Woodward as determined city watchmen, and Timothy Dalton as the most obvious villain who ever lived. The film is brilliant from beginning to end as it both employs and subverts its clichés and references by the end to create one of the greatest comedies ever made.
5/5

The Homesman

The Homesman is Jones's theatrically released followup to Three Burials, and it follows a somewhat similar formula, though now a "legitimate" western. In that it follows two people as they go upon a journey to deliver something, this time three mad women, in which one imagine they'll have some sort of personal discovery along the way. It also features similar vignettes where we come across some strange western sorts as well. The film is major step down from that film. Jones still has eye for the west, and is well suited as an actor for the genre, but that's all that carries over from his first film. The film seems wholly unaware of what tone it should be and when it shifts to heavy drama or comedy it is excessively jarring. It doesn't help that the film takes so long to reveal the roots of the women's madness even if they are basically props once the journey begins. One would imagine it could at least get by on its main characters. It does not. We are given the seemingly tough old maid played by Hillary Swank whose personal journey that ends with a twist I'll admit I did not see coming. A parallel to the mad women at the end apparently, but her arc seems oddly stilted. We get Jones whose entertaining as the gruff Homesman, also the only vignettes worth mentioning are a couple of sleazy turns by James Spader and Tim Blake Nelson. It is not enough to make this film compelling. It is a mess that thematically could be summed up "the west sure was cuhraaazy".
2/5

Highlander: Endgame

Highlander: Endgame the fourth film in the Highlander franchise that seeks to bridge the film series with the I'm sure incredible television series, after all Marion Cotillard was in it. Seriously though I've never seen the series, but the main carry over of Adrian Paul as Duncan MacLeod is not a good one. His poor acting though is ready to team up with Christopher Lambert's Connor in order to take on the evil immortal Kell, the most poorly acted of all of the Highlander villains. Now Highlander 2 is probably the more aggressively bad sequel, this one keeps out the planet of Zeist for example, but it's also far less enjoyable. This film is more of best described as not good, and kind of boring. The fights are not engaging, besides a bit of stunt work by Donnie Yen, the storyline is mostly random with its time jumps and poorly defined relationships, and sequences that actually just don't make any sense. The film was in fact so unappealing that the trailers merely made things up to sell it.
0/5

Highlander II: The Quickening

Highlander II: The Quickening is one of the biggest downgrades ever for a sequel, which is problematic when the first film wasn't exactly great to begin with. The film though is a hilariously bad sequel in that it seems to do everything in its power to mess with first film. The most notable example being that film rewrite Connor MacLeod's origin story that he and Sean Connery's mentor from the first film where extraterrestrial rebels sent to Earth. By the way that makes no sense and is down right stupid given the first film's story. But hey the film also has its terrible present story about rebels trying to take down a sunblocking shield, run by an evil corporation that for some reason models all their building after a Blade Runner ripoff. But don't forget about MacLeod's old foe General Katana (Michael Ironside), wait you don't remember him, oh yeah that's right the bad guy appears out of nowhere. Don't worry he's an alien who seeks revenge, for something, several hundred years after the fact, and does so by first giving MacLeod's power back. Also did a mention Sean Connery shows up again living for absolutely no reason, but hey we get more HAM Connery here which is kind of glorious when his character develops the power of telekinesis and bagpipes. It's an ugly film, its plot is terrible, its characters more often dumb than not, and has nothing really to offer in terms of being good. This film is technically bad though in the best kind of way in that its incompetence is often laughable, although I don't think that is exactly praiseworthy.
0/5

Highlander

Highlander is the first and best film in the series, which means absolutely nothing. This film certainly has a good enough idea at its center, a group of immortals who battle to death until there is indeed only one that remains. The film has some fun with the idea by jumping through times from the present, which seems very period today, and the past. One highlight of this is a Barry Lyndon esque duel that rather comically doesn't end. There's are mostly there for some fun little side views, the main lines though consist of New York in the 80's and Scotland in the dark ages. To help through all of this is Christopher Lambert as Connor MacLeod, giving a leading turn only he could possibly give, and Sean Connery, as his immortal mentor, giving an early example of ham Connery, though to be fair ham Connery can relatively entertaining as it is here. The real highlight though is Clancy Brown as the evil immortal the Kurgan whose having a blast in the role, and it's hard not to enjoy watching him. The film story wise isn't anything special at either side, one basically a series of training scenes, the other about a cop trying to uncover a mystery we as viewers are already well aware of. I suppose though there is enough material for a origin story, though just enough, certainly no more. No characters here really are that memorable past the performances around them, and the story, once the concept is known, is very straight forward. What I imagine most are coming for in a Highlander film are the sword fights, and there are several of them. The only problem is they really aren't that great. The choreography isn't anything special, and no sequence really is a standout. They're okay, for the time, but that's it. It's a definite product of the 80's, but as definite product of the 80's there are better films than this one.
3/5

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part II

The second half of Deathly Hallows is also the final installment of the series. Now first with the negative, this film unfortunately struggles with a few elements from the book. The final battle is such a cluster that certain character deaths seem but afterthoughts. It also has that downright abysmal epilogue. The unambiguous epilogue itself was poorly conceived to begin, and it is worse in the film due to some very distracting attempts to age the young cast, past those problems though the rest of the film is pretty great. It is thrilling in its initial scenes with the raid on the bank, it is downright heartbreaking as we find out the truth behind Snape all along, and it is rather inspiring as certain character finally get their due particularly one Neville Longbottom. David Yates work does not disappoint for the most part nor does the work from the legion of British thespians particularly Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith. It is conceivable that a stronger finale could have been crafted; however this is still a worthy end to the series. 

3.5/5

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I

Ah the film that began the breaking of single novels into multiple films. Now this might have led to a very problematic trend I would not say that it is completely unwarranted here. It would have been best to just make a Lord of the Rings length finale, but as it stands the two films are warranted in that I would argue there is not filler material to be found. This film standing as the first of the series conclusion though does reveal a few problems one in faithfulness to the source and unfaithfulness. For example in terms of unfaithfulness the film completely ruins Peter Pettigrews's final act by reducing it to a joke. In terms of faithfulness the film ends on what should be the emotional devastation of the death of a character, this is somewhat diminished by that character having been reduced in the previous adaptations lessening the impact of his demise, having said all that this film does have much to offer. Again David Yates's direction is on point and is particularly effective in creating a real feeling of paranoia as our heroes seem as alone as ever. This film makes use of its additional time in the time in the woods, which is essential to the final bonding of the central three, as well in its animated sequence depicting the Deathly Hallows. My personal favorite moment is when the three infiltrate the Ministry of Magic with a downright brilliant performance by David O'Hara as Harry in disguise. This film shows the end result of a natural progression made by Yates to a darker film as the danger is more real than ever in this film. It might not be a wholly satisfying film on its own but it is a satisfying first half of one. 

3.5/5

Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince is an entry where the end begins, and the actual terror of our main villain becomes evident. The film itself is again well directed by David Yates though has a certain mix in terms of various elements. Now problems here simply comes in the child performances as the relationships advance but are hindered by a few things that prevent them from resonating as they truly should. One part is the adaptation which hinders the characters of Ron and Ginny. Both are underdeveloped due to Steve Kloves's fascination with Hermione, to the point that he takes all of Ron's good lines and gives them to her, and boils his character done to saying "bloody 'ell". The problem continues though as the proper pairs just don't quite have the chemistry unfortunately. Now this aspect of the story still is not terrible by any means. Where the film does excel is following Harry and Dumbledore as they try to quietly defeat Voldermort by deciphering the man's past. There is a real sense of urgency and power to these scenes as we and Harry see Dumbledore in a darker shade. The growing sense of dread is felt, and Voldermort comes to life most as a villain when we do not even see him. The film ends with a key moment to the series as a whole. In this adaptation it is a bit of a mixed bag. The moment itself has the impact it should but the aftermath seems rushed in order to keep the film's run time down. It's a shame as this is one point in the series where they would have earned taking their time a bit. It doesn't ruin the film, but it keeps it back all the same.

3.5/5

Harry Potter and The Order of Phoenix

Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix marked the first Potter film directed by David Yates who went on to direct the rest of the series. It must be said Yates seems to find just the right balance in his work. He might not be as daring as say Alfonso Cuaron but he's never as standard in the way of a Chris Columbus. He has a vision for the material, and that vision just often seems right. There is a definite atmosphere created through his work, and has a real eye for giving each new setting a different life while still feeling like part of the same universe. Now having said all that it does not mean the man's incapable of a wrong choice, far from it, but he has a good grasp on the world. This film I don't think offers the most compelling narrative all in itself. There is a certain sense of filler as much of the story is devoted to a training montage. It is mostly building a storm for the last two entries, made three by the films. What does make it stand out is through its terrific alternate villain in Dolores Umbridge played brilliantly by Imelda Staunton. She's a delightful fiend, though the film is not nearly as thrilling when she's off screen. The character relationships are a bit static here, and the scenes of the Death Eaters seem more like a warm up. That can be said for much of the film as we receive no major resolutions outside a death that always felt a tad haphazard to me. Nevertheless as entry that is the series itself turning its wheels a bit, it is still a rather entertaining film. 

3.5/5

Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and The Goblet Of Fire once again changes directors this time giving Mike Newell the chance to offer his own unique vision for the wizarding world. Unfortunately his vision is well kind of odd. There are some choices here that just kind of boggle the mind. I suppose they begin with the long haircuts on the boys, which I don't know what that was meant to add, but it does not add much. The strange choices do not end there though as we are given the infamous moment where the kindly Dumbledore interrogates Harry about his name coming out of the Goblet of Fire by physically assaulting him and yelling in his face. I have to imagine that was Newell, and not Michael Gambon since that moment goes against everything else we've seen from the character up until that point or after it for that matter. Then there are the little things like the horribly awkward transition to a rock band during the ball scene which caused me to think another film had been spliced in the first time I saw the film. I could go on, but I'll just also mention David Tennant, yeah what was that exactly? That's not to say this is a terrible film. Technically speaking this one where they take out quite a bit of unneeded fat from the novel, I don't think we really needed 12 years an Elf randomly thrown in there, and there is fun to be had from the Harry Potterverse's version of the Olympics. There's Brendan Gleeson as the teacher who seems to take a liking to Harry, Gleeson is always a good thing. Unfortunately the missteps do overwhelm to a certain degree diminishing the effect of certain moments that could have been highlights of the series. The return of Voldermort in particular, though while not bad, potentially could have been something unforgettable in say with Alfonso Cuaron at the helm. The film perhaps indicated where a director could go wrong, and perhaps that contributed to why we'd get a single vision for the rest of the series. 

2.5/5

Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban marks the third installment in the series and a major jump with Alfonso Cuaron taking over the reins from Chris Columbus. Cuaron is another league as a filmmaker and it shows from early on in the film. The atmosphere is far more palatable than ever before, which is especially important given the sense of paranoia created by the central plot of an escaped fugitive as well as due to the ghostly dementors. Take just for example the first scene where the black dog appears. The sound design, the editing, the music, everything comes together in creating a real sense of fear. The film goes beyond anything seen in the previous two just in sheer filmmaking and that is because of Cuaron. There is a real fascination with the world itself that Curaon creates, even with the overarching darker tone, as he takes times for this smaller moments of beauty, that are the signs of a great director at work. The story is at its most gripping here as Cuaron executes pivotal scenes so well, particularly the time bending climax that could have been blundered severely in the wrong hands. Now as excellent as Cuaron's work is for the most part the film has a few missteps. The work from the kids still leaves a bit to be desired unfortunately in some pivotal moments such as when Harry finds out what he believes Sirius Black did. There is also the introduction of Sirius Black, which despite being played by Gary Oldman, comes off as a bit much in order to create a fake out. These missteps are few and can be overlooked in favor of the greater achievements of the film. 

4.5/5

Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets

The Chamber of Secrets is the second entry in the series and it even further illustrates the limits to Chris Columbus's work as a director. He has nothing to add to what he did in the first film, as his attempt at adaptation is to try to take the book verbatim. This leads to the film only leaving out a few bits of the book, and leads the film to an almost three hour running time. A long running time is fine if it calls for it, but by the end of the film it becomes repetitive. Columbus keeps everything excessively straight so there's a real lack of panache to the proceedings. The positive elements are still quite prevalent though, the score, the actors (now with Kenneth Branagh, and Jason Isaacs joining the troupe), and the story is there technically speaking. The impact of pivotal scenes are diminished since Columbus essentially makes everything as important in his refusal to make his own statement on the material. There is also a problem brewing (no pun intended) with this film in Steve Kloves's writing. This film begins the wrecking of Ron as a character as the street smart wizard of the group, in order to further prop up Hermione in a needless fashion by giving her pivotal lines that were Ron's in the book. Again even with these problems the source material is there, the qualities of the first film are there, and it is enough to still make it a decent film.
3/5

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is the first entry in the series and it's interesting to see what exactly it accomplished. Now there are problems. It is directed by Chris Columbus, who I'd say is a better writer than a director. As director I'd describe his work as the standard for a standard kids movie. Of course I'd actually say this isn't too problematic for the simpler story of this film. What the film does well is get things going. It effectively set the basis for the aesthetic elements of the series, though more enterprising directors would take this further later, and it contained of course John Williams's wholly fitting score that now is synonymous with the series. It also began the intelligent use of extremely accomplished British thespians such as John Hurt, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, and of course Alan Rickman. Now there are problems the visual effects here in particular leave something to be desired, and the child acting is bit rusty in spots. The thing is though even with its fault it works, and most importantly it set off the series on the right foot.
3.5/5

Henry V (1989)

Henry V marks Kenneth Branagh first cinematic foray into adapting the Bard, and almost seemed to encourage comparison to Laurence Olivier given that was his first film as well. Branagh seems to take a more straight forward approach. Of course the story requires a bit fourth wall breaking due to its introduction or else excise of the material. Branagh deals with rather quickly limiting this to the chorus which he keeps through a living narrator played by Derek Jacobi, who Branagh always seem to get his best from. Branagh makes a rather brilliant decision in terms of the written adaptation by including passages from Henry IV to further develop the King's relationship with Falstaff and his group of friends. This effectively realizes the transformation from the boy as a Prince to become the man as a King. This allows for one particularly powerful moment where Henry must proceed with the execution of one his former friends. Branagh crafts the arc well leading the origin which proceeds with his invasion of France. The invasion itself is handled with a focus on the often grim reality of battle, though Branagh does leave time for a bit of grandeur through the King's speech which is made particularly rousing due to the score by Patrick Doyle. It's a grand adaptation, it's not quite as strong as Hamlet mainly due to Branagh's own performance style is a better fit for Hamlet than Henry, but still a triumph.
5/5

Hamlet (1996)

Hamlet starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn the Shakespeare theatrical play into a grand spectacle of cinema. Branagh's spiritual predecessor, Laurence Olivier's own adaptation took an intimate, though still cinematic, approach that pared the material down to its most basic elements. Branagh's version does the exact opposite adapting the play in its entirety in the style of a Hollywood CinemaScope epic of the 50's and 60's. This is in the sense of the grand scope that Branagh gives to the story. This is in every sense from the massive rather magnificent sets, the sumptuous costumes, the sweeping score, as well as keeping the Fortinbras subplot which forces a less intimate perspective on the events of the play. Branagh's approach to the material succeeds in his aim, but is also rather fitting to Branagh's personal approach to the part of Hamlet. Now this is not to say this approach is without pitfalls as seen with Branagh taking a note from the Michael Todd Around the World in Eighty Days rule book, which is to fill the smaller parts with recognizable stars. A few of these are distracting or downright bad, Jack Lemmon, Robin Williams and Gerard Depardieu, but I'll admit the strength of the rest, Charlton Heston in particular, more than makes up for it. Branagh choices succeed here and the complete play does add to the story particularly in regards to the character development of King Cladius and Polonius. It is an adaptation with a clear vision and Branagh successfully uses that to craft a powerful and rather memorable version of the often adapted work.
5/5

Hard Eight

Hard Eight is the feature film debut of Paul Thomas Anderson, and it's a rather strong showing first time at bat. This is most obvious in the opening set of scenes that open the film where the older man Sydney seems to randomly help out a young man John by showing him a neat trick to get setup as a high roller in Vegas. The entire sequence is spellbinding in its own unassuming way. Now once that ends it does not maintain that height, but that's not really saying too much. It still remains a compelling character study through Philip Baker Hall's great performance. Even though the plot develops are not exactly amazing the film succeeds on Anderson's ability as a director, his ability as a writer in terms of dialogue, and the performances of the entire cast. It ends up being more of a set of scenes than a cohesive whole the way his later films would become, but that's alright since the various scenes are still quite strong, one involving a one scene wonder by Philip Seymour Hoffman is very memorable. There is obvious room for growth to be found in this film, yet it still stands as an indication of a potential master filmmaker.
4.5/5

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame contains the best the Disney Renaissance has to offer. It has all time great songs, grand visuals especially in the realization of the titular cathedral in particular and two particularly strong characters in our hero Quasimodo and our hero Frollo. Even the more straight forward, and by nature blander roles, of Phoebes and Esmeralda have more character than they might have been otherwise. Of course the most overt tragic elements of the novel have been removed or changed yet the adaptation still succeeds in telling a darker story about Quasimodo's life, and as well as the particular motivations that compel Frollo. Unfortunately the worst is found in the three unfunny comic relief, in the worst possible way, gargoyles. They waste time with their shtick, but worst of all they horrible mess with the tone of the film. It honestly could have been the masterpiece of the Renaissance, but due to their inclusion it falls short.
4.5/5

Harry and Tonto

Harry and Tonto is best as showcase for Art Carney's great performance which deservedly won his Oscar. The film itself is decent in that it positions Harry in numerous emotional moments basically, honestly it all could have fallen apart but Carney keeps it all together with his honest performance. Every moment feels earned through Carney's work as he makes Harry a real man, despite the fact that he could have easily been a caricature in the wrong hands. The film is dated squarely in the seventies, particularly in some of the stops, especially one involving a prostitute. Even with that it the film works because Carney is so good.
3.5/5

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

It seems to be the curse of the musical, non-animated that is, that it will be too long. That's the case here, but not to as much of a degree as many musicals. Not every song is great, but enough of them are good for the film to get by. Plus unlike many musicals it actually works when songs are not being and song as it is actually quite entertaining in just its realization of the path of one man, enjoyably played by Robert Morse, using every trick in a literal book to get to the top.
4/5