They say dead men tell no tales. I think they do.

About three years ago, I was in a Hollywood Video browsing through their previously viewed DVDs for sale and they were having one of those clearance specials where you could get certain titles for $3 a pop if you bought four of them. I’d picked out a couple I wanted, but in order to get the special cheap price, I had to pick out a couple more. So, I thought “What would be worth having (or at least watching) for three dollars?” I think one of them was Zombie Strippers (and yes, it was worth paying three dollars to watch – although, not much more than that) and, on the flipside, the other was United 93.

I had seen United 93 in the theater when it was first released and I thought it was an under-appreciated masterpiece. It still perplexes me that it was nominated for a mere two Academy Awards (although, the richly-deserved categories were for Directing and Editing). However, while I was happy to own it for such a low price, I couldn’t ever really psyche myself up to watch it. Last night, upon hearing of Osama bin Laden’s death, I was struck with a bizarre sense of mixed emotions and concluded that there was probably no finer time to re-visit United 93 than right then.

Watching the film for the first time in six years, I had not forgotten how it had affected me, but I had forgotten the details of its intensity. Any film that attempts to recreate actual events is a huge enough challenge, but for a film to do as good a job as this one does is a miracle. As Roger Ebert points out in his thoughtful review of the film, the filmmakers avoid propaganda, grandstanding, and over-dramatization in a fierce dedication to present the events as truthfully and authentically as possible. It feels like a real-time documentary. For instance, when the first plane hits the World Trade Center, we’re not shown some impressive special-effects piece of a plane turning into a fireball upon impact. Instead, we’re literally looking over the shoulder of an air traffic controller who is tracking the flight as it instantaneously disappears from his radar. The whole film is haunting in this sense because the viewer is treated as a virtual participant, but a participant who knows what’s going to happen and can do nothing about it.

Most impressive, however, is the human element. Even though the actions of the passengers on that flight were most definitely heroic, nobody in the film is intentionally portrayed as a hero. Furthermore, the terrorists aren’t even technically portrayed as villains. They are every bit as human as anyone else in the film, just on the opposite end of the same tragedy. You have the zealot who seems all too eager to slit the throats of every hostage before their target is even reached, you have the nervous perfectionist who compensates for his fears by being overtly aggressive, you have the young thug willing to follow orders but unable to think for himself, and the stoic leader who seems to worry that his underlings are ill-prepared to carry out a mission of such importance. To show these men going about their day as everyone else went about their day on September 11^th before tragedy struck makes one think.

Hearing of Osama bin Laden being killed after all this time brought to mind a line from the movie Se7en where Morgan Freeman’s character says of the serial killer he’s hunting: “If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil – I mean, if he’s Satan himself – that might live up to our expectations. But, he’s not the devil, he’s just a man.” Osama bin Laden has been labeled a devil by many Americans and now may be labeled a martyr by many extremists, but he was still just a person. Yes, his death is good thing - even if only for the sake of closure - but everybody that died before him is still dead.

Remember the films of 2010? Me neither.

The fact that it's taken me this long to get around to posting a list of my top ten favorite films of 2010 is the perfect indicator of what a lackluster year it was for movies. That's not to say it sucked entirely (indeed, there were a number of films that were quite good), but nothing last year really stood out and shouted and got me excited while I was watching it. Even now, looking at my list in preparation to write about it, my reaction is "Yeah, those were pretty good" as opposed to my usual "Man, I love these movies!"

To psyche myself up, I watched this 2010 movie recap montage, which actually makes last year seem better than it actually was (which, I suppose, says more about the editor of this piece than the movies themselves):



So, with that, I give you my TOP TEN FAVORITE FILMS OF 2010 (for what it's worth):

#10: Buried - 127 Hours got a lot of attention (and Oscar nominations) last year, but I think this film's better. I suppose the edge 127 Hours had over Buried (besides a bigger budget) was that it was based on a true story and I suppose most audience members were morbidly curious about what one would go through before hacking off their own arm to survive. Buried was more compelling and suspenseful, to me, though, for a number of reasons. For starters, it taps into a wide range of inherent fears (being buried alive, confined to a small space, alone in the dark, not knowing where you are, running out of oxygen, dying cell phone battery, etc). Second of all, it establishes "the rules" from the outset and doesn't deviate, yet manages to keep things tense and interesting throughout the whole experience. It's a classic "what-would-I-do-if-I-were-in-that-situation" kinda movie. 127 Hours was so inundated with dream sequences and hallucinations, I never really knew what was supposed to be real and what wasn't. In fact, the whole time, I was too aware that I was watching a movie (which, frankly, felt more like a music video). In Buried, on the other hand, having every bit of it take place within the coffin, I felt like I was in there as well. And, man, did I want out.

#9: Four Lions - Dark comedy is very hard to do well. And it's all the more difficult when your subject matter is especially touchy. Four Lions' subject matter is so touchy, that if I were to describe the plot to you, you probably wouldn't be interested in seeing it. Furthermore, you probably wouldn't even think it was a comedy. Not a funny one, anyway. Case in point, I didn't really wanna see it myself, but a friend invited me to go watch it at a time when I was bored and wanted to get out of the house. I'm glad I did, though, because it's easily one of the funniest films of 2010. How do you make a movie about Muslim extremists conspiring to become suicide bombers funny? Well, for starters, I guess you make it a British film. This movie has the flavor of Guy Ritchie's earlier work (particularly in the scenarios where guys trying to act tough merely come across as stupid) with some moments that are genuinely touching. I dunno, it's hard to describe, but you hafta trust me. I don't believe I've ever seen a film so brave and insightful that is also downright silly.

#8: Date Night - The reason this movie's so good is because Steve Carell and Tina Fey are so adept at comedy, the film could have just simply been about their night out together without anything going wrong and been equally entertaining. You know you're off to a good start when the groundwork for a comedy is laid so soundly. When all hell finally does break loose, this film makes all the right moves to keep it from drowning in its own ridiculousness. As Roger Ebert has remarked over and over (and again in his review of this film), comedy works best when the performers don't act like they're in a comedy. As things spiral out of control and become increasingly implausible, our heroes stay the course, taking it very seriously the whole time. Which, of course, makes it even funnier. A perfect example of how, when it's done the other way, it fails miserably is showcased in (another Steve Carell film from last year) Dinner For Schmucks. That was far and away the worst film I saw last year (and I saw Piranha 3-D).

#7: RED - While Four Lions and Date Night were both funnier than this film, RED was more fun. Action that was over-the-top but not annoyingly unbelievable, scenarios that were implausible but not insulting, dialogue that was silly but not stupid. Pure Hollywood escapism done right. And great fun to see such an eclectic group of reputable film veterans brought together and having a good time. True, most of them probably just did it for the paycheck, but I bet not a single one of them felt ashamed of themselves for doing it. And they shouldn't. I believe a film's merit should be based on how well it achieves the goal it sets for itself. And RED hit the bullseye.

#6: True Grit - It's not unusual for the Coen brothers to make my top ten list, but it is pretty rare for a remake. Nice to know that, in the case of a tie, the Coens win. Truth be told, I think I prefer the John Wayne version overall, but this is still a good, solid western and a worthy entry into the Coens' repertoire. That's probably due to the fact that they used Charles Portis' original novel as their source material rather than Henry Hathaway's 1969 film. I haven't read the book, but the story and dialogue between the two films is similar enough that probably neither film deviated much. Actually, pulling the strengths out of both versions would probably make the perfect movie. You could start by replacing Glen Campbell with Matt Damon.

#5: TRON: Legacy - You may wonder how this Jeff Bridges movie could outrank the previously mentioned Jeff Bridges movie on my list. The answer is simple: Nostalgia. Had I been born a decade earlier, I might have felt the same attachment to True Grit, but given I was 8 years old when the original TRON came out, that's where my heart lies. Most sequels released beyond 20 years of their predecessor are sadly pathetic. TRON: Legacy is a reverent tribute. In fact, it's similar to the original TRON in more ways than the filmmakers probably intended. For instance, it had a mediocre performance at the box office and the movie itself starts strong and then levels off a bit and slows down in the second half. Some people hated it and, frankly, I'd be reluctant to recommend it to just anyone (especially if they didn't see or didn't like the original), but I thought it was an exhilarating feast for the eyes. And it's my list, so piss off, nerd-haters.

#4: I Saw the Devil - I'd be more inclined to recommend TRON: Legacy to a multitude of people before I'd recommend this one. Not because it's a mediocre movie that I personally found endearing, in fact, quite the opposite: It's an amazing movie that I personally found unsettling. I think most well-adjusted people would agree. I haven't seen a lot of Korean films, but of the ones I have seen, I've come to realize that the Koreans are willing to explore dark areas that the rest of the world of cinema are reluctant to tread. In fact, I'm not even sure I have the stomach to describe the plot here given my mother reads my blog. Just to give you an idea, though, the movie begins with a pregnant woman being murdered - in a very, very horrible way - and the remainder of the film is her husband's wrathful vengeance upon the serial killer responsible. You've no doubt heard the expression "not for weak stomachs". Well, for this film, you're gonna need every strong organ you've got. If you can make it through, though, it is a powerful and haunting film that'll make you think much deeper than most films this violent can.

#3: Inception - Christopher Nolan is well on his way to becoming the next Steven Spielberg in that he's an expert in giving audiences exactly what they want without them even knowing they wanted it in the first place. I think what I liked most about Inception was what I liked about Buried. It simply said, "Here's the rules, now let's play the game." From the beginning, Inception was poised for trickery and plenty of opportunities to manipulate the audience and pull the rug out from under them. Yet, while remaining complicated, the filmmakers still played fair. Kind of like a chess match, you have to pay attention to a bunch of things at once, but there's no cheating going on. Refreshing to see something so original that wasn't a shock to the system. The downside is (and I think this is the reason Inception wasn't in my top two) I have the feeling the more I see Inception, the more holes I'll find in it. That certainly was the case with The Matrix. In any case, it's a smart, exciting and beautifully shot film. And that's more than I can say for most others.

#2: The Social Network - Once in a while, a movie comes out that contains nothing more than just a bunch of people sitting around and talking, yet it is absolutely riveting. The last movie like that that I can remember was The Insider. I remember that, upon hearing a movie was being made about the creation of facebook, I rolled my eyes. When I heard David Fincher was directing it, it struck me as a waste of talent (in fact, I even remarked on it in my top ten list for 2009). But, I had the same reaction to The Insider when it first came out, too. Aaron Sorkin's dialogue just goes to show that a good script means everything. This is the only movie from last year that I actually own.

#1: Toy Story 3 - It was only a matter of time before a PIXAR flick took the top spot on one of my "year's best" lists. While I was more impressed with Inception, and The Social Network is probably a better movie, Toy Story 3 takes the prize because it moved me on such a personal level. PIXAR's films are never lacking in brilliance and it was sheer brilliance on their part to set the sequel in real-time with Andy going to college and consequently outgrowing his toys. It opened up a whole area of exploration into growing up and self-actualization and the nature of sentimental objects. I was already in college when the original Toy Story came out, but I wasn't any less choked-up at the powerfully heartfelt ending of part 3. It must have been all the more emotionally overwhelming for somebody Andy's age to watch (having seen the previous Toy Stories at his age as well). I think what I liked most about the film, though, was that it was essentially a prison-break flick. Each new PIXAR film seems to be better than the last, but this one will probably remain the most bad-ass for that reason alone.

So, 2010... Ultimately, you were forgettable, but not without your strong points. Here's hoping 2011 is even better. Although, I have my doubts because it's already taken four months to get to a movie as good as Source Code.

Winning, Indeed.

Normally, this time of year (after the Academy Awards, that is) I'm inclined to share my top ten list of favorite movies from the previous year. However, it turns out Charlie Sheen has put on a better show than the Oscars lately, so I've decided to write about him instead.

In another change of pace, I'm also currently writing for a website called This Or That which posts articles on a variety of topics that interest me (and probably you as well). So, for an indefinite amount of time, my article-writing will be divided between this blog and that website. Probably my more personal and long-winded articles will be saved for here whereas my more brief and mainstream articles will appear there. Case in point, the aforementioned article on Charlie Sheen can be viewed at http://thisorthat.com/blog/5-charlie-sheen-performances-that-are-even-better-now-that-hes-totally-insane.

This is the important part: This Or That offers up "royalties" to authors when certain articles of theirs go viral. So, you're doing me a big favor by reading my articles on This Or That and an even bigger favor by forwarding these articles to friends of yours (and friends of theirs and so on). In fact, you don't even hafta read it, you can just click on it. However, let me assure you that I'm not a total sell-out. It's not just about the money. I do appreciate every single individual who reads what I write - even if they hate it, I'm still glad they read it. So, thank you for doing exactly that right now, whether it be for free or for pay. This Or That just gives me the opportunity to make some money offa my writing in a way that still won't cost you a cent.

Regardless, I'll get to my top ten list of 2010 eventually, but for now, please enjoy my perspective on the state of Charlie Sheen's career by indulging in "5 Charlie Sheen Performances That Are Even Better Now That He's Totally Insane". And stay tuned for more. Thanks again for reading!

If you're good at something, never do it for free.

It’s no surprise to anyone these days that times are tough and jobs are scarce. Consequently, it’s much more competitive in the realms of job-seeking and one must do what they can to gain an edge over the competition. People often try new things to get noticed and someone else says “Hey, that’s a good idea” and they try it themselves and it spreads and snowballs until it becomes the norm. I have no proof or way of finding out, but I’m pretty sure the concept of the “cover letter” started with some overachiever saying “Hey, what if I include a letter with my resume? That’ll make me stand out!” Then, eventually it became a requirement in a job application to include a cover letter (or, if not a requirement, it at least made you seem inadequate if you failed to provide one). Personally, if I ever do find out who pioneered the cover letter, I will happily kidnap them, torture them, and kill them (if somebody already hasn't).

Regardless, that’s water under the bridge. What I’m most concerned with these days are the burgeoning future job-seeking trends that will no doubt become mandatory. I have been working in the area of art direction and graphic design for nearly 15 years now and every time I have sought a new job, the guidelines have changed. Well, not necessarily “changed” so much as “increased”. Artists and designers are unique in that a big part of the hiring process (the most crucial part, I would hope) is based on the quality of one’s portfolio.

When I first started looking for work as a designer fresh out of college, the way it worked was I sent out my resume and cover letter like anyone else and, if the prospective employer liked what they saw in my skills and experience, they called me in for an interview at which time I presented my portfolio. A few years later, it seemed they wanted me to enclose samples from my portfolio along with my resume and cover letter so they could get a general sense of my talent before deciding if they wanted to see more. Great idea! I've always felt my portfolio was stronger than my resume anyway and sending employers a tiny taste to whet their appetites seemed like a sure-fire way to get my foot in the door.

Shortly thereafter, when the internet became so thoroughly integrated in every aspect of American life and business, companies that were hiring wanted me to send a link to my portfolio online. Okay, that’s great because it saves me the trouble of having to print out samples, it saves me the cost of shipping and handling, and it saves me the time of having to wait for them to receive my goods and get back to me. However, once they’ve seen my whole portfolio (and without me there to talk about it, no less), what else do I have to show you when I come in for an interview? Makes things a bit anti-climatic, doesn’t it? It’s like having the entrée served when they’re supposed to be eating the appetizers. Still, I can appreciate the efficiency of this method even if it does strike me as slightly less-effective.

However, now that I’m looking for full-time work as a designer once again, I’m noticing a new fad starting to pick up steam that I find both disturbing and annoying. Now, it seems, in addition to my online portfolio, employers want a detailed explanation of the creative process behind each piece. Whoa, whoa, whoa… Hold it right there. If you wanna know how I work, you gotta call me in for an interview, bub. That’s how it goes. I’m not giving you all the goods up front. The method you’re suggesting is akin to requesting nude pictures from a girl before you even ask her out on a date.

The work in my portfolio either measures up to your standards of design or it doesn’t. You either like the work or you don’t. You’ll either want to learn more about me or you won’t. At this early stage in the hiring process, what does it matter what my process is? Are you so pretentiously sensitive that you’re afraid my thinking process doesn’t jibe with yours (even if the end result is completely successful)? Or are you simply looking for quick, new, underhanded ways to poach other people’s creative methods rather than just actually hiring them? It reminds me of a line from the high-stakes poker film “The Cincinnati Kid”. Rip Torn’s character Slade has just been cleaned out by Edward G. Robinson’s character Howard and Slade asks him “How in the hell did you know I didn’t have the King or the Ace?” and Howard succinctly replies “All you paid was the looking price. Lessons are extra.” Well, employers… When you hire me, you get the full package with all the bells and whistles. Until then, you gotta give action to get action.

I realize that this disdainful attitude of mine (whether it’s justified or not) probably won’t increase my odds of finding a job anytime soon and I’m even more aware that the job market is so tight right now that prospective employers can get away with requesting applicants do all sorts of unreasonable (and even humiliating) things just for a shot at an interview. But, seriously: How much free work must all of us be expected to put out for a job that only one person will be hired for? I may be a whore, but I’m not a slut.

Silent Night, Holy $#!+

Christmas is a time of traditions. Movies are as much a part of Christmas tradition as anything else. Think about how you’ve spent your Christmas Days in the past. Chances are, after all the presents have been opened and the family’s gorged itself on “roast beast”, you’ve just sat around watching holiday movies: It’s a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Story, Miracle on 34^th Street, one version or another of Scrooge, and, most recently added to the list of classics, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. The thing about traditions, though; whether they be good or bad, there’s one thing they all have in common: They are all redundant. You may not be aware of it, but there are a multitude of Christmas movies out there that venture outside the “God bless us, everyone” mentality and are more interested in rocking your stockings off. This year, why not shake things up a bit and have yourself a badass little Christmas?

The obvious place to start is with the original Die Hard. If you have any taste in action movies (or indeed any movies), you’ve seen this already, but it’s a real treat to watch on Christmas or, better yet, Christmas Eve. It’s not completely devoid of a Christmas message, either. Most families have their share of volatility, be it marital friction or otherwise, and Die Hard is as good a Christmas parable as any in demonstrating the power of putting aside petty differences to recognize what’s really important in life. Furthermore, if you’re not exhilarated enough after watching Die Hard and want to see John McClane kill some more terrorists, you could always chase it with Die Hard 2 which occurs on Christmas Eve as well. In fact, if your holiday plans involve putting up with the madness of airport travel, Die Hard 2 will make you appreciate what you didn’t have to go through.

If you’ve seen Die Hard more times than you can stand, and your opinion of Mel Gibson hasn’t been permanently soured by his more recent personal antics, the original Lethal Weapon is a perfectly good action movie set at Christmas. According to the Mayo Clinic, suicide rates do not spike during the holidays (as it is widely believed). Regardless, if you happen to be depressed during the Christmas season, this is either the best movie to watch, or the worst. Suicide is pretty prevalent in the movie not just because of Sergeant Riggs’ death wish throughout the film, but it also opens with a coked-up whore plummeting to her death. If the filmmakers had a real sick sense of humor, rather than playing “Jingle Bell Rock” over the credits sequence that precedes that scene, they would have gone with “Let It Snow” instead. Speaking of Christmas carols, Sergeant Murtaugh’s wife is played by Darlene Love who sang the 1963 Christmas song “Christmas (Baby, Please Come Home)” which, as it just so happens, plays over the opening credits of our next non-conformist yuletide film...

Gremlins was originally intended for a Christmas release, but Warner Brothers apparently didn’t have a movie set for the summer to go up against Columbia’s Ghostbusters and Paramount’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984. That, above all else, is probably why it’s not widely thought of as a Christmas movie. It should be, though. Really, before the beasties show up, the movie sets itself up to be a virtual remake of It’s a Wonderful Life. The family and the townsfolk are so innocent and harmless, you’d think the first third of the script was written during the 40’s. The reason it works so well as a horror movie is because of how much it’s trying not to be. When the Gremlins are sprung loose on the town, you almost root for them to teach the town of Kingston Falls a lesson in how things work in the real world. Plus, it’s damn funny. Joe Dante was the king of tongue-in-cheek creature features during the 80’s and he’s in classic form here. Tim Burton was one of the original contenders considered for directing Gremlins, but he had yet to do a feature film at that time. However, he eventually had a hand in two “darker” Christmas films during the 90’s: Batman Returns and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Both of which, like Gremlins, are good movies to watch at Christmas if your favorite holiday is Halloween.

If you like your Christmas horror even darker than Gremlins, you can’t get any blacker than 1974’s Black Christmas. Skip the 2006 remake, but be warned: This film is scary as hell. It’s not exceptionally scary in terms of suspense, but it excels in being uncomfortably creepy and will likely stick with you through New Year’s. For one thing, it has one of the most psychotic psychos ever seen (or unseen, as it were) and his menacing phone calls to the sorority girls will make your skin crawl. His victims aren’t exasperatingly foolish to the point where they’re asking for it (as most are in slasher films from this era) and he kills them so stealthily that the bodies aren’t found and the remaining survivors carry on as usual. They become increasingly concerned as the movie progresses, but their unawareness in being stalked makes this movie a nightmare-inducer for sure. It’s a wonder Black Christmas isn’t recognized as being a huge influence on the slasher genre. Perhaps it was overshadowed by the overtly shocking Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which was released just three months earlier. Perhaps it’s because, ironically, it was directed by the same guy who did A Christmas Story. If nothing else, it should be a lesson to keep better track of your loved-ones during the holidays.

If you think Black Christmas is too much to take, yet Gremlins is not enough, try P2. Ample-bosomed Rachel Nichols plays a paralegal who becomes locked in her workplace’s parking garage on Christmas Eve by a lonely, but psychotic security guard who’s been watching her on surveillance cameras and wants her for himself. Like the characters in Black Christmas, our heroine/victim isn’t stupid, so everything that happens in P2, while sometimes far-fetched, remains plausible. The filmmakers do a good job of keeping things interesting given the limited resources they have within a parking garage. It’s a classic “what would you do if you were in this situation” movie and it’s bound to give you yet another reason to not work late.

If you’re looking for an excuse to not take your kids to see Santa Claus at the mall, refer to Bad Santa. Despite the fact this is a comedy, it’s probably the most objectionable Christmas movie mentioned in this article. You probably need to be even more thick-skinned to sit through this than Black Christmas. That’s not to say it’s not funny, but boy is it ever depraved. Even Billy Bob Thornton admitted he was genuinely intoxicated during most of his scenes. That said, it’s not without its holiday spirit. Buried deep in there, there’s a Christmas message on par with the moral of a “South Park” episode. You just have to wade through the sea of the insults and curse words to get to it.

Speaking of morally inept mall Santas, The Silent Partner from 1978 is worth checking out if you like cat-and-mouse heist flicks. Christopher Plummer plays a particularly nasty thief disguised as Santa Claus who intends to rob a bank in a mall. Elliott Gould plays an insightful teller who anticipates the robbery and boosts the money for himself once the criminal tries to make his move. Unfortunately for the teller, the thief is also quite resourceful and goes after Gould in his own less subtle and more intimidating ways. The film’s a bit dated and none of the characters are particularly likable (which is probably exactly how it should be), but there are some clever moments, surprising twists and a great payoff in the end.

The Ice Harvest is another Christmas robbery teeming with deceit and double-crosses. John Cusack plays a mob lawyer who masterminds a scheme to embezzle roughly $2 million from his boss. Billy Bob Thornton plays his accomplice with enough balls to pull it off. It’s never a good idea to steal from the mob, but as Bad Santa clearly demonstrates, it’s an even worse idea to trust Billy Bob Thornton as your partner. Interestingly enough, though, Thornton seems to remain the most sober throughout the entire ordeal. Watching this movie, you have to wonder if all characters are drinking because they made bad decisions, or if they made bad decisions because they’re drinking. If you intend to get liquored up at Christmas, this movie will make you glad you stayed home to watch it.

While the driving force behind The Silent Partner and The Ice Harvest is the money, a great Christmas heist film that’s more about the getaway is The Ref. Denis Leary plays a safe-cracking burglar stealing jewels who, while trying to evade incompetent local law enforcement, holes up in a dysfunctional married couple’s house and keeps them hostage while he awaits arrangements for an alternate getaway. The couple’s contempt for each other is so intense, it outweighs any danger they may feel in being held at gunpoint and, at some point, the thief concedes that the best way to keep these people at bay is to just let them go at it. He comes to find the dysfunction extends beyond just the marriage as their relatives start showing up for Christmas Eve dinner and that’s when things get really interesting. Leary essentially plays himself and you either find him funny or you don’t, but the credibility of the film comes from the impassioned performances by Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis who deliver their lines as if this were a drama instead of a comedy. If your family Christmases have a tendency to become shouting matches, chances are you will find this film exponentially funnier.

A film with a similar set-up as The Ref, but a completely different outcome, is the highly underrated Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Robert Downey, Jr. plays a petty thief whose botched store burglary (attempting to steal highly-coveted Christmas toys) sends him literally running into an audition for a movie role. His anxiety impresses the casting directors so much, they send him to Hollywood to take private detective lessons for the role they want him to play. In his apprenticeship with the PI, he stumbles across a murder investigation that involves his former childhood sweetheart. To tell you more would be to ruin it, but you should know the film received a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Shane Black, the screenwriter of Lethal Weapon, directs his own script and creates one of the most entertaining and astute pieces of film noir to come out of Hollywood in recent years. Ya gotta love a detective story where the narrator says “I was wetter than Drew Barrymore at a grunge club.”

Another great Christmas movie with clever crooks on the lam exchanging lively dialogue is In Bruges. The Christmas element is virtually absent from this film (it’s only really mentioned once in the beginning, once in the end, and we see a pregnant woman decorating a Christmas tree sometime in the middle), but it’s still worth mentioning. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play Irish hit men hiding out in Belgium over the holidays after an assassination that went bad. They later find out they were sent to Bruges for reasons other than what they were made aware of. The film starts off seeming as though it will merely be a comedy with these two becoming so bored at sightseeing in an ancient city that they’ll eventually blow their cover, but it’s surprisingly smarter and more complicated than that. It also pulls out some unexpectedly effective dramatic scenes and some profound observations about honor and redemption. This film would be ideal to watch when you’re traveling during the holidays and unable to spend Christmas with your family. Although, it’ll probably make you miss them even more.

Not many westerns take place over Christmas and even less take place in Australia, but The Proposition is the superlative western that fits both of those categories. It touches on similar themes as In Bruges (though it’s a helluva lot less funny and a helluva lot more violent) as the story is about an outlaw in the outback faced with a paradoxical ultimatum. Guy Pearce plays Charlie Burns, middle brother in the infamous Burns Gang. The oldest brother in the gang, Arthur, has become so ruthless and merciless in his criminal atrocities, the younger two brothers, Charlie and Mike, decide to separate themselves from the gang. Shortly after going on their own, they are ambushed at a brothel and captured by police. Police Captain Stanley then makes Charlie an offer. The always-reliable tough guy Ray Winstone as Captain Stanley croaks out the lines “Now, suppose I told you there was a way to save your little brother Mikey from the noose. Suppose I gave you a horse and a gun. Suppose, Mr. Burns, I was to give both you and your young brother Mikey here a pardon. Suppose I said that I could give you the chance to expunge the guilt, beneath which you so clearly labor. Suppose I gave you 'til Christmas. Now, suppose you tell me what it is I want from you.” Charlie croaks back “You want me to kill me brother.” From here, the violence escalates and eventually culminates into the bloodiest Christmas dinner you’re likely to see. If it’s a particularly cold Christmas where you are, this film will likely make you feel warm. Not in that touchy-feely way, but because the outback appears so swelteringly hot, you may even want to turn on the air conditioning.

If you’re interested in the pursuit of criminals, but you’re not up for something as grim as The Proposition during a time of peace on Earth and goodwill toward men, try the James Bond Christmas installment, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. At some point, Blofeld had to deliver the line “Merry Christmas, 007” before revealing his diabolical plan, so it’s good it’s in the proper context. It’s also good they set the bulk of film in Switzerland, not just for the Christmas-y feel of the Alps, but also because James Bond skiing is always a good thing.

If you like spy stories, but find 60’s era James Bond too quaint, try the Will Smith vehicle Enemy of the State. Smith plays a lawyer who is inadvertently slipped some incriminating evidence against the National Security Agency while he’s Christmas shopping. In turn, the NSA completely uproots his life to destroy his credibility and turn him into a fugitive. If you’ve had an especially frantic holiday season and feel like you’re dealing with more than you can handle, this movie should set you at ease. The foot chases alone will make you glad at least the government’s not after you.

Another manic Christmas action/comedy is the 1999 rave culture film Go. The second half of the 90’s produced a number of Pulp Fiction wannabees (i.e. criss-crossed story lines involving witty criminals), but Go was one of the better ones. In fact, watching it today, it feels original enough to not come across as merely a Pulp Fiction follow-up. It’s got a Christmas-themed rave, tantric three-way sex, Amway-selling cops, supermarket Macarena, a telepathic cat, and an interesting diatribe on The Family Circus. The Christmas elements are worked in rather cleverly as well. Most notably, one lascivious character holding mistletoe over his crotch.

A darker look at a “hedonistic” Christmas can be found in Stanley Kubrick’s final film Eyes Wide Shut. Rumor has it Kubrick set this film at Christmas predominantly for the lighting. Whether that’s true or not, setting the story during the holidays emphasizes its impact. Like most Kubrick films, this one is pretty eerie and, given the subject matter, probably not one you’d want to watch with your wife or girlfriend over Christmas. However, it will probably scare you straight in matters of fidelity. If you do watch it with your lady, be prepared for some heavy conversation afterwards. Furthermore, if you were thinking of cheating on your lady during the Christmas season in the first place, shame on you. Consider this movie your penance.

Lastly, what list of badass movies would be complete without a nod to war films? Two emotionally-stirring war films occurring on Christmas are the similarly-themed Joyeux Noel (set during World War I) and A Midnight Clear (set during World War II). The most effective war films usually end up being profound anti-war stories and both of these films are exactly that. More specifically, both highlight the absurdities of war.

Joyeux Noel is based on the true story of the cease-fire on Christmas in 1914 along the Western Front. French, German and Scottish soldiers agreed to a truce for the duration of Christmas, first for the sake of singing Christmas carols. But, they ended up not only having a joint-Christmas Eve service on the battlefield, but helped bury each other’s dead soldiers the next day and even played soccer together as well. Of course, when fighting resumed, the soldiers couldn’t bring themselves to kill their “enemies” and even went so far as to allow the Central Forces to hide in the Allied Forces’ trenches and vice versa in order to avoid artillery fire. If there ever was a “touching” war picture, Joyeux Noel is it and it probably exemplifies the true meaning of Christmas more than any other film mentioned here.

A Midnight Clear is much like Joyeux Noel, but on a smaller and possibly more tragic scale. A squad of six American soldiers is sent to an abandoned house in Ardennes to keep an eye on the border during the final days of World War II. They come across a German platoon who, despite ample opportunity, decline to attack or kill the Americans. Naturally, this confuses the Americans, but during an impromptu Christmas service held by the Germans, it occurs to the Americans that perhaps the Germans wish to surrender, but are hesitant for the sake of treason. This leads to a delicate dilemma for all the soldiers involved and, in the volatility of war, doesn’t work out as well as you would hope. This is a more existential look at conflict and ultimately concludes that, in war, even when you win, you lose.

So, now even the Grinchiest of you can’t say that you entirely hate Christmas movies. You’re bound to find something you like amongst all those holiday flicks. In fact, there are almost enough movies mentioned here to make yourself a movie-a-day advent calendar, if you’re so inclined. Start a new tradition at your household this year by inviting Martin Riggs, James Bond and Batman to join George Bailey, Ebeneezer Scrooge and Charlie Brown in your holiday NetFlix queue. As the closing line of Die Hard says, “If this is your idea of Christmas, I gotta be here for New Year’s.”

A Century of Vampires That Don’t Suck

If you’ve seen a lot of vampire movies, there’s one thing you know for sure: There aren’t very many good ones. It’s true that, in any genre (especially horror), there are going to be more bad films than good ones, but the subject matter of vampires is a particularly thin tightrope. Consequently, you will find filmmakers resorting to cheap laughs, gratuitous nudity or, worst of all, making up their own rules (what vampires can or can’t do) to accommodate their storyline. For instance, Anne Rice claimed that stakes through the heart is a myth and Stephenie Meyer declared that vampires can not only walk around in the daylight, but sparkle as well. When Kevin Smith was asked to write the script for a reboot of the Superman franchise, the producer told him he didn’t want Superman to wear his costume or fly, to which Smith responded, “The suit and flying defines Superman.” Same thing with vampires: If you’re going to make them impervious to stakes and sunlight, doesn’t it then cease to be a vampire movie?

The other fatal flaw with vampire flicks is their tendency towards melodrama. Melodrama isn’t always a bad thing (sometimes it works quite well, actually), but the problem is, melodrama tends to date the material. In other words, vampire movies that were hugely popular in their day end up laughably embarrassing mere years later. It’s sadly ironic that, while vampires themselves never grow old, their movies, generally speaking, do not hold up well over time. However, if you look thoroughly enough, you will find some masterpieces of the undead that withstand the test of time without defying convention.

The following is a recap of 100 years of vampire cinema with a film selected from each decade that exemplifies the right way to do it. Gourmet bloodsucking, if you will. These films play by the rules and are as effective by today’s standards as they were in their own time. Some are obvious milestones, others are overlooked treasures, but all are films that not only respect the genre, but elevate it. If you’re a fan of the undead and looking to treat yourself to a movie marathon of the best in blood, bats and black capes this Halloween (or anytime of year, really), here is your list:

The Devil’s Daughter (1915): You’ve probably never heard the name Theda Bara, but this is the woman who single-handedly defined the movie vampire. In fact, she defined “Goth” as a look before there was even a name for it. All silent film stars had chalky-white faces, but with her black hair, black eyes and black lips, Theda Bara looked like a vampire even when she played Cleopatra. She was so mesmerizing in The Devil’s Daughter that she played a vampire in five different films in 1915 alone. You’ll probably have a great deal of trouble finding this film (online or otherwise), but if you ever find the opportunity to view it, don’t miss it! The impact of Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance(s) as Dracula was largely due to the intensity in his eyes as he put his victims into a trance, but Bara could stare down Lugosi without any effort on her part whatsoever. If you’re skeptical, do a Google image search of Theda Bara and see for yourself. She’s been dead for 55 years, but she can still cast a spell on you. If that’s not a true vampire, what is?

Nosferatu (1922): Unlike The Devil’s Daughter, this film is popular enough that you can often catch it playing at a local theater (especially around Halloween), if you keep your eyes open. And if you’re really lucky, you can see it with live musicians performing the haunting score. Either way, try to see this on a big screen in a darkened theater, if you can. It’s amazing that a movie with no voices or sound effects could be this unsettling. It’s partly due to director F.W. Murnau’s effective use of shadows and partly due to Max Schreck’s performance as the title character. He doesn’t look as though he’s wearing too much make-up in the role, yet Count Orlok seems so inhuman (particularly when he looks into the camera), your skin can’t keep from crawling. Considering how scary this film comes across today, it must have been absolutely traumatizing to audiences in 1922. Indeed, it was banned in Sweden for 50 years for that very reason. This is the best vampire film on this list, which means it’s the best vampire film ever.

The Vampire Bat (1933): You’re probably thinking “What? Not 1931’s Dracula starring Bela Lugosi?” The truth is, Dracula, while widely beloved and undeniably influential, really doesn’t hold up well. It has a good start, with some truly creepy moments and impressive gothic scenery, but once you leave Castle Dracula, it starts to get pretty cheesy. This is largely due to the god-awful bat puppets used in the film. The Vampire Bat, for starters, uses real bats. Right in the opening scene, even. Furthermore, the film remains dark and shadowy throughout (even in daylight scenes) implying that nobody in the film is safe at any time and, as it turns out, they are not. It also employs the Blair Witch Project philosophy that, the less you see, the scarier the effect. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the film, though, is its commentary on mob mentality. When people in the town of Klineschloss start dying from what appear to be vampire attacks, the villagers start aggressively seeking out the culprit. The most likely candidate seems to be Herman, the town simpleton (played by Dwight Frye, who basically repeats his performance as Renfield from Dracula, only more disheveled and imbecilic) who just happens to be obsessed with bats. It’s not long before town gossip escalates toward a lynch mob bent on hunting Herman down. Movie history shows that, in situations like this, the answer is never the obvious one, but the film keeps things ambiguous enough that you realize that Herman may not be the vampire, but then again maybe he could be. The mystery there is what makes the film timeless and relevant: The danger of allowing fear to make snap judgments. For instance, nowadays, you could equate the suspicion of the villagers in the film to the growing paranoia and animosity towards Muslims in America. In another 100 years, it’ll be someone else.

Dead Men Walk (1943): For years after Bela Lugosi’s huge success playing Dracula, virtually every movie vampire thereafter tried to ride that gravy train by mimicking his performance. The cape, the skulking, the slicked-back hair, the accent, etc. Here’s a film brave enough to go in another direction with a more cool, calm, collected vampire. Think the ghost of Delbert Grady in The Shining and you begin to get the idea. The film begins with Dr. Lloyd Clayton at his brother Elwyn’s funeral where you learn Elwyn died by Lloyd’s hand. It seems Elwyn was a magician who dabbled in the darks arts and, when confronted by his brother, things turned violent and there’s some town gossip that debates whether it was murder or self-defense on Clayton’s part. Elwyn returns from the grave as a vampire taunting Lloyd with revenge manifested by drinking the blood of their niece Gayle (whose guardian happens to be Lloyd) and make her his eternal servant. Lloyd begins to question his sanity and confides in Gayle’s fiancé David about what he’s seen. David then also begins to question Lloyd’s sanity and more rumors about the good doctor start to spread about town. To makes matters worse, when witnesses start spotting Elwyn drinking the blood of the townsfolk, logically, they’re more inclined to believe it’s Lloyd doing the killing rather than his believed-to-be-deceased brother, Elwyn. It’s not long before another lynch mob is underway. This all leads to a for-god’s-sake-hurry climax as suspenseful as any you’re likely to see in any vampire movie. George Zucco is fantastic in his performance playing both brothers. Even though they are twins, his characterization of both roles is so flawless that you can tell who is who whenever they come onscreen. The filmmaking is impressively adept at having the two of them interact realistically with trick photography and convincing body doubles. Chances are, had you not been told the same person played both brothers, you would have assumed they’d found two different actors with a striking resemblance to each other. Why this film isn’t more highly revered as a vampire classic makes you wonder.

Horror of Dracula (1958): Vampire movies in the 50’s are slim pickings since Godzilla and pals demonstrated there was money to be made in giant reptiles and giant bugs destroying the city. Most vampire films during that time were campy flicks where rock-n-rollin’ teenagers in hot rods were accosted by corny vampires who were, like, a total drag, Daddy-O. Thank goodness for the inception of Hammer Films in 1957 which dominated the vampire/frankenstein/mummy genre up through the early 70’s. Also, what vampire movie list would be complete without Christopher Lee as Dracula pursued by Peter Cushing as Van Helsing? Horror of Dracula is a pretty liberal adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel, but the essence of the story remains and the changes they make to the story are refreshing without feeling like a betrayal. Actually, they turn out to be nice surprises if you’ve read Dracula or seen too many adaptations of it already. At least it’s not another recycling of the same story with an actor trying to recreate the magic by aping Lugosi yet again. Cushing played Van Helsing at least five times and Lee played Dracula twice as many, yet they always seemed to take it seriously and never failed to deliver. You could argue which Hammer Film is the definitive one, but if you’re looking for a good place to start, this one certainly hits all the right notes. The way Van Helsing takes Dracula out in this one is particularly badass.

The Last Man on Earth (1964): You probably know this film from the novel it’s based on: Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend. Forget the Will Smith version. That movie totally missed the point of the story, particularly with its bastardization of the ending. Vincent Price’s loneliness and desperation are quite palpable and the flashbacks that show how he came to be in this situation are as heartbreaking as they are disturbing. In one particular flashback, his wife has died from the vampire virus, but, in his grief, he can’t bring himself to burn her body even though he knows he should. He buries her instead and you’re left just waiting for her to come back for him. When she shows up scratching at the door whispering “Let… Me… In…”, it’s truly chilling. Like The Vampire Bat, there are underlying messages in this film about society and its evolution (or de-evolution) that are still relevant today. And, while this is not as widely popular a vampire film as Dracula or Nosferatu, when you watch it, you’ll likely recognize its influence on future films. Not just future vampire films, either. George Romero has said that this movie served as a blueprint for the original Night of the Living Dead.

Love at First Bite (1979): If you’re going to make a comedic spoof of the Dracula legend, you can’t find more inspired casting than George Hamilton as the Count and Arte Johnson as Renfield. To be sure, this is a screwball comedy, but all the proper elements for a decent vampire flick are still in place. Actually, if a 19^th-Century Carpathian vampire were to integrate himself into contemporary American society, this is probably pretty close to how it would go down. In fact, it’s quite creative. Richard Benjamin is particularly hilarious as a neurotic descendant of Van Helsing who so desperately wants to destroy Dracula he doesn’t bother to research the proper ways of doing it first. With every failed attempt, the authorities drag him away as he calmly reassures them “I’m a doctor, I know what I’m doing.” The reason this film works is because, while most vampire movies take themselves too seriously, this one certainly does not. Yes, it’s a comedy, but it’s still the most effective vampire movie of the 70’s. Unless you prefer soft-core porn, maybe.

Fright Night (1985): If you were born in the late 60’s or early 70’s, you might think it’s blasphemous to name anything other than The Lost Boys as the quint-essential vampire movie of the 80’s. While your nostalgic fondness may be justifiable, objectively speaking, Fright Night is a better film. Remember, this list is made up of vampire films that remain timeless. The Lost Boys is so dated, it showcases everything that was embarrassing about the 80’s like a badge of honor. It’s got big hair, the two Coreys, and a new-wave soundtrack where the song “Cry Little Sister” is played so often in the film, you could make a drinking game out of it. Nobody born after 1980 can watch The Lost Boys without rolling their eyes or shaking their head. True, Fright Night does display its timeliness during the night club scene, but, in the context of the film, it works because it’s the turning point where the vampire seduces the hero’s girlfriend. And it’s not nearly as cringe-inducing as almost every scene from The Lost Boys. More importantly, Fright Night brings back all the classic elements of past vampire films that you rarely see anymore: Turning into bats, casting no reflections, sleeping in coffins, having human caretakers, and so on. And it uses all of those ingredients in a way that doesn’t feel forced or contrived. It doesn’t bend the rules, it embraces them. It’s just a damn good movie by any horror film standards. Plus, hands down, it has the greatest display ever of a vampire being incinerated by sunlight.

The Night Flier (1997): There was a trend in the 90’s to try to figure out a way for vampires to be killed by bullets in order to accommodate conformist action sequences. In Innocent Blood, you could shoot vampires in the head (sorry, but that’s zombies). In Blade, you could shoot vampires with silver bullets (sorry, but that’s werewolves). In From Dusk Till Dawn, you could shoot vampires with bullets that had crosses etched into the tips (sorry, but that’s lame). Coppola made a valiant attempt at returning to the old-school by remaking Dracula, but that film suffered from over-stylized filmmaking and an awkward performance by Keanu Reeves (who should never play a character that doesn’t get to say “whoa”). Leave it to Stephen King to deliver the best of both worlds: Some old-school, some new-school resulting in something unique, but good. The Night Flier is a truly modest film with an estimated budget of only $1 million that played on only 95 screens when it opened. With those numbers, it really didn’t stand a chance and it’s no wonder so few have seen it, but despite those numbers, it’s really quite impressive. Miguel Ferrer, playing the abrasive anti-hero he does so well, is Richard Dees, a disenchanted tabloid reporter/photographer who pursues a story about a vampire flying from state to state claiming victims in various small towns throughout New England. Only the vampire isn’t traveling as a bat, but as a pilot in a Cessna Skymaster 337 using the plane as his coffin during the day. This film functions mostly as a cat-and-mouse thriller with Dees, also a pilot, following the bloody trail of the vampire and talking to witnesses and friends of the victims along the way. Most vampire films have the formula where the protagonist is the only one who believes his adversary is a vampire while those around him think he’s crazy. In this case, Dees believes the man he’s following is merely a psycho while the people he comes across in his search warn him that it is indeed a vampire and he should stay away. What’s most impressive about this film is how it sneaks up on you. When the final confrontation between Dees and the vampire comes, it is surprisingly unsettling and quite haunting. Plus, there is an unexpected twist that makes for a great payoff. Despite its lackluster performance at the box office, this film isn’t hard to find on DVD. Although, should you seek it out, try to find a way to rent it without looking at the box cover. Apparently, the marketers of the film felt they’d get a better response if they put a picture of the vampire’s face on the cover, which is one of the best reveals of the movie after much build up.

Let the Right One In (2008): Ignore the American remake currently in theaters entitled Let Me In. This film borders on perfection and the very thought of a remake is insulting. It’s a shame it’s been generally passed over in favor of the Twilight and True Blood bandwagons because, after Nosferatu, it may just be the finest vampire movie ever made. A big part of its power comes from its observance of the horror of pre-adolescence more than the horror of being a vampire. It’s a coming of age film, first and foremost. An outcast of a boy, who is picked on by bullies and ignored by his family, befriends a girl his age (even though she could very well be hundreds of years old) who is an outcast herself because she’s a vampire. As far as tales of first-loves go, this one’s a doozy. Since it is set in Sweden, it is conveniently dark all the time, which is not only good for vampires, but good for atmosphere. Not a lot of vampire films take place in snowy climates, either, which is too bad, if you think about it. Blood is so much more striking when it is splashed about on a white landscape. To tell you any more would be to lessen the impact of this masterpiece. If you consider yourself a fan of vampire cinema and you haven’t seen this, you must. And since it is the most recent film on this list, it’ll probably be easier to get your friends to watch it with you. If they don’t object to subtitles, that is.

These are, of course, not the only good vampire movies of the past century, but they are the ones most likely to endure and remain ideal entries into the ongoing immortality of the vampire genre another hundred years from now. It will be interesting to see what the iconic vampire film of this decade will be. And the decade after that. And the decade after that. It’s almost enough to make you want to become a vampire yourself just to find out.

Footnote: This article appears in the October issue of Haberdashers Magazine. You can view this issue in its entirety online here, but check your local newsstand for a printed copy. If they don't carry Haberdashers, do me a favor and request that they do. The more interest and distribution Haberdashers gets, the better it will improve and you will be able to see more articles like this from me.

Violence Isn't Pretty

The following article first appeared in the September 2010 issue of Haberdashers Magazine. If you can find a copy, please buy it. If the magazine becomes successful enough to turn a profit, I can actually get paid to write. I have future articles coming out in future issues and hope you'll check 'em out. FYI: I did the illustration for this article as well. Enjoy.

The year 1967 was a good year for manly movies. Released that year were such classics as Hombre, The War Wagon, You Only Live Twice, The Dirty Dozen, Point Blank, Cool Hand Luke, and The Good The Bad & The Ugly. Interestingly enough, six of those seven films were based on novels. In virtually any book adaptation, lots of great stuff is typically omitted for the film version. This is usually due to time constraints, but is often also due to censorship. For instance, as gritty and as tough as those films were, in most cases, they were whitewashes of novels that inspired them. It was, after all, 1967, and the MPAA ratings system had yet to be implemented and the top-grossing film of that year was The Jungle Book.

The good news is that society has loosened up enough to allow a remake of any of these films to go unfettered from their source material. The bad news is that society has also softened up so much that it almost wouldn’t be worth it. Take The Dirty Dozen, for example. Today’s Hollywood simply could not re-create that level of testosterone.

The cast of the original had Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, John Cassavetes, Telly Savalas, Donald Sutherland and many others who were not only real men, but ugly men. How could one match that cast for a movie about soldiers, criminals, rapists, and general nasties today when modern leads look more like underwear models than military prisoners? Even when Quentin Tarantino made Inglourious Basterds he cast B.J. Novak from The Office as one of the Basterds. Ryan the Temp. And as the leader of the Basterds, Tarantino cast Brad Pitt. Now, Brad Pitt’s good, but he’s also good looking. Having Lieutenant Aldo Raine (a southern redneck who survived a lynching) look as conventionally handsome as Brad Pitt lessens the character’s credibility. One can empathize with Tarantino’s choice, though. Where does one find an actor of Brad Pitt’s caliber who looks more like one of the original members of The Dirty Dozen nowadays?

Today, the meanest-looking action stars that aren’t over the hill, are Jason Statham and Vin Diesel. Statham seems incapable of making an action movie worth watching and Diesel has only made two action movies in the past seven years. But even Statham and Diesel can’t match the level of machismo set by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood and matched by Steve McQueen and Lee Marvin.

Of course, the problem with the modern action movie isn’t limited to the overabundance of metrosexuals on the casting call, but extends to the action itself. The turning point seemed to be around 1999/2000 when movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (as well as a newfound interest in Jackie Chan) brought martial arts to mainstream action films on an almost permanent basis. Sure, there were plenty of marital arts themed action movies before 2000, but they were usually manifested as Jean-Claude Van Damme or Chuck Norris kicking asses rather than artsy-fartsy floating mid-air slo-mo kicks with leaves and doves swirling around the actors. In Roger Ebert’s review of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon he said, “It’s more as if the fighters are joining in a celebration of their powers.” That’s probably why Chuck Norris is just punch line these days.

Now, martial arts are cool and fun to watch but c’mon, that’s not how real people fight. It seems like only Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez realize that real violence is sloppy and that it’s more exciting when it’s less predictable. They’re partial to shootouts, though, so it’s hard to find a good old-fashioned bare knuckle fist fight these days that doesn’t look like a fast-paced ballet. Compare the hand to hand combat seen in the Jason Bourne movies to the fist fight between police officer John McClane and terrorist gunman Karl in Die Hard. The audience is more invested in the fight in Die Hard because it’s one man’s desperation to stay alive in order to save his wife versus another man’s vengeful wrath for the his brother’s murder. When Jason Bourne fights somebody, it just feels like a competition to see who has the best moves. There’s a great deal of joy to be found in the scene in 2007’s Live Free or Die Hard when McClane, after getting his ass kicked by a martial arts expert, declares, “That’s enough of this Kung-Fu shit,” and comes back driving an SUV into the room and into his opponent. The viewer is uncertain whether that’s John McClane’s line or Bruce Willis’.

Another major handicap of the modern day action film is its lazy tendency to rely on special effects. Like martial arts, special effects are cool, but a lame stunt trumps an awesome CGI display of McClane versus an F-35. That’s why people go to action movies in the first place, they want to experience someone else’s danger without endangering themselves. If the filmmakers are creating stunts in the comfort of their computer studio, what’s the point?

That’s probably a big part of why the latest Indiana Jones movie was met with such a lukewarm reception. In the first three movies, whenever Indy would jump onto a moving truck or swing over a bottomless pit, it may not have been Harrison Ford performing the actual stunt, but it was somebody and that somebody was actually doing what the audience was actually seeing. In The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull there’s sword-fighting on the hoods of trucks plowing through the jungle. It’s an exciting scene, for sure, but no matter how good the special effects are, there’s no getting around the fact that the actors are standing in front of a green screen with wind machines blowing at them. That was the disappointing downfall of that movie. Well, that and it kind of felt like a desperate attempt between Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford to recreate the glory days of their youth. It’s a shame when even the old greats can’t rise above the latest trends.

What’s most disturbing about these devolving changes to the action genre is that they are occurring alongside another popular trend in Hollywood these days, the remake/reboot. If Hollywood wants to make all kinds of new big-budget action catastrophes, that’s one thing. But, it would be nice if they would leave longstanding treasured time capsules of macho case studies alone. True, they did a decent job with the recent rebirths of Batman, James Bond and, surprisingly, even Star Trek, but unfortunately, that sets a precedent that anything is fair game to be re-imagined and possibly butchered as a result.

A good example of the dangers of this scenario can be found by comparing 1974’s The Taking of Pelham One Two Three to its insipid 2009 remake. The no-nonsense toughness of the original (even amongst the hostages) is completely gone. The calm intensity of Robert Shaw is replaced by John Travolta regurgitating variations of the F-word over and over at various high pitches. Even Denzel Washington can’t measure up to the perfectly cynical performance of Walter Matthau. Yes, Walter Matthau. Furthermore, what’s most embarrassing is that, while the remake was directed by the usually reliable Tony Scott, the original was directed by Joseph Sargent. It’s a shame when the director of True Romance can’t improve upon a movie directed by the guy who made Jaws 4.

It’s probably only a matter of time before movies like Deliverance or The Wild Bunch are remade with people like Leonardo DiCaprio or Jake Gyllenhaal in the cast. A new version of Total Recall was just announced with no Arnold Schwarzenegger, no Ronny Cox, no Michael Ironside, and probably no midget hooker wielding a shotgun either. So what’s the point? Who can be placed in any of those roles that will even come close to plausibly ripping off somebody’s arms and then selling lines like “See you at the party, Richter.”

In the early 90’s, Denis Leary lamented about the declination of manliness in American society by pointing out how The Terminator ended with Schwarzenegger blowing up, twice, and then being crushed in a hydraulic press; while Terminator 2 ended with Schwarzenegger hugging a kid goodbye and saying “Don’t cry.” At the time Leary said that, he had no idea that Schwarzenegger had yet to do Junior, and Jingle All the Way. With all the beloved action heroes and directors getting too old or too lame to deliver, the genre desperately needs some kind of renaissance. Stallone’s latest movie The Expendables and its ample cast of action stars seems like a farewell speech to the old-school action movie. It seems Stallone agrees since, in a recent interview with the L.A. Times to promote the film, he says, “The action movies changed radically when it became possible to Velcro your muscles on. It was the beginning of a new era. The visual took over. The special effects became more important than the single person. That was the beginning of the end.” He’s right. These days, while guys like Topher Grace are being cast as the muscle-bound Spider-Man villain Venom, guys like The Rock are playing the Tooth Fairy. Hopefully, they got paid up front, because true connoisseurs of the action genre would rather spend their money on movies like Machete. And probably intend to.

If you're interested in advertising in Haberdashers Magazine, please email ads@haberdashersonline.com .