Reviews by PvtCaboose91

The critical brain boggles when faced with the peculiar challenge of reviewing a clichéd 80s teenage sex comedy. One can only imagine how tough it would've been for a film critic back in the mid-1980s. Sure we get plenty of shitty trends for modern comedies these days (like the much-hated genre spoofs such as Epic Movie and Date Movie), but the never-ending flow of teen sex romps must've caused at least one or two critics to quit their job and become a Chartered Accountant. The movie in question, 1985's Private Resort, is one such member of this dreaded teen sex romp species.

The teenage sex comedy genre was launched by titles like Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and countless others. Unfortunately, this sub-genre yielded dozens of dodgy, witless, worthless movies, none of which dispensed any genuine laughs - but most of which were crammed with wall-to-wall nudity (both genders). Unbeknownst to audiences of the time, every once in a while one of these romps would feature a performance courtesy of an actor destined for big-time stardom. This explains why one might notice a very youthful Johnny Depp being displayed on the cover/poster of a little film entitled Private Resort. I beseech you all to disregard that natural impulse that says "Hey! Johnny Depp! This should be cool so I'll give it a go" because in the grand pantheon of mid-'80s teenage sex romps, Private Resort is certainly one of the very worst - and if it ain't the most excruciatingly unfunny example the sub-genre had to offer, it's certainly a favourable candidate.

Here's a very brief plot summary: Ben (Morrow) and Jack (Depp) are two horny teenage pals always on the lookout for the possibility of getting laid. Their mission for sex is given further momentum when the two travel to Florida and are guests at a luxurious resort for the weekend. As they wander around this resort they occasionally stop to ogle a pair of bare breasts, and they get entangled with a jewel thief as they go from one awkward (and mostly painfully unfunny) situation to the next. Oh, and the boys find romance as well.

That's pretty much it, plotwise. The entire film uses the stereotypical and unoriginal formula of a few horny teens in a certain location that are keen to get laid. In between the characters arriving at the resort and departing (with their newfound loves), the script offers nothing but awkward situations. It's evident that those behind and in front of the camera had an absolute ball and gave it everything they had...but were let down by the awful script. The film's failure is thus the direct fault of the screenwriter Gordon Mitchell. He obviously believes comedy is just embarrassing situations and characters struggling to deal with things going from bad to worse. Private Resort is crammed with sufficient hair-raising scenarios to fill four or five American Pie sequels.

The film's stupidity could be forgiven if only it was funny. As it is, Private Resort isn't funny...it's imbecilic to extremes. The gags and pratfalls can be predicted years before they happen. And at times the film is so desperate for laughs that a Bogan enters the equation, using terms like "dude" and "radical" - we all know the type. At the end of the day, this just isn't funny...this is shit.

Prior to his breakout performance in Oliver Stone's Platoon, Johnny Depp paid his dues in a horror flick and a sex comedy. The good news is that the horror flick was Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street, so there isn't anything to be embarrassed about on this front. On the other hand, the sex comedy was this brainless shit-fest. At least Johnny looks like he's actually trying to give the film something worthwhile at times. Johnny presents a fairly likeable persona with the character of Jack (no, this character has nothing to do with Jack Sparrow). He offers a few good moments of solid acting. Nothing worthy of an Oscar, but this is a strange bridge to the lucrative career he now has.

In closing: Private Resort is aggressively obnoxious, foolish, daft, painfully unoriginal and inconceivably imbecilic. This is a film only noted for the early performances of Johnny Depp and Rob Morrow. There's little doubt in my mind that both Depp and Morrow cringe if they spot a copy of the film floating around at their local DVD shop. With Johnny Depp's current career in mind, he most likely wants to bury this movie forever. He even reportedly admitted that he did it only for money. Even the top-billed Rob Morrow (whose career has vanished) would probably want to have Private Resort scrubbed from his résumé. Is it a total disaster, though? Not at all, but dangerously close. While the laughs are few and far between, there are a few situations worthy of a giggle (these moments provide simple chuckles as opposed to genuine laugh-out-loud material). It also passes the time adequately. On top of this, I have four words and a piece of punctuation to add: Johnny Depp's bare butt!

3.4/10

The Cannes Film Festival of 1997 was a devastating period for Johnny Depp. The actor had directed, co-written and starred in The Brave, but his efforts were hardly rewarded when he presented the film to audiences at Cannes. Depp's film was subsequently panned severely by critics. This criticism profoundly disheartened Depp, who was so upset he refused to have The Brave released in the US. To this day the film has been buried and forgotten. Some people even exclude the film from the résumés of Depp and Marlon Brando. Not many people are even aware of the film's existence, except for die-hard film buffs and epicentres of Depp devotion. One will unquestionably find it taxing to unearth a copy of this film. It was released on DVD, but limited copies were distributed. Now you'll only find the DVD floating around on eBay or other online stores if you're lucky. If you ask me, this is a true pity. (Why couldn't this instead happen to a more deserving title, such as that dreadful teen sex romp Private Resort? That's a Johnny Depp film that deserves to be removed from existence and get buried for eternity.)

By no means is The Brave a masterpiece, but it's a poetic and expressionistic film that marks a very important entry to the résumé of Johnny Depp. It's admirably unconventional and gripping, with a brutal sense of reality permeating every scene. The film's depiction of the American Indian community is unflinching. Instead of creating a feel-good film, Depp directed a deeply depressing, emotive and powerful drama that deserves much more acclaim and attention.

The story is derived from Gregory McDonald's novel of the same name. This is a sincere and touching story that poignantly explores themes of bravery, veracity, and strength of character, but above all delves into the lengths a father will travel to in order to protect his family.
Depp plays an unemployed, alcoholic American Indian named Rapheal. He was recently released from gaol, and had returned to his family who reside in a shanty-town near a garbage heap. His family is devastatingly stricken by poverty, to the extent that they're struggling to put food on the table. Down on his luck and with little choice, Rapheal investigates a job prospect. At a grotty old warehouse he encounters an enigmatic and creepy cripple known as McCarthy (Brando, in a very brief cameo appearance). Rapheal is offered the chance to star in a snuff film. He will be tortured and killed on film a week hence, and in return his family will receive a hefty $50,000. Thinking solely about his family, Rapheal agrees. From there the film chronicles Rapheal's final 7 days. He reforms relationships with his two children and falls in love with his wife all over again. As Rapheal was given a bit of money upfront, he begins to give his family gifts to ensure he has a magnificent final week.

This intriguing premise of sacrifice is worked into a plot about prejudice, social injustice, human corruption and poverty. To an extent his efforts pay off. However, with such a long running time and so little actually going on during these two long hours, the messages are weakened. Johnny's directing and acting are fine by all accounts, but it's the writing that denotes the film's lethal fault. The middle of the film is overlong and narratively inept, with a deficiency of key plot points and general happenings. Unfortunately a few of the stronger scenes are drawn out to abject monotony. It's also worth noting that the film never blatantly tells the viewer that Rapheal will be featured in a snuff film. The best guess of a viewer will have to suffice.

The central criticism endured by The Brave was in regards to how unbelievable the story is. If a father allowed himself to be sacrificed in order for his family to live a better life, wouldn't they be mentally scarred for life? However, this is a character flaw as opposed to script flaw. The character of Rapheal is meant to be so daft that he never considers the long-term except for the financial benefits. It also shows Rapheal was willing to give up anything, even his own life, just to ensure his wife and kids could escape poverty. The gripping conclusion depicts an unforgettable, symbolic and ambiguous final image. If you expected Rapheal to break out a gun and dispatch his enemies in slow motion before walking off into the sunset with his girl and his money, then you'll be disappointed. The Brave never strives to be a clichéd Hollywood fare. Instead it stays true to its convictions from the first shot 'til the last. The anticlimactic finale will leave you stunned.

Johnny Depp's direction is first-rate. It's obvious he's drawn inspiration from his previous collaborators, such as Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man) and Emir Kusturica (Arizona Dream). Depp keeps the pacing careful and ponderous, albeit slightly sluggish during the middle section. For the most part I was riveted at the drama being offered. Authentic locations and sets are among the film's strengths. The final 5 minutes are particularly artistic. It's clear Depp worked passionately both behind and in front of the camera.
The music by Iggy Pop elevates the film to incredible heights. Particularly powerful are the last few minutes as a doomed man heads towards his inevitable fate. The poignant music is emotive and powerful. I will be perfectly frank: when the credits started to roll, tears wet my eyes and I sat completely astonished. This is a film that defies Hollywood clichés and challenges an audiences' notion of a happy ending. Overblown Hollywood bullshit this is not...The Brave is a drama firmly set in reality.

Performances are consistently excellent. Johnny Depp is surprisingly convincing as an Indian. This is a versatile performer who continues to tackle new and exciting things. From eccentric performances (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) to a gunslinger (Once Upon a Time in Mexico) to an Irish playwright (Finding Neverland), Depp is undoubtedly one of today's finest actors. Depp appears to immerse himself into the role of Rapheal. He delivers his lines with such conviction and passion. His striking good looks are just a bonus.
The Brave was one of Marlon Brando's final films. The actor is most recognised for films such as The Godfather, Apocalypse Now and A Streetcar Named Desire. In the 90s he was past his prime, but still spending his twilight years acting (no matter how small a role). I liked Brando's performance immensely. At one stage he delivers a seven minute monologue of the exquisite challenge of death. The dialogue itself is somewhat nonsensical (almost an unintended parody of his soliloquies from Last Tango in Paris), but if you just watch Brando's expressions and listen to the intonation, the actor is truly breathtaking.

It's a genuine pity that The Brave was so pasted and criticised. This won't ever be hailed as a masterpiece, nor should it be, but you can most certainly do worse. How can Uwe Boll's awful movies be released globally on DVD while this underrated gem continues to rot? Every year there are dreadful blockbusters that still see the light of day while The Brave is unfairly ignored. Needless to say, if you're a fan of Johnny Depp then you can't go past this one. As a first-time director Depp succeeds. That said, however, the film does have its faults. Occasionally the film is dramatically empty. An unfortunate lack of exciting events is disappointing as well.
Be that as it may, The Brave is a film I truly love for its poetic imagery and the courage to avoid a clichéd happy ending. I recommend it if you can find a copy.

8.3/10

The fruitful partnership of John "The Duke" Wayne and Howard Hawks (that spanned over a number of decades) produced several utterly fabulous additions to the Western genre. Red River marked their first collaboration, with the masterpiece of Rio Bravo soon following. El Dorado isn't as good as the films preceding it. It doesn't have the scope, scale or ambition of the previous Hawks/Wayne productions. This is a film that lives and dies by its entertainment value. Where Rio Bravo was bestowed with characters as warm as toast in addition to a lot of interesting dialogue and beneficial character development...El Dorado merely features plenty of action and traditional shootouts. I'll be quite frank: if there's a Western featuring shootouts and horse-riding...I'm there!

El Dorado is more or less a straightforward rehash of Hawks' own Rio Bravo (Hawks even dotingly confessed "I steal from myself all the time"). El Dorado borrows a number of characters, plot points and scenes. In addition, a lot of the same sets from Rio Bravo are recycled here. I personally felt a sense of cinematic déjà vu while watching this film. A few years later Hawks and Wayne teamed up again (for the final time) to make Rio Lobo. This was yet another variation on Hawks' Rio Bravo. It has been reported that when Hawks was talking to John Wayne about Rio Lobo during pre-production of the film, Hawks offered The Duke a copy of the script. "Why bother? I've already been in the movie twice" was John Wayne's response.

Let's get one thing very clear: for the entire duration of El Dorado, John Wayne is John Wayne. Say anything about The Duke’s questionable acting skills, but that man filled up a movie screen. The weight of his personality alone is a driving force that a number of action films can only wish they had access to. The Duke is the personification of honour and determination. To his credit, John Wayne knew what his skills were and he played to them.

In El Dorado, Wayne plays a gunslinger named Cole Thornton. He's your typical cowboy who knows his way around a gunfight. His friend J.P. Harrah (Mitchum) is the sheriff of the Texan town of El Dorado. Due to trouble with a woman, J.P. turned to the bottle to settle his problems. Now he's an uncoordinated drunk and the laughing stock of his town (Dean Martin played a similar character in Rio Bravo).
Wealthy landowner Bart Jason (Asner) gets himself embroiled in a struggle with the MacDonald family who own a large amount of land just outside the town lines. Jason offers Cole Thornton a job, but J.P. warns Cole that getting involved with Jason could lead to him getting arrested. Further circumstances entwine Cole with the MacDonald family, and he sets out to destroy Jason.

El Dorado is a fun film, and a classic example of The Duke in his element during his heyday. There are energetic shootouts that are entertaining to behold, a great script featuring a number of amusing witticisms (when figuring out the best way to get J.P. sober, his deputy delivers his input: "A bunch of howlin' Indians out for hair'll do it quicker'n anything I know"), as well as the eye-catching scenery and wonderful landscapes of the old West. The picture looks great. Costumes, props and sets all look fantastic. Occasionally the interior sets feel like interior sets...but this is just fun Saturday afternoon material, and it's not meant to be scrutinised too intimately.
One aspect I must mention is the music. There's a good dosage of triumphant music at times of course. But there's one particular part of the movie when the music is groovy beyond words. This scene depicts the protagonists stalking a bunch of antagonists. They quietly wander through the dark streets as the cool music brings the scene to a whole new level.

The film is quite flawed, though. With so many ideas stolen from Rio Bravo, there's not much of a point. It makes things only more predictable, with the script seeming far more formulaic. Like most classic Westerns, the film's over-length is a tad irritating as well. A trim would have been advantageous.

As always, John Wayne lights up the screen whenever his authoritative persona wanders into a shot. When he's carrying a weapon of any sort, he looks fantastic. The shootout scenes encompass his greatest moments. The Duke should be lauded for frequently playing the same character without ever growing tiresome.
Robert Mitchum is another terrific actor, perhaps known best for Night of the Hunter and Cape Fear. Mitchum is of course uniformly excellent. He's charismatic and occasionally dashing.
A very young James Caan makes an appearance, playing a character unable to handle a pistol. It's a sacred Western law for the protagonists to be skilled in handling a firearm, thus it's refreshing to witness a main character that requires a few lessons in using a gun.

Overall, El Dorado is a fun Western of a good standard. It makes for highly entertaining viewing despite its slow-ish pace. Director Howard Hawks and star John Wayne know how to keep an audience rapt (for the most part). However, it's a shame so many things are borrowed from Rio Bravo. With a more exhilarating sense of originality, this could have been a better film. If I was to pick a favourite out of Rio Bravo and El Dorado, I'd naturally opt for the former. Be that as it may, El Dorado is still a decent flick. In a modern age of cinema that showcases blood and guts, it's refreshing to see men snuff it in a cloud of smoke with a little dab of tomato sauce on their clothes.

If you are a fan of Westerns or of John Wayne movies in general, then by all means take a look. If you're yet to become a John Wayne fan, this film ain't one to make you a believer. Nevertheless this is good for an evening's worth of entertainment in a classic Hollywood mode.

7.6/10

For enthusiastic fans of romantic comedies, William Wyler's enchanting classic Roman Holiday is an absolute must. With its endearing blend of delightful dialogue, subtle laughs and utterly charming characters, there is little mystery why Roman Holiday has become such a tremendous favourite over the decades. While the film was directed by William Wyler (known in Hollywood at the time for being an absolute perfectionist, occasionally filming up to 30 takes for one scene) and featured the charismatic Gregory Peck, this is a production best known for bringing actress Audrey Hepburn into the spotlight. In the early 1950s, Hepburn had only performed on Broadway and in minor roles in various films. Yet the studio took a chance on the unproved performer, and as a result Hepburn was bestowed with an Academy Award for Best Actress.

Witty, warm, beautifully filmed (on location in Rome), charming and admirably unconventional, Roman Holiday remains an unabashed romantic pleasure and a terrifically enduring classic.

These days it's typical for young girls to fantasise about being a princess. Perhaps there's the possibility that princesses fantasise about being just another regular girl - a fairytale in reverse, to speak. Whatever the case, this is the premise for the story told in Roman Holiday. The film tells the story of a princess spending a day in anonymity, away from her privileged lifestyle and excessive riches. This is a tale that has been retold various times in many different forms, even in the years of contemporary cinema. For instance, Notting Hill: the story of an ordinary Brit dating the world's most famous actress. Or there's Chasing Liberty that tells the story of the First Daughter venturing out on her own. Furthermore, while the story of Roman Holiday may seem farfetched, it has gained credibility over the years. The events in the lives of Princess Margaret and even Princess Diana have proved just how accurate this classic gem truly is.

Princess Ann (Hepburn), heir to the throne of an influential country in Europe, is on a goodwill tour of the European capitals. After travelling to Paris, London and Amsterdam among others, the princess finds herself in Rome. But the strain of her lifestyle is beginning to have an effect on her mental state. When Ann's secretary confronts her with her awfully busy schedule for the next day, Ann has a fit of hysterics and suffers a meltdown - she's completely fed up with having every moment of her life intricately planned. Subsequently she's given a sedative to calm her down. In her drugged state, Ann slips out of the palace, runs away from her royal duties and ventures out into the city where she poses as a drunk, homeless girl. American newsman Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) discovers the comatose Princess Ann. Feeling guilty about abandoning someone in no condition to be on their own, Joe brings Ann back to his apartment so she can "sleep it off". The following morning Joe realises the identity of his mysterious guest and begins plotting a method to obtain an exclusive story out of the situation. He enlists the aid of his friend (Albert) to take the pictures. Over the course of the day spent with Ann, Joe's desire to write the story wanes as his fondness for his companion escalates.

Audrey Hepburn was in her early 20s when she starred in the film. Co-star Gregory Peck was so taken with the ability of Hepburn that he persuaded the studio to place her name in equal billing with his, as Peck was convinced that Hepburn's performance would earn her the Academy Award for Best Actress. The rest is history: Peck was right, and Hepburn won the Oscar.
Roman Holiday began a decade of memorable performances for Audrey Hepburn with a roster that would include Sabrina Fairchild, Holly Golightly, and Eliza Doolittle. The actress also pulled off what few co-stars could manage: make Gregory Peck fade into the background. Of course Peck is fine and charismatic in the role of Joe Bradley, but he is faintly belittled whenever he shares the screen with Hepburn.

The film was shot on location in Rome (this fact is noted emphatically in a caption during the opening credits, ensuring audiences wouldn't think they're witnessing sound stage shots combined with stock footage). These locations allow director Wyler ample opportunities to flaunt the best face of the Italian city. With the gorgeous black-and-white cinematography extracting the movie from reality and placing it into the fairytale land where it belongs, Rome comes across as the most romantic location on Earth. No blemish is ever shown. As idyllic and wonderful as the place may be, however, one shouldn't anticipate this kind of perfect vacation if you ever visit.

Ann's holiday involves all sorts of normal activities which transform her 24 hours of freedom into an ephemeral love affair with a handsome gentleman in a romantic location. Although Hepburn's Princess Ann and Peck's Joe Bradley steal several kisses, their relationship never goes beyond that. Roman Holiday is about the possibilities of love more than the tangible realities. It brings to light something most romantics recognise: the ideal love affair is almost always one that's never consummated. The film admirably stays away from the concept of a happy ending. Although abrupt and unsatisfying to some, it reminds the audience that this is no fairytale - a bulk of the movie seemed like something out of a fairytale, but it is in fact reality, and this is how the cookie crumbles.

By no means is Roman Holiday faultless, though. The major shortcoming of the film is its excessive length. Running at just under two hours, the film is too long by about 20 minutes. The audience doesn't need to be repeatedly told that Ann and Joe are rapidly falling in love with one another (it's fairly noticeable given the way the actors look at each other). In addition, the film's conclusion can almost be speculated before it transpires. Ergo the denouement should have been fast-tracked.

More than 50 years following its original release, Roman Holiday remains a staple of the romantic comedy fan's movie library. It delivers everything it promises, from the contemporary inversion of the Cinderella fable to a fabric of low-key humour. (The film's humour offers more chuckles than overt laughs) The ending, while not completely downbeat, is the sort of thing Hollywood might erroneously alter today, but it's note-perfect for the production. This ending may surprise first-time viewers because of its rather sombre tone; however I admire the filmmakers for possessing the guts to stay true to their convictions. Sometimes all's well regardless of not ending so well. There's still adequate charm, allure and wit on display, though, and that's what counts the most.

If you're in the mood for something vivacious and uplifting, Roman Holiday is the trip to take.

8.2/10

Is there another American actor more iconic and legendary than John Wayne?

True Grit is one of the most quintessential Westerns in filmic history. It features memorable quotes, beautiful open vistas, classic shootouts and of course one of the greatest stars of all time. Whenever The Duke's commanding figure wandered into the frame, he simply oozed authority and a strong star presence. Perhaps his range may have been a tad restricted but when the encyclopaedia of Westerns is composed, John Wayne will forever rank high in the lexicon. He's a performer who secured colossal popularity: throughout his career, masses of adoring fans flocked to their local cinema to watch their favourite hero don his hat, carry a pistol and ride a horse. Be that as it may, it's widely known that John Wayne wasn't a great actor. Very rarely did The Duke step out of his comfort zone and attempt something new.

True Grit is a Western that brings together a congregation of genre clichés. It's a fun film that kids would generally watch of a Saturday afternoon. Not only is True Grit a lot of fun, but it also changed my opinion of John Wayne. This was the film that earned the actor the honour of an Oscar statuette. The Duke certainly deserved that honour, even if it was probably more out of sympathy as opposed to a scintillating performance. Mind you, I would probably argue that True Grit encompasses John Wayne's finest moments captured on the medium of film. His performance as Rooster Cogburn showed the toughness and fortitude of the legendary actor as he rode horseback and endured physical pains with a body ravaged by cancer at the age of 62. By no means is this his greatest film (that honour goes to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or Rio Bravo), but this production is cut above the usual standard of Westerns.

Like many other entries in the profitable Western genre, the plot of True Grit is thin and simple. The plot is also quite trite, and it mixes most of the obligatory genre clichés. Yet if one throws interesting names into the cast (including Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper in early performances) in addition to captivating locations and slick shootouts...suddenly things are far more interesting. Certainly, the film is loads of fun. Under intimate filmic analysis the results aren't flattering, though. There's some occasional meandering and a few overly excessive scenes, but at least it's very watchable with the authoritative John Wayne commanding the frame.

True Grit finds John Wayne as U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn. He's a drunken and surly has-been who's passed his golden years. Enter Mattie Ross (Darby) who's on a mission of justice following the tragic death of her father (Pickard). Mattie's father was killed by one of his own ranch hands named Tom Chaney (Corey). Despite Mattie hearing unsavoury stories about Marshall Rooster Cogburn, she's also heard that Cogburn possesses the rare quality of "true grit". There's reluctance on Cogburn's part of venturing into Indian territory, but he eventually agrees to Mattie's proposal. It turns out that Tom Chaney isn't only being pursued by Mattie - a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Campbell) is also tracking the man.
The reward dollars for capturing Chaney appear to be going higher. Rooster is therefore all the more determined to find Chaney. This determination is made far sweeter when it's discovered Chaney is apparently running with a gang led by a nemesis of Rooster's: Lucky Ned Pepper (Duvall). Rewards from all corners partnered with an opportunity to finally nail Ned Pepper and his men? This is simply too much attraction for Rooster to ignore.

Naturally, the film climaxes with the customary fantastic shootout as Wayne's Rooster Cogburn exchanges bullets with Duvall's Ned Pepper. This exhilarating action scene ranks among the best of John Wayne's career. Unfortunately, the film feels a bit long in the teeth during the lead-up to this final showdown. It must be said that on occasion the film gets lost in the magnificent scenery. Also the dialogue in the first 40 minutes sorely needed a major trim. We all know Rooster will end up journeying with Mattie, so his frequent reluctance is conventional and, at times, just a waste of space. It's only during the final half hour that the film picks up pace, and provides a truly invigorating piece of cinematic entertainment.

True Grit wouldn't have worked without The Duke in the cast. John Wayne's performance as the crabby old fat drunk is remarkable. Prior to watching this movie, The Duke's speech mannerisms and unmistakable walk that are frequently lampooned were hard to overlook. He was continually doing more of the same. However, he shows his true acting range in True Grit. After learning of the physical condition he was in during production, and watching this ailing old man still commanding the screen, I realised the powerful personal of Wayne was due to his talent and determination. Even after losing a lung and several ribs (and, for that matter, was only capable of walking a few steps before being hopelessly out of breath), Wayne donned the spurs and hat with confidence. The subtle humour of his performance is also enjoyable. There are some very witty lines. His environment also adds something to the character: he lives in the back room of a Chinaman's store, in the company of the Chinaman and a lovely tabby cat known as General Sterling Price.

Some feel that Wayne's A-List performance is somewhat blemished by the cast surrounding him. I feel that the actors surrounding Wayne just aren't up to his standard. Kim Darby is too whiney, too straight-up, doesn't look the character's alleged age (she looks like she's in her 20s when she's in fact playing a 14-year-old) and is unable to carry the emotional needs of the role. John Wayne reportedly wasn't fond of Kim during filming because she was too unprofessional.
Glen Campbell's performance is mediocre. He looks a bit too handsome, with not enough depth or ruggedness for a Texas Ranger. Elvis Presley was in the running for the role apparently. It would've been fairly interesting to see what he'd have done with the character.
Robert Duvall is a tad underused, but his performance is solid enough. Same goes for the other additions to the supporting cast.

Overall, True Grit is a classic Western featuring a classic iconic star. John Wayne's determination as a performer thoroughly shows during every scene of the movie. The Duke's performance alone makes the film worth viewing. There's also breathtaking scenery and some exciting shootouts added to the mix. It's a very flawed movie; however it's a classic Western that today's audiences simply must view. John Wayne may have been aging at the time and looking it...when he pulls out his gun, though, it doesn't matter how fat or old he is: he's still The Duke. He makes True Grit the unforgettable western that it is. It's just the flick to watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Followed by a sequel: Rooster Cogburn.

7.9/10

Magnolia is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's answer to Robert Altman's Short Cuts. The film is an epic mosaic of modern American life and a tightly woven tapestry of several interrelated lives in the San Fernando Valley over the course of 24 hours. The stories of these characters are told through a series of poignant vignettes - all characters are lost souls searching for redemption from the collective misery that is their tortured contemporary lives. What binds the diverse characters' stories into a complete and coherent whole are the various stimulating themes running the full length of the movie. In one thematic thread, Anderson proposes that life is not a succession of logical linear happenings that have a reasonable outcome. He suggests life is instead dominated by pure coincidence and chance. Secondly (and perhaps more centrally) the director explores the manner in which humans treat each other; specifically the relationships between parents and their children.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is a film that deserves your attention. It won't be for all tastes, in fact many tag the film as overlong and self-indulgent (even the actors warned Anderson upfront of the film's over-length), but I found the film absolutely riveting and brilliantly engaging for its three-hour running time. From start to finish I was immersed in the filmmaking spell being offered - mesmerised, shocked, rapt and thoroughly engrossed. This is a remarkable, unique and magnificent production rich in underlying themes of coincidence and chance. Although it may not seem obvious, every piece of this 180-minute film is solidly there to serve a purpose. There are also various subtle inclusions that require additional viewings in order for one to absorb.

This is Paul Thomas Anderson's third feature film. He's a director who shows improvement with each new outing. Hard Eight and Boogie Nights were merely stepping stones to assist the director in reaching his zenith. Further exemplification of this point is in Anderson's 2007 film There Will Be Blood. Whether you're a lover or a hater of Anderson, it's difficult to deny his deft and dexterous touch behind the camera.

The opening sequence (narrated by Ricky Jay) explains a number of remarkable coincidences. For example: in the 50s a young man committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a building. Mid-fall he's hit with a shotgun blast before continuing to fall into a safety net that had been installed days earlier. The shotgun was fired by the young man's mother who accidentally fired the gun during an argument with the young man's father. As it turns out, the young man had loaded the shotgun a few weeks earlier in the hope his parents would get into a brawl and accidentally kill each other. All of this is allegedly true. This theme of outlandish coincidences is layered thick throughout the duration of Magnolia. The ten vibrantly-drawn protagonists lead seemingly unconnected lives, yet over the 24-hour period their lives converge either through chance meetings or lifestyle similarities. Presented as a collage of tangential sub-plots, Magnolia tracks each of these characters as they undertake an emotional journey. Each is pushed to the edge of despair by circumstances out of their past, and ostensibly beyond their control.

Excellent scripting and directing, as well as a terrific ensemble cast make Magnolia a poignant and powerful cinematic experience. There is no central narrative, no single protagonist, and no top billing. Each of the film's sub-plots (presented concurrently) offers a profoundly moving and incisive character study - each a well-crafted drama. The directing and editing are so effective that as Anderson cuts back and forth between various stories he builds a compelling dramatic tension that leaves one awe-struck. Each of the sub-plots feeds the dramatic tension at just the correct rate, simultaneously culminating in an apocalyptic, shocking climax of Biblical proportions. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Anderson annoyingly cuts away from a story just as it's getting interesting.

Three hours is a long time to keep an audience involved, but Anderson almost pulls it off. One of the reasons why the movie's energy level remains high is due to the way Anderson and his cinematographer Robert Elswit (the two also collaborated on Hard Eight and Boogie Nights) vary the film's visual style. Aside from the customary variety of quick cuts and intense close-ups, there's a curiously large number of long-lasting, unbroken takes. Music plays an imperative role in Anderson's approach as well. Not only are Aimee Mann's songs meticulously woven into the movie's fabric, but the score (courtesy of Jon Brion) is virtually omnipresent. During the first two hours of Magnolia, just about every scene is bestowed with background music. Only throughout the third hour are there a larger number of sequences that have been traditionally scored.

Magnolia is lengthy and occasionally tedious, nevertheless it's utterly enthralling for its duration. Anderson provides ample time for the characters to develop - just letting the camera track his actors and allowing them to flourish. Some may feel that Magnolia is the worse for it, as Anderson seeming drags out each chunk of exposition into excruciating monotony. For others (myself included), writer/director Anderson has created marvellous characterisations brought to life by capable performers. Granted, there is a bit of a lag during the initial parts of the third hour, but an astonishing occurrence towards the film's end (that I described as being of Biblical proportions) re-invigorates the proceedings. The climax will unquestionably be the most hotly debated feature of the film. For some it may be too unbelievable, and may ruin an otherwise deeply penetrating examination of human behaviour and interaction. On the contrary, those who share my opinion will collectively agree it simply elevates the movie to a new level. Nothing prepared me for the film's stunning conclusion.

At the film's heart, the smart writing and dexterous direction are only half the battle...the actors are the ones that have to carry the show. There's a terrific ensemble cast to behold. The standard for each actor is uniformly excellent.
This is a new revelation for Tom Cruise. Cruise was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance as the egotistical, misogynistic sex guru who offers advice to horny and frustrated male bachelors. Cruise is given a number of absolutely wonderful lines of dialogue to work with. Like when his character's secret past is revealed by a TV reporter...Cruise sits silently and informs the reporter "I'm quietly judging you".
John C. Reilly takes an unexpected turn with his endearing portrayal as a moderately incompetent policeman. He's a good guy with good intentions. He's basically among the few characters in the film who actually acts like an adult and looks beyond pitying himself in order to extend a hand to others. He's rather awkward when on a date with a girl, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who really knows how to do everything perfectly 24 hours a day? His compassion offers hope in an otherwise thoroughly depressing film.
Melora Walters is utterly stunning as a struggling drug addict. She unreservedly lavishes her rage and anguish until she realises it'll completely consume her. Walters is compelling, powerful and unflinching.
William H. Macy, as always, is among the strongest actors in the cast. Macy is definitely one of the greatest actors of this current filmmaking generation.
The rest of the cast never tread a foot incorrectly. From Philip Seymour Hoffman's thoroughly passionate (and fascinating) performance as a nurse, to Julianne Moore's performance as a suicide-prone almost-widow, to Philip Baker Ball, Alfred Molina, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, Melinda Dillon and even Ricky Jay - there isn't a faulty performance in sight.

Despite its three-hour length, Magnolia is undeniably a masterpiece. Each story is well-written, the directing is so proficient, and the acting is so moving that we can almost forgive Anderson for being a tad self-indulgent. Some of the film's highlights include a number of beautiful montages that are topped off with poignant narration. Magnolia demands a lot from its audience. A single viewing is barely adequate to absorb all the intricate details. Yet it supplies a satisfying and exhilarating cinematic experience - one that lingers long after the credits roll.

8.9/10

Uwe Boll's movies are bad. They are the god-awful creations of a hack director with a disgusting ego whose answer to criticism is to challenge his critics to a boxing match. Boll's movies have made me sick because they are an immoral waste of money, celluloid and time.

The first few minutes of Uwe Boll's Seed made me sick to my stomach. But it wasn't because of the bad filmmaking being offered...it's because in these opening few minutes Boll has inserted REAL FOOTAGE of ACTUAL ANIMAL TORTURE! He forces his audience to endure REAL FOOTAGE of animals being smacked on the ground until bones are broken, being skinned alive, or being trodden on by malevolent humans. Boll defends his decision with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, claiming that he's making a statement about humanity. Somehow Boll's disillusioned brain thinks this is justification to use this repulsive footage. But this is a MOVIE Mr. Boll! This is MOVIE for ENTERTAINMENT! How is animal torture entertainment?! If we're speaking in terms of Schindler's List or war movies, the graphic violence is fake and therefore justified. In Sylvester Stallone's Rambo, a few minutes of real news footage depicting the atrocities in Burma was included at the beginning. But this doesn't show anything being killed! It shows the aftermath of battles very briefly. It also HAS RELEVANCE to the rest of the movie. Animal torture being shown to "make a statement about humanity" in a stupid, mindless horror gore-fest is totally unnecessary.

I never thought it'd be possible, but Uwe Boll has hit an all-time low. Not only does he make woeful movies, but now he prefaces them with real footage of animals being savagely tortured. And this is only the first 4 minutes...

Here's an interesting fact that adds insult to injury: Uwe Boll has pledged to donate 2.5% of the film's profits to charity to help animal rights groups. 2.5%!?!? That's all he could possibly spare?! Considering the director's reputation, I doubt the film will be very lucrative. I believe charity could be looking at about $10. If Uwe Boll deeply cared about animals like we've been led to believe he does, why not donate all the profits to charity? But no - the director's bank account is more precious than his morals.

The first few minutes of Seed are bad to the extreme. But what follows is so incredibly terrible that words fail me.

The plot (if one can possibly call it that) concerns a serial killer known as Seed (Sanderson). Over the course of six years, he's killed 666 people. (How's that for subtlety?) The police capture him (in one of the most bumbling, perplexing, clumsy and incompetent raids in cinematic history) and he's sentenced to execution. The electric chair, though, isn't up to the task. After two jolts of electricity, Seed is still alive. The prison staff are too scared to give him a third shock, fearing the evocation of state law that would set Seed free. So they bury him alive in a flimsy coffin, with his hands tied feebly (the way his hands are tied wouldn't even be able to restrain a dead man). They also bury him in a shallow grave. Oh, and they don't bother to make sure he dies. They just hope he won't escape. Guess what? Seed escapes his grave and wants to go kill some people. Oh joy!

Seed is 100% unbelievable. Every scene, scenario and character is so preposterous that it's impossible to believe a word of it. Boll wrote the script himself. The concept which had potential is wasted as the film disintegrates into utter silliness. For example, Seed claws himself out of his shallow grave, is able to swim off the island that imprisoned him (this island is like Alcatraz, i.e. impossible to escape via swimming), mysteriously gets the addresses of the cops that wronged him, and is strangely able to travel from A to B without people noticing him. This killer is bulky, well-built and always dons grubby clothing. How can one possibly miss him?! It's also interesting that the killer's victims never seem too fazed about being killed. They lay back and accept their death. And, typical for an Uwe Boll movie, the lack of research shows. While the cops raid a house supposedly inhabited by Seed they don't use their radios, they don't appear to yell for any help, they don't hold their pistols correctly, they don't move correctly, and they are never careful like cops are trained to be.

I have no idea why, but Uwe Boll decided to revive the dying genre of torture porn. Personally, I detest the torture porn flicks such as the awful Hostel movies. I'm also not a fan of the Saw series, which is gradually declining in quality. Seed is Boll's answer to the most legendary horror movies. Elements of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are even incorporated. Heck, one scene is even inspired by Kill Bill! Here's the worst part: it never makes a lick of sense. The pacing is sluggish, the editing is choppy, and the structure is messy. Locations aren't even properly distinguished. As a result, I was confused and disorientated.
Another Uwe Boll tradition: cinematography is woeful. It's obvious the director tried to imbue the film with shaky cam resembling The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something. But typically, Boll never has a sense of visual elegance. His shots are always disorganised and shaky.

Boll even damages the film's credibility very early into the film. The cops are hunting Seed. The unimportant cops of course get killed very easily. Seed uses stealth and clever tactics to kill them. Then it comes time to kill the hero. Naturally, the hero takes him down no sweat at all. Seed doesn't use any tactics when fighting the hero and is taken down within a single minute. Righto...

Uwe Boll filmed Seed back-to-back with Postal and boy is it obvious!! The acting is appalling. None of the actors are suitable for their respective roles. They're all wooden. For 90% of the movie it's as if they're sleep-walking and/or on autopilot. And of course, Boll focuses on his gore effects more than anything else. Boll once criticised Eli Roth and called him a retard for making the same shitty movies over and over again (Pfft. Like Boll can talk). Yet Boll is so disillusioned that he thinks Seed is somehow better than Hostel. It's worse!!! Seed is a mindless gore-fest featuring oodles of unrelenting, unnecessary gore. When Seed kills his victims, it doesn't even seem like there's a reason for him to be doing so. The timeline is so disorganised! However...I can't believe I'm going to say this...but the gore is actually done impressively. There are a few scenes that encompass some really realistic blood and gore. However, this compliment is easily undone as there is never a point for the gore to occur.

Too many things are going on in the film's 90-minute duration. We're supposed to care about the hero and his family situation, and somehow we're also supposed to case about Seed as well. But Seed has no depth, and the hero is a cardboard cut-out. The characters fall flat.
There's also a distinct lack of suspense and tension during the gory scenes. The cinematography isn't exciting, the actors look bored and the music isn't at all effective. Altogether, the film is just plain boring and ineffective. The only thing it effectively does is disturb. We watch footage of Seed letting a crying baby, a family dog and a young woman decay into bones. That's disturbing stuff. What's also disturbing is people invested time, money and effort into making this movie. After those cinematic travesties known as House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne (and its sequel), In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale and many more, Uwe Boll is just digging a bigger grave for himself. When I watch a horror movie I want suspense and gore that works in an actual context. What I don't want is completely unnecessary real footage of animals getting skinned and their skulls crushes.

Seed is too unbelievable to make a statement about humanity (Boll's objective) and too disturbing to be entertaining. We're therefore left with this pile of shit. In a nutshell: Seed is absolutely fucking woeful!

0.6/10

If one consumes three kilograms of chicken, which kilogram tastes the best? The first kilogram, of course. Why? Because it tastes the freshest, and afterwards you're just eating more of the same. This ostensibly random analogy is marvellously relevant to the Naked Gun trilogy. The first Naked Gun movie was a breath of fresh air with its endearing blend of hilarious sight gags and witty dialogue. Three years later, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear was an entertaining comedy but it ultimately lacked the originality of the original due to its usage of essentially the same formula. The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult is the third and final instalment in the trilogy.

When it comes to the third part of a trilogy, very rarely is there a product that doesn't stink horrendously. This third Naked Gun movie isn't as horrible as it could have been, but it's the weakest of the trilogy. It's flawed because it never wants to push the boundaries...never is it subversive...instead the script plays it safe and follows the same old tiring formula. By all accounts, though, the film is still tremendously funny and guarantees a wonderful night of viewing.
Like the instalments that preceded it, The Naked Gun 33⅓ is a suitably entertaining spoof of the cop movie genre. The sight gags are still there (although they're in reasonably short supply), and the script is still occasionally witty. It's something of a miracle that a television show that lasted six episodes before being canned managed to become a trilogy of rather successful feature films.

As always, The Naked Gun 33⅓ is merely a succession of mostly cheap (though funny) gags with vague evidence of a plot holding everything together. This time Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is married to his beloved Jane (Presley) and retired from the Police Squad. However, their marriage is anything but smooth. Jane has a hankering for kids, whereas Frank doesn't share the sentiment and isn't convinced of the need. Jane is a high profile lawyer, and Frank is a permanent househusband. But once a cop, always a cop, and Frank receives a visit from his old colleagues at Police Squad: Ed Hocken (Kennedy) and Nordberg (as played by O.J. "I didn't kill my wife" Simpson). Frank is persuaded to go undercover in a state prison where he shares a cell with terrorist bomber Rocco (Ward). After Rocco executes his prison escape he formulates a plan to detonate a bomb at the Academy Awards ceremony...
Naturally, the film happily parodies a number of different movies. The opening sequence mirrors The Untouchables, a sub-plot blatantly spoofs Thelma and Louise, and there's even a prison break taking inspiration from the classic war movie The Great Escape. In addition to the parodying there's the usual playing on words, and sometimes the clumsy protagonist takes things a little too literally.
"Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective-Lieutenant Police Squad" he sternly says to an usher at the Oscar ceremony, demanding entry. "Yeah? And I'm Robert De Niro" the usher retorts, to which Frank replies with "Mr. De Niro, we need to get inside".

The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult was directed by Peter Segal. The legendary ZAZ trio opted to take a sideline position, staying on-board as executive producers. David Zucker (director of the first two movies) also has a brief cameo as a cameraman at the Academy Awards ceremony.
The Naked Gun movies are obviously a lot of fun to make, but they probably aren't easy to make. In order to fill the screen with an abundance of quality gags, it must take a long time to put together a script (hence the three-year gaps between each instalment). One other thing is also quite clear: these movies are certainly not easy to review! If you look at these films from the perspective of a film critic, you'll most likely hate it. If you watch these movies looking for some harmless fun, you'll get your money's worth.

The drawbacks of The Naked Gun 33⅓ are somewhat similar to its predecessors. First of all, there's no real plot to sink your teeth into. It's a pile of clichés that crawl out to make an appearance. But these clichés (such as marriage troubles, being brought back from retirement, etc) are punctuated by laughs. Secondly, the formula is getting tiresome. There's a distinct lack of originality in both the laughs and the scenarios. In addition to this, the laughs aren't as frequent. The film is still very funny, yes, but occasionally there are annoying several-minute gaps between the laughs of the belly variety. It's also worth mentioning that some of the gags appear quite forced and obvious as opposed to the more subtle laughs that take a few screenings to absorb. At a hasty 80 minutes (approximately), the film merrily rattles along from one laugh to the next with very little substance in between.

Leslie Nielsen at least still gives it everything he has, and is obviously enjoying himself (in fact he's on record as wanting to do another Naked Gun movie). The rest of the Naked Gun crew are back, filling their usual roles. There's also Anna Nicole Smith joining the cast, whose enormous breasts are the cause of several close-ups and awkward moments.

Overall, The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult completes its objective of providing an adequate amount of laughs during its extremely brisk running time. In tradition with the usual rule of deteriorating sequels, this is the weakest of the trilogy. The first is still the best, and the second film isn't far behind. The plot, as always, is wafer thin...but who cares? We watch these films for laughs and an entertainment value. It isn't as funny as the other films, but it has its fair share of worthy moments. The Academy Awards ceremony is definitely a notable sequence. If only the Oscars were that exciting, because then there'd be more of a reason to stay up until midnight watching them.

Leslie Nielsen's Frank Drebin bows out in style, and is given a worthy farewell. And remember "this is not goodbye. It's just I won't ever see you again."

6.0/10

The straight-faced, hard-boiled, totally inept Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is back! Don't question it, don't scoff at it...just accept it.

Given the relative success of The Naked Gun in 1988, it was inevitable that a sequel would be right around the corner. The critical mind boggles when one sets about critically analysing a film such as this. The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear encompasses a fairly transparent plot that functions as an excuse to showcase a non-stop succession of laughs: hysterically witty lines, side-splittingly clumsy behaviour of characters, and sight gags to die for are among the inclusions here. Playing on words is another quintessential feature of a Naked Gun movie. As an example, Frank and his colleague Ed (Kennedy) are discussing the possible location of the villain. They find an address that's in the red light district. Frank wonders what the villain could be doing around there. "Sex, Frank?" Ed suggests as a possibility. "Er...no, not right now Ed. We've got work to do" is Frank's response.

The seminal rule of sequels is that they should usually be avoided. In the case of The Naked Gun 2½, things are mildly different. David Zucker (who was responsible for the original Naked Gun as well as Airplane!, Top Secret!, and so on) has created a worthy sequel to such a fantastic spoof. Audiences probably expected something embarrassingly below par, but The Naked Gun 2½ is up to the task. Although the laughs aren't as frequent or as clever as its predecessor, there's still an abundance of hysterical gags to behold. But by no means is the film perfect. As usual, it's marred by lack of a meaty plot (just like its forerunner). Also, it just isn't as fresh as the original.

Set a few years after the events of the first film, The Naked Gun 2½ finds the incompetent cop Frank Drebin who's now separated from his beloved Jane (Presley). The wealth of random (albeit utterly hilarious) gags are built around a very loose framework that only some may consider calling a plot. Frank is still bumbling around, making a mess of his police work while also (mysteriously) succeeding.
Anyway, the President of the United States announces that he'll be supporting the opinions of the esteemed Doctor Mannheim (Griffith) who published a report regarding the energy future of America. The non-renewable resource parties aren't pleased about this and plan to kidnap Doctor Mannheim, replacing him with a decoy who will deliver a more favourable report. The responsibility of foiling the evil scheme falls to none other than Frank Drebin and his equally inept colleagues: Ed Hocken and Nordberg (played by O.J. Simpson...yes, that O.J. Simpson).
The gags of course begin to pile upon each other. There are extremely obvious gags, some subtle laughs, and even very amusing parodies of several films (most notably E.T.).

By the early 1990s, the ZAZ trio (consisting of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker) had made a name for themselves after delivering a satisfying plethora of quality spoofs. The trio no longer needed each other for success. While David Zucker helmed this sequel, he was scarcely assisted by his two long-time collaborators. Jim Abrahams helmed the 1988 Lily Tomlin-Bette Midler farce Big Business, whereas David Zucker's brother Jerry directed the Demi Moore-Patrick Swayze romance film Ghost (which is cleverly parodied in this sequel as well).
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear is a very endearing and enduring spoof that holds up even after repeated viewings. David Zucker retains the charm of the original Naked Gun with a bunch of returning cast members and a congregation of decent belly laughs guaranteed to have one cackling uncontrollably. Heck, I laughed so hard my family complained about the level of noise!

As usual, Leslie Nielsen is of a high standard as the venerable, dumb and spectacularly literal-minded Frank Drebin. The reason for casting Nielsen is obvious: the character of Frank Drebin is a parody of the cheesy late-1960s TV cop shows...and Nielsen is an actor who formerly starred in said TV cop shows. Ever since the ZAZ trio had Nielsen starring in Airplane!, never again was the actor taken seriously. Nielsen is ideal as always, frequently remaining straight-faced despite all the situations he endures.
Priscilla Presley does everything she needs to do: she says her lines, and she looks beautiful as the character with "a body that could melt a cheese sandwich from across the room, and breasts that seemed to say...'Hey! Look at these!'". Priscilla has never been an outstanding actress...but she looks terrifically clueless and whiney when paired alongside Leslie Nielsen.
There are also great moments courtesy of George Kennedy and O.J. Simpson.

Overall, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear is an appealing, hilarious spoof that continues to make audiences laugh all these years later. Notable Frank Drebin moments include: accidentally assaulting Barbara Bush at the White House, unwittingly torturing a captive he's meant to be rescuing, misinterpreting everything said to him, and describing his impending investigation as "like having sex... It's a painstaking, arduous task that seems to go on and on forever and just when you think things are going your way, nothing happens!" If any of these described moments appeal to you, you'll have a ball. In the simplest terms possible: I laughed my ass off all the way through! Followed by The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult.

6.5/10

Rio Bravo is the quintessential Howard Hawks Western. Although patronised by reviewers at the time of its release, Rio Bravo is now regarded as an American classic and one of the greatest cinematic Westerns in history. The film is primarily recognised for its slick shootouts, masterful atmosphere and a congregation of characters as warm as toast. Not since 1952's High Noon had a Western been so influential. In fact, contemporary cinema still draws blatant inspiration from this timeless classic. John Carpenter's remarkable 1976 actioner Assault on Precinct 13 was a fundamental remake, transplanting the story into a cold, isolated urban location. The 2005 remake of Assault on Precinct 13 was likewise influenced by this timeless 1959 masterpiece. Even Hawks himself helmed two variations of his film with El Dorado and Rio Lobo.

However, Rio Bravo is the furthest thing from your customary clichéd Western. Gone are the extensive vistas, scenes that involve roaming the countryside on horseback, and not once did John Wayne utter the word "pilgrim". Additionally, the "damsel in distress" cliché is far removed. Also, the archetypal invulnerable protagonist is replaced with a character that gets scared, bleeds and makes mistakes. The atmosphere of pure tension is also lightened by humour. The wonderful screenplay encompasses witticisms as sharp as a dagger, and a group of characters that are well-written and acted wonderfully. This is utterly classic stuff. Although long, the film is undeniably fun.

John Wayne is in top form as the rugged, tough man's man known as Sheriff John T. Chance. Chance is faced with a dilemma: he has to hold murderer Joe Burdette (Akins) in his gaol until the U.S. Marshall can pick him up in roughly six days. The trouble is that Joe's brother Nathan (Russell) plans to spring Joe from prison by any means possible. Nathan is a local cattle baron who commands an army of paid professionals numbering in the 40s. Sheriff Chance needs to hold out until the Marshall arrives, but he only has two deputies by his side: a disgraced drunk known as Dude (Martin) and a cantankerous, albeit extremely spirited old cripple named Stumpy (Brennan).

Pat Wheeler: "A game-legged old man and a drunk. That's all you got?"
John T. Chance: "That's WHAT I got."

Howard Hawks was reportedly quite dissatisfied with the highly acclaimed 1952 Western High Noon. Hawks was quite disturbed due to how unrealistic the film was. In High Noon, Marshall Will Kane (played by Gary Cooper) was so afraid of his impending adversaries (a mere four men) that he spent most of the film's duration looking for help...only to be rejected by his supposed allies. Hawks decided to make a movie which would depict a more accurate response to the dilemma faced by Kane. In this case, Wayne as Sheriff John T. Chance has an abundance of men willing to help him. The trouble is that he prefers to only have the best men fighting for him. High Noon is a decent flick, but Rio Bravo is far superior due to its more realistic handling of the scenario and its higher entertainment value.

Howard Hawks is no stranger to the Western genre. Prior to Rio Bravo, Hawks had helmed Red River. His direction here is utterly perfect. Each frame shines with impressive attention to every conceivable detail. Like most Westerns, the period depiction is wonderful. Costumes and props are difficult to fault. Most of the interior scenes were filmed in studio sets; however Hawks' transcendent direction creates an ideal atmosphere. The script, as well, is superlative. Dean Martin even sings a melancholy tune at one stage. It's this variety that makes the film anything but an ordinary Western. There's catchy music mixed with hysterical dialogue, great shootouts and plenty of moments that'll make you smile.
However, there are a few excessive red herrings that could have been removed. Even with these unnecessary additions, the film provides solid entertainment. Many have criticised Rio Bravo for being too long and with too many uneventful scenes. To me, the film isn't long enough. I adored being in the company of these characters. If anything I was disappointed when the credits started to roll. The filmmakers have definitely performed their duties appropriately if one of my only criticisms is that the movie had to end!

The acting is first-class right down the line. John Wayne delivers one of the best performances in his career. When it came to making Westerns during the 1950s and a few decades beyond, Wayne was the essential go-to guy. After all, this is John Wayne doing what he does best. As Sheriff John T. Chance, he's right at home with the material. The 6'4" actor was a physical presence that dominated the screen, and was the definitive incarnation of a cowboy. Throughout the entire movie, Wayne is extraordinarily convincing and very watchable. Quintessentially, John Wayne is John Wayne in spades.
Dean Martin also proves an accomplished actor. At the time Martin was known for hard living and hard drinking, and his experience pays off as he is a credible drunk in this film. When his character of Dude is convalescing and trying to make amends for the various years of drowning in alcohol, the sincerity of Martin's performance is readily apparent.
However, while Wayne and Martin are both fantastic, it's Walter Brennan as Stumpy that steals the show. He provides delightful comic relief; lightening the somewhat dreary disposition of a number of scenes.
Ricky Nelson as the young gunslinger Colorado is yet another welcome addition to the cast. Just one week into shooting, Nelson celebrated his 18th birthday!
Angie Dickinson is the love interest for John Wayne. Interestingly, Wayne was slightly nervous about the love scenes due to the age gap: Wayne was 51 and Dickinson was 26.
On top of these five great protagonists, there are several other fantastic characters. Suffice to say, it'd be easier to just mention those who aren't good.

Overall, Rio Bravo quickly emerged as one of my all-time favourite cinematic Westerns. There are only very minor shortcomings, such as a few clichés and a bit of predictability, but for fun Western material it's almost impossible to do better. Rio Bravo is still considered one of Howard Hawks' finest and most influential films. It's a classic John Wayne escapade that has been remade and rehashed numerous times (twice by Hawks himself). This isn't the typical Western that finds tough-guy Cowboys battling violent Indians...this is a surprisingly original production that succumbs to only a few clichés. There's never a dull moment in this highly enjoyable romp that continues to provide sublime entertainment many decades following its initial release.

9.5/10