RATE THIS POST A SEVEN

What is it with the number seven. Or movies and the number seven. Or me and movies that feature with the number seven. Or me and seven.

Let's explain.

I have written here many time on one of all time favorite movies, Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.

It, of course, inspired another one of my all time fave movies, John Sturges' iconic The Magnificent Seven.

Seven Samurai also inspired an anime series of which I'm quite proud, that shares the same name.

Recently I read a graphic novel out of Europe entitled Seven Psychopaths.

You may have heard of a recent movie of the same name but the comic and that movie share nothing but the name

Then, of course, there was the incredibly contrived serial killer as super being movie Seven

And, in a delightfully wonky way, the underated and but more creatively contrived movie, Lucky Number Slevin

So perhaps you are wondering ... where the hell is he going with all this. Quite frankly, I'm wondering the same thing myself. Not to put too fine a point on it .. what the fuck is up with Seven?

Because, of course, the list is  not at all finished. Another contrived movie bobs up, Brad Pitt's Seven Years in Tibet. Recently we watched a spooky little suspense movie called The Vanishing on Seventh Street, though that does not strictly adhere to the true piety of the Number Seven. Mostly because the seven appears as the street name. The old film noir The Seventh Victim maintains said piety due strictly to numerical signifigence

What the hell am I talking about? Well I wonder that every day but today more than usual. Seriously, what the hell is up with this number in movies.

The Seven Year Itch, Seven Pounds, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Seventh Seal (no this is not about marine mammals that sound like a traffic jam), Seven Days in May, The Seven Faces of Doctor Lao and a title that almost makes my head burst, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers ...

What the hell. Why? Why why why

Why were there seven samurai? Well the pragmatic answer, plot wise, had to do with that was the number of warriors who protect the village for that amount of rice .. fair enough. But why did the writers decide that seven would be the limit?

Brad Pitt's Seven is simple to delineate: The killer was illustrating the Seven Deadly Sins. But why are there seven sins in the first place.

Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are such iconic movies that one can assume that latter screenwriters were inspired by and/or capitalized these earlier movies.

But where the hell does this seven come from. Yes I understand that there is a superstition associated with the number but I don't believe it's cross cultural.

I could have done some actual research on this but I don't know if it's worth the bother. It's just something I've noticed.

If it requires further contemplation, I'll write six more posts on the topic.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: AND SO DO WE

There has rarely been a movie whose title is not only appropriate to its content, but to the experience of watching it. The Dark Knight Rises, the last move in director's Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is such a movie.

The concept of "rising" is addressed in the movie in several ways and in general it rises above the experience of most super hero movies. The Dark Knight version of the Batman (or as the film points out, more properly, The Batman) distinguishes itself from previous versions for its darkness.The first two installments in the series dealt with some dark issues: Vengeance, political corruption, madness, guilt, fallen heroes ... The last movie, The Dark Knight, ends with some of the major characters dead, a hero fallen, and the series hero, The Batman, transformed into a hunted criminal. Dark indeed.

The new movie starts out just as dark. The Batman is still seen as a villain, Bruce Wayne has withdrawn from the world and we meet Bane, a hulking villain in a mask who seems bent on plunging the world into anarchy.

As the third part of a trilogy, the film has the role to tie up any loose ends and Rises does that fairly effectively but it does more than that. This movie wants to resolve these dark themes, to illustrate how these characters are affected by this dark world. Do they let the darkness consume them, or do they rise above it ..

The theme of rising is quite prevalent in this movie, affecting characters both old and new. Gary Oldman returns as Jim Gordon as well as the impeccable Michael Caine as Alfred the butler. Gordon has to struggle with his darkness; he has kept alive a lie that has affected many people in the city of Gotham and he struggles with to find the courage to rise above this lie, and tell the truth.

Then there is Alfred. Michael Caine's letter perfect performance provides this film with its centre, and its heart, just as it did in the earlier versions. Caine infuses Bruce Wayne's butler with strength and love and weakness and courage and despair, all delivered in a completely nuanced way that never takes him over the top. Alfred's darkness is his love for Bruce Wayne, and his knowledge that The Batman is killing this man; this love is also his weakness and he must rise above both.

New characters have their own journies, their own darkness above which they must rise. Catwoman makes her first appearance in this series as an accomplished jewel thief and street fighter, a woman who will go to any ends to achieve what she wants. As we meet her though, what she wants is to leave behind this life but is she is presented with a quandry: In order to rise out of her criminal life she must commit more crimes, and be part of a darkness greater than any she has ever before been involved in.

Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman and although I have a degree of affection for Eatha Kitt and Lee Merriweather that I'll take to my grave, the bes cat lady ever to appear in a Bathman vehicle. Hathaway infuses her character with just the right amount of sass, sex, toughness and vunerability that makes you anticipate her appearances in the story. The character is also beautifully presented; this Catwoman is not a superhero. She does not wear a mask, she is never called Catwoman, her skin tight leather "costume" is excused as an athletic cat burglar's stealth disguise. And there is a lovely bit of stage craft with said outfit that gives Catwoman her "ears"

Another new character is a uniformed cop called Blake, soon to be promoted to detective, soon to have a profound impact on the story. Blake is played by the always reliable Joseph Gordon-Levitt, an orphan whose childhood was marked by violence, much in the same was as the young Bruce Wayne. Blake rises above his past and his station in response to the violence that the plot drops on to his city. And (SPOILER ALERT) at the end of the film, physically rises into a new role.

The most significant new character in the movie is its villain, Bane. A creature of darkness, quite literally, an anarchist whose mission seems to be to plunge Gotham into chaos and yes, darkness. Bane is played by Tom Hardy, an actor who displayed both tremendous physical and emotional range in the film Warrior. His task here is a difficult one; Bane's mask allows us to see only Bane's eyes and his affected voice reminded me a bit too much of the voice of Goldfinger (I'm not sure if Bane's voice is dubbed by an actor other than Hardy, but Gert Frobe's voice was indeed dubbed, as at that time he barely spoke English). Bane's mask, he augmented voice and his mask reminds me a bit of the character The Humungous from The Road Warrior, especially when he is entreating the citizens of Gotham to rise to violence.

Bane is a character that has literally climbed up from darkness; his legend is that he was born in a prison that exists at the bottom of a deep pit and as a child he climbs out to freedom. Bane has not risen though, he still lives in the darkness and seems to want to spread to everyone he encounters. However there is more to Bane's story than first divulged; although he remains a villain we learn that in his own way he has tried to rise but in a case of misplaced loyalty, he cannot climb above the darkness

Then of course we come to The Batman and Bruce Wayne. And they are essentially separate characters. Michael Caine's Alfred makes the point that The Batman will some day kill Bruce, that the caped persona keeps the orphan in his dark place, in the pit of vengeance into which he was cast by his parents murder. During the film the pit is physically manifested and Wayne must climb out of it, he must face his fears, acknowledge them before he come out of the pit, before he can rise.

Bale does good work here as both his characters. Quite frankly by the second movie I was getting a bit bored with The Batman's Clint Eastwood rasp but it seems more effective here. Whereas Tom Hardy is never freed from his character's mask, Bale is; we get to see Bruce Wayne rise and thereby elevate The Batman as well.

As I mentioned, it is the duty of the last installment of a trilogy to wrap things up. Dark Knight Rises does that, perhaps a bit patly but the ending is nicely foreshadowed so things can be forgiven. Mostly everything in the movie works well. It is a long movie but Nolan's script and his pacing as director keeps things moving right along, a lot of tension is built and there are enough surprises, most of them logical, to make you forget about the clock.

Visually the film has all its ducks in a row but that is not surprising, nor are the excellent performances surprising, all well established by the previous installments in the series. What was surprising was the film's theme and the way it dealt with the darkness that has been building since the first film.

Batman rises. And so do we.

ROBIN HOOD: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ROB

Robin Hood. It's a myth that seems to resonate with us. Novels, movies, TV series, historical explorations, we keep looking for this dude. The case in point is the new movie Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and directed by Ridely Scott.
I was prepared to love this film. This same actor-director combo made Gladiator and I am generally just a Scott fan, even his "failures" are still more interesting, and always more beautifully filmed, than 80% of the films you see.


I wasn't disappointed. I loved this movie. It was a gritty take on the story, beautifully filmed, overall well acted with an outstanding performance by Cate Blanchett as Marion. There was perhaps a bit too much speechifying in the film but it had humour and spectacle and relied as much on old fashioned stunts as it did on CGI A stirring score, some lovely little details of life, charging horses, swords, blizzards or arrows .. this movie is a big steaming hot bowl of adventure movie yumminess. With ice cream


So where does this Robin stand with his cinematic brethren? For me, The Adventures of Robin Hood stands as the number one Robin Hood movie.








Sure, you could call this movie corny, perhaps even for the time but it really does have everything: adventure, humour, intrigue, action ... Errol Flynn was the most dashing Robin of all, even more so than Fairbanks, to the point where, afterwards, few would dare try to out dash him again. Basil Rathbone was the best of the purely villainous Sherrif's and I include Alan Rickman from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. I know everyone loves Rickman in that movie but he chewed so much scenery it was amazing he could talk with his mouth so full. And Olivia DeHavilland was a fine Marian, strong as an actress of her day was allowed to be, a perfect foil for Robin.

For many years, my favorite Robin Hood movie was something quite different: Robin & Marion.




This was like the antithesis to Adventures: Richard Lester's movie had a gritty, realistic look to it. Robin was no noble, he was a simple soldier following a king in whom he believed but who turned out to be a bit mad. The film gave us a new perspective on Robin, as an older man, after his initial adventures, returning home. Marion hath got herself to a nunnery and the sheriff is a wearied civil servant. Rob and Little John are old and beat up as well .. but Sean Connery is Robin, Audrey Hepburn is Marion and Robert Shaw is the sheriff. So, yes, my friend, there are still fireworks.

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood has much in common with Robin and Marion. Both give us a gritty, in your face vision of medieval England. Both give us Robin's who are common men, returned from the Crusades and weary of war. Both give us Marions who are strong and intelligent. Both give us King Richards who perhaps were not all who they could be.


Scott's Robin Hood is a bit more spectacle with its huge battle scenes. Robin and Marion is definitely more romantic, the mature love story between Rob and Marion is more resolute than coy, filled with experience and a sense of commitment. Crowe's Robin, for all his reluctance, definitely carries his hero torch high whereas Connery, in one of my favorite of his performances, almost throws it away.


In the similarities I enjoyed both movies but it's hard to choose one over the other for the differences. I would say this new version of Robin Hood fits more into the "crowd pleasing" category.


I mentioned Robin Hood Prince of Thieves and I want to get back to that, since it was a popular movie.




We actually ending up watching this movie the day after we had seen Robin Hood. Prince of Thieves is not a terrible movie. It was a like a combination of Adventures and the two other movies I've discussed: This Robin returns home from the Crusades, but he's still noble; he meets Little John by fighting him at a stream, but he has a Moorish companion. Mary Elizabeth Mastriantonio is a strong yet still winsome Marion. Where it really falls apart is Keven Costner as Robin .. seriously, what were they thinking

OK, all movie reviews aside, what is our fascination with Robin Hood? Is it the myth of taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Of course this pre-supposes that the rich are evil and the poor are all deserving .. Well the rich are all evil but I've known lots of poor people in my time and trust me, sometimes all they deserve is to be poor.

Maybe it's the idea of Robin living alone in the woods with his men, living off the land, by their wits, with Marion at their side .. this is either Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, or some old hippie commune.

If we allow the conceit that Robin is a lord who sees the error of his ways and understands the true need of his people, then it's a story of redemption which always works for me. Of course, this rarely happens does it. I'm still waiting for pretty much any level of government to see the error of their ways and give back what they've taken from the poor ..

Sure. And Kevin Costner will develop a convincing British accent.

WHITEOUT:THE GENDER POLITICS OF KICKING ASS

This post contains discussions and descriptions of both the movie and graphic novel Whiteout, thereby it will contain spoilers. So go pick up the book (you really really should) and go rent the movie (you don't need to, but go ahead) Now sit in a comfy chair and get through both to the end

Go ahead, take your time
No, really, it's ok. I'll wait
OK, all done? Splendid. You may want to wipe the popcorn butter off your chin

Whiteout is a murder mystery that takes place in Antarctica. That would be difficult to tell by watching the original trailers for the movie. It made it look like some kind of B horror movie, like the Thing.

But a murder mystery it is, with a US Marshal Carrie Stenko at its chief protagonist. A big part of the pleasure of the book was Carrie's character. In terms of a mystery, a whodunit, the book was not strong, it was not difficult to figure it out but its real power was in its characterizations and its utilization of its unique settings.

Much was made of the fact that Carrie was the only "law enforcement" figure in this remote environment populated mostly by men

Carrie is tough, something the men respond to, but it's a toughness that comes, in part, out of past fears and in part from the fact that she is a woman, stranded on the bottom of the planet with all these men, and she needs their respect for her position.

In the comic, Carrie is short, freckled, funny, smart, vulnerable, stocky and bad ass when she needs to be. She has a past where her badassery leads to consequences she may or may not regret so it's clear that she tries to keep this aspect of her character in check.

In the movie Carrie is played by Kate Beckinsale. Ms Beckinsale is a gorgeous woman with the tall, willowy looks of a model. She can be bad ass, as witnessed by her Underworld movies. Badass in skin tight leathers, of course, but who am I to complain.
In the movie we see Carrie's reluctance to kick ass but it never seems to come from a position of strength. Right from the beginning, Carrie seems "soft" And it's not just the famous white undies/shower scene. That scene was in the book as it well but it was used to trigger a flashback, which doesn't happen in the movie

I'm going to continue pointing out differences between the book and movie but I want to make this clear: I'm not some fan boy who gets his Luke Skywalker underroos in a tangle because in my favorite comic book one character had a black mustache and in the movie it was blonde. I understand literature and I understand movies and while graphic novels have a cinematic quality to them, they are not movies; movies have different requirements from the static written page. I was fine, overall, with the changes made to Watchmen the movie. I thought what was left out did not hurt the narrative flow; some of the changes in character were more troubling but overall I thought it was a good adaption

Having said that, changes from book to movie should serve some purpose. There are a lot of changes from Whiteout graphic novel to film and some of them puzzle me. And some of them open a different debate.

One of these important changes was Carrie's backstory. Why did she take this assignment? Why does the potential of violence cause her to tremble and tear up?

In both versions it stems from an incident in Miami with a prisoner. That's where the similarities end. In the book, Carrie is guarding a despicable rapist/child molester/sexual predator. In the movie Carrie and her partner are guarding a drug lord. In the book, the scum bag gets free, beats Carrie up and threatens to "do" her and her family. In the movie, the scum gets free and Carrie has to shoot him. In the book Carrie subdues the scum but he basically lets her know he will plead insanity, get free and wreak havoc. So although he is in shackles, Carrie does him in. In the movie, it's revealed that Carrie's partner let the prisoner free; he is being paid by the drug cartel and wanted the prisoner to kill Carrie and go free. Bad things happen to the partner.

The change in this backstory is not necessarily "bad" The book version explains Carrie's reluctance to use force, it gives us insight to why she may not trust herself in certain situations and why she is hiding at the bottom of the world. The movie version builds distrust for other people, particularly partners and that opens up the most significant difference from book to movie

In the movie, during her investigations of the murders at the South Pole, Carrie finds herself reluctantly partnered with a "UN investigator". As you can assume from the pic above, he's a guy, your typical movie big boy scout action figure. He seems to come out of nowhere (interesting in the most isolated place on earth) and Carrie doesn't know if she should trust him

In the book, the second investigator is a person with the British expedition, who is probably some kind of spook. And she's a female. And that's where the gender politics come in.

I'm forced to ask myself why they changed the gender of this character. The obvious answer would be create romantic potential between Ms Beckinsale and her male cohort. Except ...

In the book, Carrie is assumed to be a lesbian. Mind you, this assumption comes from a bunch of men, isolated from the world, and disappointed by the fact that the only female in their proximity is not dropping her panties for them, surely, she must be a dyke!

In the book there is an implied potential romance between Carrie and her British counterpart. This romance is never actually consummated but what is real is the friendship that develops between the two women. There is a great deal of skepticism at first; Carrie has to understand the Brit's motives in the mystery and there is also some professional jealousy. But there is also a bound, a kind of kinship, that joins these two women in this unique environment. It's a bond that does eventually develop into a friendship (and perhaps a romance) and it saves Carrie
As I said, the actual mystery in Whiteout is not its strongest aspect. What really makes the story work are the characterizations and the attention placed to its unique setting. In the movie, the relationship between Carrie and the male investigator goes nowhere. There is zero chemistry between the two actors, so any potential romance seems unlikely. And instead of a slowly built grudging respect between the two, based on shared experiences, we get something different in the movie. The male investigator is more like the white knight, uber capable and constantly bailing Carrie's ass out of the fire, or ice as it were.

Changing Carrie's back story was not a bad decision. The one the movie supposes is as good as the book's really. But changing the gender of the second investigator really weakened the story. The relationship in the book between the two women, whether or not they become lovers, is one of the things that really drove the story for me

What was Hollywood scared of? Is a woman lead, even a kick ass Kate Beckinsale, not enough to carry an action movie?

I understand that Hollywood always wants to engender a romance, is a lesbian romance something so distasteful to the average audience? Or perhaps just distasteful to producers and distributors. I would think that there would be enough prurient interest in Ms Beckinsale snogging with another "hot chick" to make this a marketer's dream. Perhaps Ms Beckinsale disapproved, I don't really know.

As I said, I'm not one of these fanboys who revel and froth over every tiny change between book and movie. But this one is a big mistake for me. The relationship between the two tough, capable women in this incredibly male world, was something refreshing and interesting. In the movie we just have two people of opposite genders who will probably tumble into bed together but for no other reason than that they are two pretty people of the opposite gender ...

So the mystery in Whiteout the movie is not the whodunnit, but rather the whydidthey .. why did they switch the gender of this important character. In this day and age I'm a bit disappointed, I must say.

There is a sequel to Whiteout the graphic novel. I have yet to read it but I'm looking forward to it. Will there be a romance between Carrie and the Brit? Or will the other woman be revealed to be in actuality Sven, a Swedish super secret agent in deep deep deep cover .. Oh wait, that will probably be the next movie.

I HAVE POINTS TO MAKE: FAVORITE MOVIE SWORD FIGHTS

Yes a movie list that will NOT include any westerns. Of course, with me, you never know, so pay attention

What are my criteria for a memorable movie sword fight?

Choreography & stunt work: You have to have both. You have to have stunt people/actors who are nimble, athletic and look like they've at least spent a few hours in a fencing salle. The choreography is key. As a rule, two guys facing each other in rigid fencing postures, foils at the ready and barely moving their wrists is hardly entertaining. I want to see some thought put into the scene, some creativity, but at the same time, something that isn't totally out of character or beyond the internal logic of the movie. For that reason, the Chinese costume sword epics that depend on wire work, will be ignored, with one notable exception.

Context. The sword fight has to mean something to the movie. It just can't spring out of nowhere, it has to related to the characters and mean something. They have to help advance the plot, and advance the realization of the characters. The best movie sword fights are conflict resolution. Why discuss the issue when you can pick up a piece of steel and carve your opponent a new perspective . Hmm, suddenly I feel a need for raw meat.

Historical accuracy. OK, I can give a lot of leeway on this but it's still important, at least to me. Recently I've seen a lot of "historical" movies based in the European middle ages where everyone is using samurai-like sword techniques ... a fantasy film can get away with this, but let's not get silly. I can be forgiving but if the weapons and fighting style seems representative of the time period, it gains points. Again, there are exceptions. One of the movies on this list has two guys with broadswords handling them like epees ... but everything else in the scene works.

OK, on to the list. I'm not numbering it. Entries are pretty much random. There will, however, be honorable mentions.

THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD:

Errol Flynn vs Basil Rathbone. For me, this the archetypal sword fight scene. First you get a conflict set up deep in the movie's core, you know this duel is coming, you understand its significance, and you hold your breath, waiting for it.

You also have two of the best fencers in the movies. . My understanding is, that Rathbone had an actual fencing background. I'm not sure if this is true and I didn't want to research it. Some myths I don't want shattered

OK, the weakness of this scene is how these two guys wield their broadswords like fencing foils but it's forgivable. There's a lot of action here. The duel itself occurs during a larger battle, so the two duellists are moving through a lot of chaos. Both men stay in character for the duel and their athletic ability is evident.

Great directing here as well. I'll never forget, as the two men move around this giant pillar, we see their shadows on it before they move into frame. Dashing indeed.

ROBIN AND MARIAN:

Sean Connery vs Robert Ryan. Well, since we're talking Robin Hood .. this is the sequel to the story, 20 years after Rob goes off Crusading and returns to home to find Marian now a nun and the Sheriff (Ryan) still a bad guy, sort of.

This sword fight pretty much meets all my criteria. The stunt work and choreography are excellent. I'm sure stunt men were used, but the transitions are seamless. And you have two really strong actors here in their prime.

This duel is deeply entrenched within the story; we know these two are going to meet, on one hand they're reluctant to do it but on the other hand they both acknowledge that it's something that must be down.

It feels extremely realistic. Director Richard Lester was one of the best at staging accurate fights, from the weapons, to the armour, to the fact the duellists weren't all flourish and flash, they were fighting for their lives and they kicked and spit and cheated. And they got tired. Until his version of The Musketeers, I never saw a cinematic fencer get tired.

THE PRINCESS BRIDE:

Mandy Pantinkin vs Cary Ewles. "My name is Indgio Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" This duel could very well be a number one as far as I'm concerned. Certainly in terms of choreography and stunt work, it is way, way up there. The world's greatest swordsman (Pantinkin) vs the world's greatest hero (Ewles)

The staging is stunning. It may lose points on realism, but this is a fairy tale. Still, the leaping, spinning, changing of hands, it's pretty breathtaking. All the while these two talented actors firing off some very snappy patter. A sort of traditional fencing with flourishes from another dimension.

STEEL DAWN:

Patrick Swayze vs Christopher Neame. Are some of you saying "Huh?" OK, this may be a tad obscure. It's a post apocalyptic sword and sandals epic, and I use epic in the sense of mildly entertaining cliche riddle B movie. But we all love B movies don't we? If you don't, brother, are you reading the wrong blog.

So the future: bleak, barren, technology smashed, the poor good folks scratching a living out of the desert, terrorized by evil land barons seeking to control the only viable wealth, that being water. Until a mysterious stranger strides out of the wasteland, his sword across his back, his past semi hidden, ready to right all wrongs ... It looks like Mad Max but it plays like Shane.

Swayze is, of course, the hero. And so effective is he at thwarting the bad guys they bring in a hired gun, not Jack Palance but British actor Neames. Their duel to the death meets a lot of the criteria: It is essential to the plot. Swayze must best the slinger in order to beat down tyranny. It is also a test of his resolve, which is questioned in the movie. The choreography is good; this is essentially a fantasy movie but the fight looks gritty, the duellists get hurt, they get tired, they resort to street fighting when need be. And you have two athletically gifted actors, who manage to stay in their lightly sketched characters and bring a touch of gravity to the whole silly thing

ROB ROY:

Liam Neeson vs Tim Roth. OK, back to the good old bloody past. This is a good movie, well made, with some bucks behind it and it shows. Leeson is great, he is so big and graceful and quiet you just know you shouldn't fuck with this guy. But Roth does. His performance is one of my favorite villains in any movie. On the surface his nobleman is a total fop, but on the inside he is a stone cold killer, one of the deadliest fencers in England, apparently based on a real character.

It's an important event in the movie. On one hand, this duel is integral to the advancement of Rob Roy. On the other, Roth is the scum bag who raped his wife. Oh yeh, he's going down.

One of the things that brings it to another level, is an historical point; Roth is a fencer who fancies the rapier and he has a balletic skill with the weapon, quick and nimble and cunning. Rob Roy is, like, 9 feet of chiselled muscle and uses this behemoth claymore, what is referred to as a "Scottish tool" It's a match of weapons of styles

We see both men in action before the fight, we understand what each brings to it. Roth literally runs circles around Neeson, his nimble weapon striking him with pin point accuracy. But what Roy lakes in agility, he makes up in tenacity; yeh, he's freaking John Wayne (see, Westerns will always make an appearance) and he wins the day with his courage, his heart and his just plain toughness.

CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON:

Michelle Yeo vs Zhang Ziyi. OK, here is the exception to the "no wire work" rule but let's face it, this is just an exceptional movie. Even with the obvious wire work, both actors here display an exceptional level of athletic ability and the wire work itself is deeply embedded in the construction of the film.

This is another scene that easily could be another number one. Athletic, beautiful, powerful, suspenseful, the fight, like all the fights in the movie, is used to help tell the story. We learn about the characters as they battle each other, the fight is a kind of a dialogue, much like the scene from Princess Bride. Both these women are powerful actors as well as stunt people and they do as much with their expressions and body postures as they do with their dialogue.

This is also the only female vs female on the list. I love watching women do fight scenes but quite frankly, I can't recall many of this quality. Zhang Ziyi has done other sword fights, like in House of Daggers, but this one is truly the stand out

I'll give Honorable Mention to the fight in the bamboo forest between Ziyi and Chow Yun Fat. A lovely, fluid, fantasy sequence, it's as much chase scene as sword fight. For me it lacks the emotional impact of the the two women, but it takes your breath away.

THE VIKINGS:

Kirk Douglas vs Tony Curtis. I mean, do you need much more info than that? Douglas, Curtis, Vikings, done deal.

This scene is on here for two reasons: Staging and context. The context is what makes it. This is another scene that the entire movie builds up to. The relationship between the two characters is established throughout the entire movie and we see the fight as inevitable. The fight will be a mistake, if one of these one men dies it will be a tragedy for the other yet it's going to happen, their own personalities and the circumstance make it inevitable.

The staging is breath taking. The fight takes place on the steep steps at the top of a Norman style tower; not only could each man die from the sword, the environment itself could kill them. Lots of emotion here and two physically gifted actors holding nothing back.

Each of these actors have movies that deserve honorable mention here: Curtis in The Great Race, and Douglas in Spartacus.

GLADIATOR:

Russel Crowe vs Jaquim Phoenis. Lots of great sword fighting in this movie of course, and most of it emotionally correct for the story. This is another big show down and it's good vs evil with little equivocation, unlike The Vikings.

The context and the acting carries it but the fight choreography throughout this movie is of a very high quality. It's a movie where fighting is central to the plot but it's more about one man bashing each other; be it gladiator or soldier, Crowe's character is fighting for something, and often fighting the system. Yup, Caesar is the man. The Spaniard sticks it to the man. Literally.

RICHARD LESTER'S MUSKETEERS:

Michael York vs Christopher Lee. The Three and Four Muskeeters were released as two movies but I'm considering them as one, as that was how they were created. Picking a single fight from them is difficult, these two movies contain some of the most entertaining and dazzling fight sequences ever filmed

A couple of my favorites are the courtyard sequence where York agrees to fight each of the musketeers separately then they all face off against the king's guard, and the laundry room scene. But these are fights between groups and for the purpose of this list I wanted to stick to mano et mano

So, here we have a man to man duel that, like many on the list, is set up throughout the story. York and Lee are going to fight, they're going to fight to the death. It's good vs evil but it's also naivete vs cynicism, it's youth vs experience. As noted before, Lester was the master of staging chaotic, comical, realistic fight scenes. While both characters display grace and skill with their weapons they are human; they pant, they slip on the floor, they throw stuff at each other. It's funny (the movie is essentially a comedy) but it also helps us to relate to them

That's it for the list at this point. I'm sure I've forgotten some entries, perhaps there are some you disagree with, let me know on either count, but here a few honorable mentions

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Luke vs Darth. Pretty well staged, Mark Hamill can't act his way out of a sack but you can't deny the significance of the duel to the movie "Luke, I'm your father, en guarde"

TOSHIRO MIFUNE: One of my favorite actors of all time and he had many many noteworthy duels in his movies. Magnificent Seven, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, The Samurai Trilogy, The Hidden Fortress. A powerful actor who knew how to use stunt work to give us insight into his character.

HIGHLANDER: One of my favorite B movies. Some of the actual choreography and stunt work is, to be honest, a bit dodgy but it's the staging that deserves note. The sight of two men in contemporary clothing duelling in an underground parking lot does send a little shiver up my spine.

CAPTAIN BLOOD: A great pirate movie with great duelling, featuring another plot-stabilizing duel between Errol Flyn and Basil Rathbone

BUCANEER: A contemporary pirate movie featuring another good duel starring Robert Ryan, this time against evil-oozing Peter Boyle

At the risk of making this post a Gone With the Wind of thrust & parry, I'll end it here. What duels have I missed? Which ones don't belong on the list? Don't be shy, speak your mind. I'll put down my katanna and back away slowly.

AVATAR: CIRCLE THE STARSHIPS, PILGRIM

Over the Christmas holidays, Collette and I saw Avatar. We actually saw it twice. I wasn't going to blog about it, or not at this juncture but some recent media articles have sort of forced my hand (yeh, like I need to be forced to express my opinion or rant a little, just shut up about it)

My review of Avatar, if you could call it that, is that it was a highly enjoyable popcorn movie, a movie whose plot was derivative, "message" simplistic but was very well acted, particularly Sam

Rothwell as the main protagonist, the disabled marine assigned to the extraterrestial avatar and Zoe Saladana as his alien love interest. James Cameron stalwarts Sigournie Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez show up doing what they do so well and Wes Studi does stand out work as the alien chief. The actors who play the villains in the story get let down by the weak script, they are basically presented as evil ciphers, with no redeeming qualities. Still, the overall quality of the acting is quite outstanding.

But let's face fact, millions of people are not going to see Avatar for the script or the acting, they are going for the visual experience and let me tell you, its pretty spectacular. Lately I've been tiring of CGI in movies, I think its way over done, and I think most of it looks pretty sad. I particularly dislike extensive CGI in movies like the last Fast and the Furious and the last Die Hard movie, to me it seems a cheap and cheesy way to use a computer to simulate what older movies would do with real cars and actual stunt men. Quantum of Solace was not my favorite James Bond movie, but I did appreciate the fact that most of its big action set pieces, like the opening car chase and the airplane battle, were done with very little CGI, or computer effects so good, they seamlessly blended with the action.

Science fiction movies of course are a different matter. You have to resort to effects to render aliens, space ships, etc. I still don't often like sci fi movies that are solely dependent on effects. Forbidden Planet is a 50 or so old movie that still looks good but is more memorable for its story. I enjoyed JJ Abrahms take on Star Trek, the effects looked great but it was the story and more importantly, the characters that made the story for me. I disliked 300; not only was the story incredibly moronic (I'm a history buff and yes I know the source was a graphic novel but I don't understand why mythological monsters are more captivating than real flesh and blood humans) but I thought the green screen effects just looked cheesy. A B movie without the necessary humour.

And this brings me to Avatar. I did enjoy the story though it wasn't strong, the acting made up for a lack of written depth in the characters but damnit, this is the best looking movie I have seen in ages. Hands down, the greatest and most effective computer generated characters I've ever seen. It wasn't long before I forgot that these aliens weren't real. The details are incredible, from hair follicles in their ears, to the the vertical striations on their thumbnails. Even the eyes, where CGI characters usually fall down, are liquid and expressive. And the scenes where the CGI characters interact with the flesh and blood actors, are the most seamless I've ever seen.

You get to a point in the movie where the effects and the world created, are so effective, you forget they are indeed effects. And yes, I really enjoyed the digital 3D. It's not like the cheesy 3D with which I grew up and Cameron resists (mostly) the urge to throw objects out into the audience The 3D effect is immersive, in one scene, where the forest is burning down, I found myself trying to brush floating ash off my face ... And yes, the glasses gave me a mild headache, but it faded pretty quickly. If you can see it in IMAX 3D do so, it's pretty amazing.

So now, what prompted me to write this Avatar post now? In short, its the stench of over amped, opportunistic political correctness that's hovering over this movie like smog.

Be advised, the rest of this post may involve spoilers (oh get over it, even the rock you live under has heard about this movie)

For those of you who don't know, the plot of Avatar is like a retelling of the Pocahontas story, with a big fat slice of Dances With Wolves. As I've said, it's derivative. Big bad corporate, profit minded humans come to alien paradise Pandora and want to exploit it for its mineral wealth, natives be damned. Human marine takes control of an alien body to help with said exploitation, becomes entranced by the alien paradise, turns his back on humanity and all Hell breaks loose. He uses his human tactics and hoo-raw jarheadness to help fight his own kind.

While watching the movie I was very interested in the fact that the marine is a paraplegic, injured in war, using a wheelchair. In a future where we have faster than light travel and giant robots, they can't repair the man's spine? It's explained that as a poor jarhead, he isn't rich enough to get legs and there is some bitter truth to that, disabled veterans do seem to go to the back of the line. As the alien avatar, the marine has a fully functional body and it struck me that maybe he would rather live as an able alien than a disabled human ...

But that's not the PC brush being used to paint this movie.

The card being played here is the race card. The movie is (rightly I feel) being seen as a parallel to the white man's oppression of Native Americans, as I said, it is more than reminiscent of Dances With Wolves. The fact that the fine Native actor Wes Studi plays one of the aliens was not lost on me (no one ever accused James Cameron of being subtle). The criticism here is that its the white man (or the human) who rescues the Natives (or the ET's) who otherwise would be unable to write their own destiny.

Let's put this in context. What were are talking about here is a difference in cultures (human capitalism vs alien cooperative/natural living. The natives of Pandora live in a natural world, where existing takes up a great deal of their lives, they don't need tech because the planet itself provides then with what the need. No need to invent flight, we have dragons to fly us around. Humans are dependent on tech. They need it just to survive on Pandora (the planet's atmosphere is poisonous to humans) and they need it to exploit their capitalistic needs

So the aliens are faced with two wars; a war of ideology and a war of technology. Like the Aztecs and the Plains Indians The natives of Pandora are not stupid or backward or primitive, they just literally live in a different world. Our human history is peppered with a race of people being overwhelmed by another race because of these kinds of differences; not just the advanced tech, but the different mindset behind it. The American Revolution and the Boer War are examples of a larger, better equipped army being defeated by a smaller army due in large part to a difference in tactics; farmers and hunters using those skills as guerrilla fighters to overcome large professional armies.

Yes, the human in Pandora uses his knowledge of human behaviour and human technology to help the ET's in their war Not because he's superior, but because he just has the understanding that the aliens cannot access. On the other hand, the aliens use their form or tech (some kind of planet wide biological symbionce) to aid the human.

But there are humans on this world who are seeing Avatar as racist, a prime fantasy of white man's guilt .. well fuck, we better have a lot of guilt about how our ancestors ran rampant over a good chunk of this planet. And if we have fantasies of how we wish we could have better handled those past events, what's wrong with that

One of the criticisms is how the human in this movie is portrayed at the superior savior of the poor primitive aliens Again, I view the marine's advantage not one of racial superiority but just a better understanding of his own culture. And of course not all the humans are saviors No doubt about it, the bad guys here are all white .. I mean human .. to the point where they approach parody And we never see a truly evil alien. So most humans evil, even the good humans are damaged by their own culture and can only become good by, literally, becoming human and none of the aliens are truly evil... um, wait .. isn't that sort of racist?

It isn't lost on me that some of the more vocal dissonance of this movie is coming from ethnic actors and movie makers, the old "why did Kevin Costner get to make a movie about Native Americans, when the Natives themselves don't have that kind of access to the movie making machine .." A very very fair question indeed

But I'll wait to hear from the giant, blue skinned alien forum to pass a judgement here

I'm a fan of Westerns (gosh Vic really) and I find a lot of them difficult to watch now, the racism is pretty terrible. As a rule, I don't buy Westerns where its cowboys vs Indians because they just make me puke So movies have a lot to answer to in the way our history is portrayed

But lay off Avatar. Yes, I know, its not a move that exists in a bubble. It may be science fiction but the parallels to human history are out there in your face. So comments are warranted. But is this the cross you want to die on? Or is it just because this movie is so huge any comment made will likely be picked up by the media, especially disparaging comments. Its called an opportunity, just as the humans in Avatar use opportunity to exploit that planet ...

Oh golly, can we say "irony"?

By the way: How DO disabled people feel about this movie and how the crippled Marine is portrayed? I was impressed on how his legs looked so thin, a nice attention to detail. The first showing we went to, there were three people in wheelchairs in the audience. I'm very curious how those people viewed the film

LIST POST: ACTORS & DIRECTORS COMBO

Yes, it's another annoying list post. This one is a favorite of mine: Actors and directors who have worked together over a period of time, building a relationship, one strong enough that it comes across on the screen. This list is in way meant to be comprehensive. These are the combo's that work for me, films and artists that resonated with me over time.

If you have your own favorite combo's any that I've missed, feel free to drop me a message.

These are in no particular order, just as they occur to me mostly, but the first one is intentional, it's the pairing of actor and director that immediately springs to mind, not only for it's longevity, but for it's overall impact:

THE TWO JOHNS: No, this doesn't refer to two horny guys cruising the stroll on a Friday night. It instead refers to what I would think be one of the most successful pairings of actor and director in movies, at least American movies: John Wayne and John Ford

Between 1928 and 1962, the two Johns made twenty movies together. Story goes that Ford discovered Wayne on a movie lot when the younger man was a college student, delivering furniture. It would be a while before the two worked together, but that instance would be Stagecoach which is arguably one of the best western movies ever made (it certainly has become archetypal) and firmly established Wayne as a major movie star.

In my mind, although both men did some great work independently (it was Raoul Walsh who directed Wayne in Rio Bravo, for sure one of my favorite movies of all time, Western or not) they may have done their best work together. The poster above is of course The Searchers another archetypal western. This movie has not aged particularly well and like too many classic westerns, the depiction of aboriginal peoples is pretty shocking. But, still, it's a great movie and Ford gets from Wayne one of his most moving, complex and affecting performances. Uncle Ethan is not a nice guy, there are a lot of hard edges to him and Wayne is not afraid to show them. It also contains some of Ford's finest colour work and those beautiful, quaint little details of frontier life.

There are many more of course, The Quiet Man (perhaps Wayne's best non Western film), The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, The 3 Godfathers and some of the best movies ever made about the US Calvary, including She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and Ford Apache.

I think the two men made a perfect pairing, mostly because they were both so understated in their own rights. Wayne does not always get the acting cred he deserves but watch movies like The Sands of Iwo Jima and the tight close ups of his face (The Searchers as well) that showed how expressive he could be without saying a word. Ford was very much the same way. He was not one for a lot of camera movement, just perfectly framed shots designed to let the action within them tell the story.

In My Darling Clementine, the climax of which is the gunfight at the OK Corral, Henry Fonda as Wyatt Earp, is walking down the street toward his destiny. Ford frames the shot with Fonda down at the far end of the shot, very small against the backdrop of frontier town. He walks forward, in his black suit, his pistol held casually in one hand, as if it was some prosaic tool such as a hammer. As he moves forward, his walk becomes more deliberate and he puts the gun in his shooting hand, holding it as it was intended .. and you realize the shot has been perfectly framed for this medium close up, Fonda's body centered, his face clearly defined .. before he continues to come forward, filling the shot. It's so good it gives me goosebumps.

AKIRA KUROSAWA AND TOISHURO MIFUNE:Like Ford and Wayne, this director and actor have become pretty synonymous with one another. They had a lengthy partnership, making sixteen movies over several decades. And although both made great movies without the other (Kurosawa's "Ran" and Mifune's "Samurai Trilogy" made with director Hiroshi Inagaki that may feature his strongest acting) the films they made together are considered classics, and some of my all time favorites.

The Seven Samurai and Rashomon are two movies that everyone should see. Really. Go see them. I'll wait. (It's ok, it will take you a while but I have other things to do) For me, the two "samurai with no name" movies, Yojimbo and Sanjuro are among my favorites of the collaboration.

These two movies, I think are very representative of what the two artists could bring to the table. These are samurai movies, and their best movies together took place in the samurai era, though their film Drunken Angel is a contemporary gangster movie and often credited as the first yakuza film. But the samurai mythology, like Ford and Wayne's cowboy mythos, was really where they shone. What I particularly like about Yojimbo and Sanjuro, though, is that, for all the action, they are almost comedies of manners. In the prim, ordered, anal universe of the samurai here comes Mifune's ronin; dirty, rumpled, rough, unmannered and uncultured, constantly picking at his clothing, scratching his scruffy beard, squinting and mumbling as he physically and mentally dissembles whatever world he stumbles into. These movies were of course be the inspiration for Sergio Leone's "Man with no Name" films with Clint Eastwood, and they certainly have the tang of anarchy about them. An anarchy even more pronounced in the world of bushido and samurai sensibilities. Contrast this to Mifune's character in the Samurai Trilogy and as great as these movies are, what he and Kurosawa brought to the table was something unique.

DAVID MAMET & JOE MATEGNA: This writer/director and actor certainly don't have the kind of history as the first two pairs, but I think their impact on one another is pretty significant and I just think it's a really successful collaboration.

Mantegna appeared in Mamet's first film, House of Games as well as Things Change and Homicide, and a supporting role in Red Belt. What I love about all these movies is how different they are, united mostly by Mamet's deft, lyrical dialogue and Mantegna's ability to find the humanity in any character, even underneath the famous Mamet prose.

Perhaps a common theme through these three movies is the street ... no, Joe doesn't play an incredibly verbose road paver. But in all three films he plays street level guys with some connection to crime, that suits the actor's persona very well. In House of Games he plays a con artist, in Things Change a low level gangster, in Homicide a cop. The combination of Mantegna's earthy, blue collar persona and Mamet's rarefied dialogue seems to work perfectly There's an odd rhythm to Mamet's scripts and I think Mantegna is the best actor at making it seem fluid and natural

SIDE NOTE: There is another actor who has had a successful collaboration with David Mamet. Ricky Jay is a sleight of hand magician who first appeared in House of Games (Mamet's directorial debut) and has appeared in virtually every movie since then, including the TV Series The Unit, which Mamet produced. Jay is always a supporting role but over time, has become as adept as Mantegna at letting that stylized dialogue roll off his tongue

DON SIEGAL & CLINT EASTWOOD: I know, I know, you want Sergio Leone there instead of Siegal. The two of them made the three Man with No Name Movies (Fistful of Dollars, A Few Dollars More and The Good The Bad and The Ugly) and it was a great collaboration, no doubt, but I think Siegal and Eastwood is actually more significant.

It was Siegal who directed Dirty Harry and clearly, that is the one role Eastwood will always be associated with. Siegal got Eastwood out of the western genre with Harry and Coogan's Bluff and The Beguiled (a civil war era movie but certainly not a western) and Escape From Alcatraz. Though he did direct Two Mules For Sister Sarah, one of my fave Eastwood westerns.

Siegal's directing style could be described as prosaic and he worked well with classic American "macho" actors; Steve McQueen in Hell is for Heroes and John Wayne in The Shootist. I really think he helped Eastwood flesh out his stoic, whsipery persona and Eastwood often credits him as a major influence on his own directing career.

BUDD BOETTICHER & RANDALPH SCOTT: Yup, westerns again, and macho men, do we see a trend here? Well it doesn't get more macho than the stoic, heroic Scott and director Boetticher, a former stunt man and matador.

Beginning in the mid fifties, Budd and Scott teamed up to make six westerns that stand as some of the best "B" westerns ever made. Scott, a fairly major star who, although known primarily for westerns, had also had great success in movies off his horse. But at that point, for reasons that still aren't clear to me, he decided the only movies he had any interest in making, were westerns.

Producer Harry Brown led Scott to Boettcher, who was lost on various backlots making one unmemorable western after another. Screenwriter Burt Kennedy (who went on to become a fairly decent B movie western director in his right) came on board and the team went on to produce these austere, deftly written, well acted westerns with Scott perfectly inhabiting essentially the same character; a retired gunslinger of some sort brought back into the fray to ride the vengeance trail. What distinguishes these films is that the act of vengeance is not so clear cut. And they all feature Scott as the world weary gunman teamed with a younger, more aggressive version of himself (portrayed by actors such as Lee Marvin, Claude Atkins, Lee Van Cleef, James Coburn and many others) leading to the inevitable showdown.


I never really thought that much of Scott's acting chops but Budd was able to bring something out in him, this kind of sadness almost, particularly in the scenes where the violence became inevitable; he was older, he'd been through it, he knew what was coming but for all his experience and wisdom, he wouldn't be able to stop it.

ANYTHONY MANN & JAMES STEWART: Oh what the hell, let's finish it off with more westerns .. I'm beginning to wonder how Mamet worked his way into this list (Kurosawa makes sense, his ronin movies not only inspired many western movies, they were inspired by them in turn). Can you imagine a Mamet western? Black Hat and White Hat stand off in the dusty street, the sun starting to set behind them:

White Hat: "You're wearing your gun, Billy"
Black Hat: "Yes, it's the gun I wore, didn't you want me to wear it, you knew I would have to wear it"
White Hat: "My happiness has nothing to do with your gun, my happiness is like the bullet you left at home, it's cold and independent and it's covered in dust"
Black Hat: "I brought that bullet, it's in my gun, it's clean and hollow and it's filled with the charge of my hatred and .."
Oh for fuck sake, somebody shoot somebody!!!

Sorry ... I digress .. but you knew that I would, didn't you?


Anyway .. Anthony Mann & Jimmy Stewart. They made eight movies together but the five westerns they made together certainly defined Mann as a director and re-defined Stewart as an actor.




This is the post-war Jimmy Stewart. A leaner, meaner, driven Stewart, more likely to resort to violence than in any of his previous films. This is Stewart on the edge, his motivations more grey than black and white, and likely to erupt in a sudden paroxysm of violence that can be quite shocking.


The Man From Laramie gives us Stewart as a man falsely accused, the underdog if you will but even so, his actions seem frenetic, even shocking. Post war indeed. Even when on the vengeance trail, Stewart does so with cold, hardcore sense of purpose that makes you squirm in your seat a bit. You don't often see this side of Stewart and you never see it with the intensity that Mann is able to bring out of him. And you don't see this degree of focus and passion in Mann's earlier films, so it's a successful collaboration, each artist pulling out something bigger from the other.


This post has probably gone on long enough so I'll end it there. You may have noticed there are no females on the list. Well, I have lots of favorite female actors but I can't associate any of them with a particular director. Doesn't mean there weren't collaborations, not just by anyone I watch. If you have a match up between and actress and a director, I would love to hear it.