Horror in the 90s The Reflecting Skin

The Reflecting Skin (1991) 

Directed by Phillip Ridley 

Written by Phillip Ridley 

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Lindsay Duncan, Jeremy Cooper 

Release Date June 28th, 1991 

Box Office $17,042 

The Reflecting Skin is a horror movie of such modesty and subtlety that you may not realize its a horror movie. The horror of The Reflecting Skin only emerges as you immerse yourself into the sun soaked, over-saturated visuals that accompany a horror story that bubbles and bubbles to a boiling point of psychological horror. And all of it comes from the naive and mischievous perspective of an 8 year old boy who, perhaps, doesn't recognize the actual horror that he's witness. He's an unreliable narrator simply for his lack of life experiences. 

The Reflecting Skin centers its story on 8 year old Seth Dove. Seth is a precocious little kid with a sociopathic streak slowly being revealed. One of the earliest scenes shows Seth finding a large toad, blowing a straw into its backside, blowing the toad up like a balloon. To make matters worse, Seth places the toad on the side of a walking path where a woman happens to be returning home from gathering supplies. When the woman leans over to check on the poor toad, Seth uses his slingshot to explode the poor creature all over this poor woman. 

That poor woman is Dolphin Blue, a widow who is grieving the relatively recent death of her husband by suicide. Left alone to tend a large wheat farm, Dolphin is in over head and already suffering a mental health crisis, even before the exploding toad. When Seth's mother forces him to go to Dolphin's farm so that Seth can apologize, the two have a terrifyingly awkward encounter in which Dolphin gifts Seth a whaling harpoon and proceeds to break down in sobs while telling the story of her lost love. The breakdown causes Seth to flee in fear. 

Through the convoluted imagination of childhood, Seth comes to believe that Dolphin is a vampire. This coincides with the shocking murder of one of Seth's young friends, a death that Seth eagerly links to Dolphin, though not with any proof. He also doesn't share his suspicion regarding his neighbor out of fear of being punished by his mother for further antagonizing Dolphin. Suspicion eventually falls on Seth's father, Luke Dove (Duncan Fraser), whose past includes having been busted while carrying on a relationship with another man. Just potentially being a homosexual is enough to make Luke a suspect. 

Find my full length review at Horror.Media 

Movie Review The Two Faces of January

The Two Faces of January (2014) 

Directed by Hossein Amini 

Written by Hossein Amini 

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Oscar Isaac, Kirsten Dunst 

Release Date August 28th, 2014 

Published November 17th 2014

I feel as if I missed something essential in “The Two Faces of January.” For the life of me, I don’t know why the film is called “The Two Faces of January.” I feel the film must have introduced this information at some point but I don’t recall it. I could speculate that the two faces are those of stars Viggo Mortensen and Oscar Isaac as they seem to be counter-weighted to each other throughout the film but what was the ‘January’ bit? It’s not a reference to the month, it’s a not a name, unless that’s what I missed. It nags at me that I missed this or if I didn’t miss it and am puzzling over something that doesn’t matter.

“The Two Faces of January” is an adaptation of a Patricia Highsmith novel. Thus, it is set in Europe, in this case Greece, among beautiful, vacationing Americans. Oscar Isaac is Rydal Keener, an ex-pat con man and tour guide with aspirations to be rich. For now, he’ll settle for not being at home at his father’s funeral. Rydal’s con is to find fellow Americans who don’t speak the language and don’t understand foreign currency. It’s an almost victimless crime as his victims have plenty to spare and he’s really only skimming off the top.

Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst are Chester and Colette MacFarlane. At first, we’re to wonder if they are set to be Rydal’s next meal ticket. Director and screenwriter Hossein Amini however, has something more sinister in mind. Like Rydal, Chester is something of a conman, an American stock swindler. On the run with Colette in Europe he has conned his young wife into a game of pretend; pretending they’re going to go home and he isn’t going to be sent to prison or worse.

The game ends when an American private eye finds Chester and Colette and sets about a shakedown for the missing money of one of his clients. The detective dies and when Rydal arrives at the wrong moment to return a lost bracelet, he’s roped into a life-changing plot. Using his connections as a conman Rydal will attempt to get his new friends out of Greece without their passports. Phony documents take time however and with Grecian police acting efficiently to ferret out the plot, a road trip is undertaken to remain under the radar.

That’s the crux of the plot. What’s left is spoiler filled so consider yourself warned.

Ok, fine, I decided to look up the title of the movie to see what I missed. It turns out that it is a reference to the Roman God Janus which is said to have had to faces, one to see the future and one to see the past. Janus was the God of beginnings and transitions. That, naturally, is quite fitting for this story as the past plagues the future of all three characters. Janus by the way was eventually honored by the first month of the year, as January.

Throughout the introductory portion of “The Two Faces of January” we come to see Rydal admire both Chester and Colette. We can see his envy for Chester but also a deep respect for his station. We can sense a desire to usurp Chester even as Chester becomes a father figure. Yes, it’s all very Freudian and Shakespearean with the son who wishes to replace the father at the side of the mother. Yada, yada, yada. Here however, is where our director smartens up. By removing Colette via the film’s second accidental murder the dynamic shifts and what was beginning to be a draggy psychological thriller shifts gears to become a noir thriller.

Having failed to also kill Rydal in the wake of his murder of Colette, Chester finds himself chained to his new ‘friend’ as he attempts to leave the country. Each man has it out for the other but the game playing brings them together, as does the revenge each seeks on the other. Rydal is driven to avenge Colette and his having been framed for her murder. Chester, on the other hand is seeking escape but also to redeem the manhood he lost in his cuckolding.

That’s the psychological motivation for the action of the the final act of the film. Mr. Amini however, has by this point, as much as we have, has lost interest in psychology. The final act  of “The Two Faces of January” is instead played almost entirely in the language of film noir camerawork and staging.

As each man evades capture by police the cobblestone streets of Crete are alive with moonlight. Narrow corridors like those out of Carol Reed’s “The Third Man” shimmer with moonlight illuminating a path toward inexhaustible death. That Chester is to die is not in question here but the style with which his death arrives is classically crafted and elevates the film. We also get a very unusual and soulful moment as the dying father figure gives back to his son his life with a helpful confession of his crimes.

Much like the God Janus looking forward and backward at once, “The Two Faces of January” looks to be two movies at once. One movie is a pop-psych thriller with a little Shakespeare for flavor. The other is a tribute to the noir mysteries of the 40’s and 50’s complete with the mistaken identities, the wrongly accused man and the wet, reflective streets that always seemed to await a chase and a death.

That is the film’s beauty and its curse. It is two movies in one and neither is enough to satisfy in full. I loved the ending but the pop-psych stuff plods and the chemistry of the stars never bring it to life. The ending is almost good enough for me to recommend the movie but I wonder how many of you will last that long once the film is available on home video and you can simply stop and do other things.

Classic Movie Review Boiling Point

Boiling Point (1993) 

Directed by James B. Harris 

Written by James B. Harris 

Starring Wesley Snipes, Dennis Hopper, Viggo Mortensen 

Release Date April 16th, 1993

Published June 8th, 1993 

Sometimes the making of a movie is far more interesting than the movie being made. That is unquestionably true of the 1993 crime drama, Boiling Point. The film began life as an independent film character study of a pair of seedy criminals, one striving for a better life, the other a hothead determined to destroy them both. A small part of that story was about the cop searching for both of these criminals as tension reaches a boiling point and they collide in a tragic series of events. 

That's what Boiling Point was meant to be with Dennis Hopper playing a seasoned criminal low life with dreams of getting out alive and making a life for himself. Viggo Mortensen played the doomed hotheaded young criminal whose attraction to violence would be the downfall of both men. Wesley Snipes was to be the cop looking to arrest the two for killing a fellow cop in the midst of a robbery gone terribly, horribly wrong. 

Then, something happened. As the film was being completed, Wesley Snipes became one of the hottest stars in Hollywood. Seeing that they had a chance to turn this cheap independent thriller into a box office bonanza on the back of one of the hottest stars in Hollywood, producers and studio execs demanded rewrites and reshoots to beef up Snipes role from a relatively minor supporting role to a presence they could promote in marketing the film. 

This is all very obvious in the final Frankenstein's monster of a movie that is Boiling Point. Most scenes featuring Wesley Snipes have him interacting with people other than Hopper and Mortensen. Most of Mortensen's performance, including most of the depth of the character, has been excised to make room for more scenes featuring Wesley Snipes. Snipes's reshot scenes are clumsily sewn into the movie and rarely add any depth to the main story which still centers on Hopper's criminal trying and failing to be a better person. 

Rather than the wild-eyed monster that Hopper would play in other villainous roles, his character in Boiling Point is a pathetic, fast-talking sadsack. He's a man who is desperate to escape his circumstances and when he sees a potential payday that could be the key to his happy ever after, he risks everything to get there. It's clear that there was an important subplot involving Hopper and Valerie Perrine who plays his ex-wife. Wanting to win her back, despite a history that includes violent abuse, is a big motivation for Hopper's character. But, as the movie shoved in more about Snipes, we got less of Perrine. 

There are numerous examples of how executives cut up and rejiggered Boiling Point to capitalize on Wesley Snipes. The most glaring example is how Snipes rarely shares a scene with any of the rest of the cast, including Hopper and Mortensen. The only tangible link between Snipes and the rest of the movie comes from a reshot subplot in which Snipes' cop and a sex worker played by Lolita Davidovich, have an affair while she acts as a street informant for Snipes. She's also seeing Hopper's character as a client, but this somehow never becomes important to the plot. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Horror in the 90s Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 

Directed by Jeff Burr 

Written by David J. Schrow 

Starring Kate Hodge, William Butler, Ken Foree, Tom Hudson, R.A Mihailoff 

Release Date January 12th, 1990 

Box Office Gross $5.8 million dollars 

Bottom-feeding cash-ins are always pretty obvious about their intentions. That was certainly the case when a group of huckster con-artists looked to cash in on the legacy of the greatest horror movie ever made, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Studio execs like money and when they can seize the rights to an exploitable property, they eagerly gobble up the opportunity with little concern for the quality of the product they plan to capitalize on. With this as the background, was there any way for Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre to succeed? No, probably not. 

A very game and determined Kate Hodge stars in Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 as Michelle, a student driving her dad's vintage car from California to Florida alongside her soon to be ex-boyfriend. William Butler is the soon-to-be ex of Michelle and he quickly makes a case for why they are no longer going to be together by being a whiny little prat. He can't understand why Michelle would want to leave him for a chance to travel the world. We understand it from just a few lines of whiny, man-baby dialogue from Ryan. 

The story of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 kicks in when the couple stops at a last chance gas station. The creeptastic gas station employee, begins to perv on Michelle, eventually spying on her in the ladies room. He's stopped by a transient, Edward 'Tex' Sawyer (Viggo Mortensen), who hopes that interceding will convince Michelle and Ryan to give him a ride. He ends up getting shot by the creepy gas station attendant while giving Michelle and Ryan a chance to escape. He appears benevolent but it's merely a ruse, he is, after all, a member of the Sawyer clan. 

Michelle and Ryan's escape is short-lived as they are soon chased down and menaced by what they assume is the gas station creep. They end up with a flat tire and try hiding on a side road. This side road however, leads them right to Leatherface (R.A Mihailoff) who attacks with his trusty chainsaw and his unnatural amount of physical strength which he demonstrates by ripping the top off of the car's trunk. Having made another narrow escape, Michelle and Ryan end up in another crash and, after colliding with Benny (Ken Foree), the trio end up in a life threatening game of cat and mouse with the horrific Sawyer family. 

The mercenary nature of Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 is obvious in the dimwitted marketing campaign which focuses entirely on Leatherface's weapon of choice, a chainsaw. In this case, it's a custom made saw, silver plated and engraved with the film's tagline, 'The Saw is Family.' The movie was pitched with a comic teaser trailer in which the custom chainsaw is gifted to Leatherface King Arthur style, via a lady in a lake. You can almost hear the cash registers ringing in the hearts of heartless studio execs. 

Cynicism aside, for just a moment, I want to commend Kate Hodge and Ken Foree. These two terrific actors work very, very hard to bring something to this beyond the cash-in effort being put in everywhere else in the movie. Where the film's writers, director, and producers either don't know or don't care about the legacy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hodge and Foree are giving great performances. While the rest of the film appears dedicated to sullying the memory of the original, these two performance darn near redeem the misconceived enterprise that is Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3. 

Hampered by a script that adds unnecessary aspects to the Sawyer legacy, Hodge delivers a gritty, hard as nails final girl performance while the horror veteran Foree is so good as Benny that the character is allowed to survive wounds that were absolutely intended as his death blow. Benny survived only because test audiences loved Benny and hated seeing him go. That's yet another testament to the mercenary quality of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3. But, it's also a credit to Foree whose performance is so good, you may not mind the ludicrous nature of his miraculous survival. 

Find my full length review at Horror.Media 

Movie Review: A History of Violence Starring Viggo Mortensen

A History of Violence (2005) 

Directed by David Cronenberg 

Written by Josh Olson

Starring Viggo Mortenson, Maria Bello, Ed Harris

Release Date September 23rd, 2005 

Published September 23rd, 2005 

Streaming Rental through Amazon 

One unique trend in modern film is the connection between sex and violence. In thrillers and horror films these two disparate acts are often found at a crossroad. In horror; sex is punished, often with a bloody violent death, see Friday The 13th. In thrillers like Sin City sex and violence are married through characters. The prostitutes of Sin City are righteously violent vixens who mete out biblical justice when they aren't serving the few righteous citizens who prove worthy of their services.

In David Cronenberg's A History of Violence the sex-violence link is a little more murky. The sex is hardcore and the violence is bloody and excessive. There is no open link between sex and violence except that extreme forms of both are in the film. What in Cronenberg's mind links the two could be a philosophical circle of life, a birth and death connection. Or it could be that few things are more cinematically attention grabbing than sex and violence.

Whatever the reasoning, Cronenberg's A History Of Violence links sex and violence inside a thriller that never fails to titivate and fascinate.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortenson) has achieved the American dream. Living in a small town in Indiana, Tom own's a diner, his wife Edie is a successful lawyer and their two kids, 16 year old Jack (Ashton Holmes) and 6 year old Sarah (Heidi Hayes) are healthy and thriving. The Stall family is the perfect Norman Rockwell idea of homey goodness.

Lurking beneath the surface of this small town paradise are some violent and dangerous secrets that come to life when two thugs show up in Tom's diner. We have seen these thugs in the opening of the film callously murder the operators of a small motel, now they have arrived at Tom's diner at closing time with the same ill intentions. In a scene that is stunningly violent and graphic, Tom manages to stop the thugs from robbing the diner and murdering his customers.

The violent nature of Tom's turning back these bad guys is overlooked by residents who are just thankful for Tom's heroism. However, when Tom's bravery makes the paper his violent acts and recognizable face draw the attention of people Tom may have been trying to forget. On the heels of Tom's heroic act, three more thuggish types arrive in town and at Tom's diner.

The leader of this group of bad guys is Carl Fogerty (Ed Harris) who claims to recognize Tom as a man named Joey who some years earlier disappeared from Philadelphia after having taken Fogerty's eye out with barbed wire. Tom incredulously explains that he doesn't know who Joey is and is eventually forced to call in the local sheriff (Peter MacNeill) to run Fogerty out of town. That doesn't work and eventually Tom is forced to face Fogerty at his home in front of his whole family.

While all of this drama with Fogerty is going on, tensions at home have amped up over Jack's sudden bursts of arrogance and violence. Being bullied at school, Jack finally retaliated and badly hurt one of the boys who had been harassing him. There is also tension between husband and wife over Fogerty's accusations and holes in Tom's past that he refuses or simply can't resolve. Fogerty confronting Edie in a shopping mall plants seeds of doubt in her mind that eventually leads Edie to believe her husband may not be who she thinks he is.

A History of Violence is a mystery and a thriller. Cronenberg deftly walks the line in teasing the identity of Tom and Joey, allowing for intriguing speculation and cathartic revelation. It's a difficult tightrope to walk and since this mystery plot isn't even Cronenberg's real subject, his skilled handling of it is that much more impressive.

In A History of Violence, David Cronenberg asks; is violence inevitable? Uncontrollable? Is it simply part of human nature? Cronenberg even wonders if violence is hereditary. Is it possible that because Tom is capable of so much violence that he has passed this genetic trait for violence to Jack? Geneticists have debated a violence gene but most feel it is often more nurture than nature. Man is inherently predisposed to certain forms of violence through evolution, the survival of the fittest, but the trait for a violent nature is not passed from one generation to the next through the genes.

Evolution and the survival of the fittest have been a favored subject of David Cronenberg for years. A History of Violence is yet another example of his fascination with the subject. The film displays a kill or be killed example of characters who show themselves to simply be superior in knowing how to survive. One character specifically demonstrates that he is the fittest of all.

Then there is the sex and violence I mentioned in my opening paragraphs. The sex and violence in A History of Violence are graphic and closely examined by Cronenberg's camera. The film opens with offscreen violence which we witness the aftermath of, large pools of blood and a pair of battered bodies, and a shocking finale that also takes place just offscreen, though is no less stunning for not having been seen.

The first sex scene between Tom and Edie begins right away with a bit of kink as Edie dresses the part of a cheerleader and Tom the captain of the football team waiting to take her virginity. The scene progresses to sex that is not often portrayed in a mainstream movie. The scene is not graphic per se, but it is surprisingly frank and revealing.

The violence once again erupts at Tom's diner when the thugs attempt the robbery. Tom defends himself and his customers with serious violence. First shooting one thug in the head, a scene in which Cronenberg captures this mans head exploding from the bullet impact in a vividly realistic flash cut. Tom then kills the other guy with a shot to heart that sends the thug flying through a window.

More scenes of violence proceed the films final sex scene which is completely opposite the tender, loving lovemaking of the first scene. After a major argument in which Edie wonders if Tom may really be Joey, Tom violently takes Edie on the stairs of the family home. The scene begins as a rape but soon an excited and very into it Edie begins to enjoy the violence. This is a highly controversial moment that Cronenberg couches as not being a comment on women and violence but as a comment on Edie's character and her own attraction to danger and the unknown. That's debatable, it's fair to say, many women will justifiably find this scene of violent sex hard to watch so be prepared.

What I really liked about A History of Violence is Cronenberg's depth and curiosity and his bravery in examining so many subjects inside one story. The film considers evolution, violence, sex, and genetics in a frank and intelligent manner. Cronenberg does not hold back at all. His violence is shocking, his sex is no holds barred and his mind is open to exploring; through these characters a wide variety of interesting topics.

There is also in A History Of Violence a smart mystery thriller plot. Is Tom really a mob thug named Joey? Does Edie know the truth? Who is this man Fogerty and who is this guy he works for who claims to be Joey/Tom's brother, played by Oscar nominee William Hurt? This thriller plot combined with Cronenberg's lively mind make a formidable movie.

A History of Violence can be written off as exploitative, but that is only if you look at the surface of the picture. Beneath the surface is a smart and always curious film in search of truths about human nature and our propensity for violence. Inside A History of Violence is a clever dissertation on the modern survival of the fittest.

We rarely acknowledge and certainly do not examine modern examples of the survival of the fittest and the various ways one human thrives ahead another. David Cronenberg is the rare person who is quite taken with this subject. A History of Violence, I believe, is just one of many examples of how Cronenberg has and will continue examining this fascinating and disturbing subject.

Essay Hollywood Sex and Violence Link (2006)

In 2006, in the wake of the release of A History of Violence and Sin City, I wrote about how Hollywood movies linked sex and violence. This is that essay recovered from an old MySpace blog... 

FYI This post contains what you might call spoilers for the plot of the film A History of Violence. If you wish to watch that film with the mystery in place do not read until after you watch the film. Happy reading and please post your responses.

One unique trend in modern film is the link between sex and violence. In horror films and thrillers these two disparate acts are now often found at a crossroad. In horror films sex is often punished with a bloody violent death, see Friday the 13th as an example. Sexuality or sensuality is similarly punished, consider films like Slumber Party Massacre (not exactly a brilliant subject of serious discourse but follow me here) where beautiful woman are brutally and viciously murdered for the simple fact that they are beautiful. The camera spends ample time exploiting the beauty of the women in the film with copious nude scenes and scenes of woman in various states of undress. And then the film sets about destroying that beauty with hardcore violence.

In the thriller genre take an example like Steven Speilberg's Munich which transposes a scene of a husband making love to his wife, a reunion after a long absence by the husband who has been compromising his morals out of duty to his country. The conflicted husband cannot escape thoughts of horrific violence as he is going about the loving act of intercourse with his wife. The sex scene is edited to a chorus violent images of Israeli athletes being brutally killed.What is the purpose of the sex and violence link in Munich? I believe it was the demonstration of the husband's conflicted conscience. On the one hand he is engaged in a pure act of love. On the other he cannot escape the horror of the violence he has been set to avenge. He cannot escape the horror of violence even as he is experiencing the ultimate in pure human goodness and joy.

In Sin City sex and violence are uniquely linked by the prostitutes of Sin City. Led by Rosario Dawson's character the prostitutes are unlikely representations of justice and righteousness. They mete out the punishment of corruption with violence and reward perceived goodness with sexual favors. Thus, Michael Clark Duncan's corrupt detective is punished with violence while Mickey Rourke's Marv is rewarded for his good intentions with the sexual favors of Goldie.

The innocent but oh so provocative sexuality of Jessica Alba's character is protected by the righteous violence of Bruce Willis' cop character. He would be rewarded with sexual favor if he were so inclined. Sex and violence are linked in Sin City in a cause and effect fashion. The good receive sexual favors the evil are punished with violence. All is right with the world.

In A History of Violence the sex violence link is a narrative function. The film features the extremes of both sex and violence. The films central action involves a pair of psychotically violent killers who are first glimpsed having murdered the staff of an anonymous roadside motel and a small child of one of the staffers. They come to the small town Indiana diner of Viggo Mortenson's Tom Stahl with the intent of more violence and are met with a viciously violent reaction from the seemingly mild mannered Mr. Stahl. The violence of this scene is extreme. Tom shoots one killer in the head sending him flailing through a plate glass window. Tom is graphically stabbed in the foot by the other killer who is then shot in the head by Tom. Director David Cronenberg gives us a closeup look at the damage of the bullet through the killer's skull in all of it's gory glory.

Meanwhile at home, prior to the violence at the center of the plot Tom makes love to his wife played by Mario Bello. The first sex scene is tender and loving but with more than a little hint of kink. Tom's wife has chosen to dress as a cheerleader and the two role play as a high school couple entering their first sexual experiment. The sex then becomes more graphic as oral copulation becomes central to the scene before we fade to the next morning and the establishing of the films central plot. Oddly the first sex scene features no nudity. The only link between the sex and violence at this point is Tom. He is an attentive and gentle lover who later shows himself capable of terrific physical violence. This is central to the dichotomy that is Tom who is revealed to have a violent secret past.

The second sex scene takes place after further violence has established Tom as a dangerous figure. An argument between Tom and his wife becomes physical as Tom attempts to stop his wife from walking away from their argument. Tom grabs her forces her to the ground, they are fighting on the stares leading to their bedroom, she slaps and kicks to break away from him. He forces her beneath him. After seeming to subdue her the violent confrontation suddenly begins to become sexual. The wife becomes turned on as does Tom and the two engage in angry, violent sex right there on the staircase. The scene, I believe, demonstrates the wife's tacit acceptance of her husbands true nature. She is telling him at once that she is unhappy with his lie but accepts it and will eventually be able to put it behind her. It's a brilliant form of shorthand that eliminates the need for a merely melodramatic scene of a couple arguing.

None of what I've written however truly gets at the heart of the sex/violence link in modern film. I have demonstrated the link but not the reason. This is where you come in dear reader. What is your theory of why Hollywood has so directly linked sex and violence. Post your responses please.

Movie Review Lord of the Rings The Two Towers

Lord of the Rings The Two Towers 

Directed by Peter Jackson 

Written by Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Ian McKellan, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett

Release Date December 18th, 2002 

Published December 17th, 2002 

With all the hype about the second film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, is it possible for this film not to be a little disappointing? The first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, overcame the hype to be an impressive artistic achievement. However, the impressive debut only increases the pressure on the follow-up films. So the success of Fellowship raises the bar to nearly unreachable heights for The Two Towers. That this second film nearly meets the hype is an achievement in and of itself.

We rejoin the J.R.R. Tolkien tale (as adapted by Peter Jackson and writer Frances Walsh) to find our heroic Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) lost in the hills on the way to Mordor. Hot on their huge Hobbit heels is Gollum, the former owner of the ring Frodo is charged with destroying in the fires of Mount Doom. As Frodo and Sam lay sleeping, Gollum attacks and is quickly subdued. 

Needing a guide to Mordor, the Hobbits draft Gollum and continue their quest. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Fellowship, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (Jonathan Rhys Davies), are searching for their friends Merry and Pippin who have been kidnapped by the Uruk Hai. Under the control of the evil Lord Saruman, the Uruk Hai are pillaging the countryside of the Kingdom of Rohan.

Rohan's King Theoden has, unbeknownst to the members of his family, been corrupted by Saruman leaving no one to stop the Uruk Hai. An army led by Theoden's nephew finally does rise up and stop the Uruk Hai, slaughtering a lot of them and momentarily leaving the fate of Merry and Pippin up in the air.

As it turns out, Merry and Pippin are fine, having escaped into the forest and into the arms of a walking, talking tree named Treebeard, who leads them to an amazing discovery. As Aragorn and company continue their search, they discover what Merry and Pippin had just previously discovered, that Wizard Gandalf the Gray, who was thought to be dead, is alive and after defeating the Balrog, and is now Gandalf the White. This evidently means he is more powerful than before.

Using his new power, Gandalf is able to free king Theoden from the control of Saruman. Even after being freed from Saruman, Theoden is unwilling to go to war and instead flees his kingdom for the seeming safety of the cavern castle in Helms Deep. All of this is leading to the film's centerpiece, the grandiose Battle of Helm's Deep, where Saruman's massive ten-thousand-man army of Uruk Hai fights against the several hundred residents of Rohan who aren't women or children. The kingdom's army, having left earlier in the film, are being retrieved by Gandalf, but will not make it until well into the battle.

The battle of Helms Deep is indeed a spectacle, visually awesome and seamlessly integrated. Peter Jackson's special effects are an amazing achievement; he actually manages to make all of this look plausibly real. Of course, the film's greatest technical achievement is the character of Gollum. Inhabited in part by actor Andy Serkis (but mostly CGI), Gollum is a lively and imaginative creation. Gollum manages to make an impression without being overbearing or obnoxious like his CGI brother Jar Jar Binks. Gollum is a technical masterpiece, very likely to earn the special effects team an Oscar.

As visually exciting as The Two Towers is, it lacks in many ways. The middle of the film drags to the point of being dull and when the action slows down, the clunky dialogue and earnest close-ups slam the film to a halt. The character development is lost in the waves of action and effects scenes. We know who to cheer for and why but the audience's emotional investment in the characters is limited.

Wood continues to be an unappealing actor. His Frodo is all empty gaze and pained expression. Wood is an actor with talent but limited charisma and paired with the equally dull Sean Astin, the film's most important subplot is saved only by Gollum. Viggo Mortensen, on the other hand, is very charismatic and commanding, and Ian McKellan's Gandalf, in limited screen time, delivers the most memorable moments of the film.

The action and effects of The Two Towers are overwhelming, rolling over the audience in waves. Unfortunately when the action slows down, the film drags and the lack of character development becomes more obvious.

Movie Review: The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of The Ring

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh 

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler 

Release Date December 10th, 2001 

Published December 9th, 2001

For the first time in a long while I was able to walk into a theater with almost no knowledge of the film I was about to see. The trailers were merely teasers that didn't giveaway anything of the story, I've never read the book on which the film is based and I read no reviews of the film before seeing it. Yet the film I saw is one of the more hyped films of all time, The Lord Of the Rings Fellowship of The Ring. You're wondering how I was able to avoid learning about LOTR and what it was about. I assure you it wasn't a calculated effort. The books never appealed to me, I did know a little something about hobbits, Middle earth and fairies, but beyond that the film was entirely new to me.

Fellowship is the first in a three picture series in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It introduces the story of Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), who inherits a powerful and mysterious ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). Frodo has no idea what the ring does but is quickly clued in by the friendly wizard Gandalf (Ian Mckellen), who explains the ring's origin and that of its owner and controller, the evil Lord Sauron. The Ring, we are told, has the power to enslave all of Middle earth; thus it must be destroyed. A fellowship of 9 made up of elves, men, dwarves and hobbits must destroy the ring by returning it to the fires of Mount Doom. Oh if it were only that easy. Sauron is also searching for the ring with his allies the Orcs, and the powerful wizard Samuron (Christopher Lee) who is building an army to stop the intruders.

If you think I'm simplifying too much I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get to my point. It's been a while since we've seen such a pure good vs. evil story, I in fact thought that irony may have destroyed Hollywood's ability to tell such a story without having characters that are overly flawed and quirky. In any other action movie, Frodo would have a drinking problem or an ex-wife who complains about child support and he would make wisecracks before dispatching a villain while each of his emotions were underscored by some pop classic. Yes in that sense LOTR is a breath of fresh air.

Elijah Wood will never be confused with your average adventure hero. His Frodo Baggins is tiny and frightened and certainly not predisposed to violence. Instead, he's pretty good at running and hiding, which he does a lot of. Don't be mistaken, Wood doesn't play Frodo as a coward, he's realistic. He knows he's not a fighter and leaves the warrior stuff to the warriors. Viggo Mortensen is the true standout in the very large cast that also includes Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving. Mortensen shows some charisma and energy in Fellowship that I had not seen from him before. Here he tears into his character and allows his emotions to carry his words and he's very effective. Lord of the Rings is an epic adventure of great scale and scope. Give director Peter Jackson a lot of credit, he has created an entirely new world onscreen. He brings it to life with amazing visual flourish yet doesn't allow the film to get buried underneath it's special effects, which is quite a delicate balancing act.

Comparisons to Star Wars are warranted. The character's motivations and the action-before-dialogue style are quite reminiscent of the George Lucas creation. Character development takes a backseat to visual artistry and the latest in SFX and CGI technology. Although I prefer more character driven styles, action adventures if done well can be almost as entertaining and Lord of the Rings is very well done. 

Sidenote: Am I the only one who thought Christopher Lee looked like Osama Bin Laden? It was probably just the beard, but his first close-up was somewhat jarring.

Movie Review: The Road

The Road (2009) 

Directed by John Hillcoat 

Written by Joe Penhall 

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit McPhee, Robert Duvall, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce 

Release Date November 25th, 2009 

Published November 24th, 2009 

I had to suffer through The Road on two separate occasions just to reach the end. Director John Hillcoat's bleak vision of the end of the world is so overwrought, ugly and cynical that the first time I had to walk out and get some air. The second time I suffered the whole of The Road and then needed a long shower to forget it. In some unspecified future the world simply begins to consume itself. Whether what happened was environmental, nuclear war, or some kind of biblical apocalypse we are not to know. What we do know is that inhabiting this world are The Man (Viggo Mortenson) and The Boy (Codi Smit McPhee).

Together they are making their way to the coast where rumors of a colony of some kind near the ocean give them some kind of hope for the future. More likely, however, is the idea that The Man has invented this idea to give them something to do so that The Boy won't lose hope. That is pretty well it for plot. The film is more or less a series of dank, gloomy scenes of sadness and degrading landscape. Things are so awful that even the trees seem to take a sentient stance and decide to simply topple to the ground. The journey along the road for The Man and The Boy is a slow, repetitive journey toward death.

Is The Road well realized? Yes, Director John Hillcoat can certainly suck the life out of landscape and star Viggo Mortenson is exceptional at becoming the physical embodiment of decay but don't ask either what the point of it all is. I tried imagining that the point of The Road was to have no point at all, that went nowhere and I was left really not caring. I have not read Cormac McCarthy's much praised novel on which the film is based but I am familiar enough with McCarthy and have read enough about the novel to know that the point in McCarthy's book is as much about his words as it about anything else. It seems The Road the novel was more about the way McCarthy wrote it than about any vision of the apocalypse.

What may have been at the heart of the movie The Road is a misunderstanding. Director Hillcoat and screenwriter Joe Penhall seem to have assumed that Cormac McCarthy was offering a vicious and unyielingly bitter judgement on humanity and offering a vision of the end of the world. The reality may be, again not having read the book, that McCarthy was working in prose and that this is where his vision and wordplay took him.

However the movie The Road came about, whether it is true to McCarthy's vision or not, it is far too depressing, vile and gloomy for me to recommend. Again, I respect the technical work of John Hillcoat who could suck the life out of even the most scenic locales and the work of Mr. Mortenson who immerses himself wonderfully in every role. I just cannot abide such a dark vision without some point. I don't want to live in a world where I cannot find meaning somewhere. There seems to be no meaning, point or purpose anywhere in the ugly cynicism of The Road.