A Man of All Seasons (1966)

Like these figures coming out of the fog, one must be timid on how to approach the film A Man for All Seasons. Do not jump into the unknown, but instead be prepared for the unknown that could present itself on the other side. With full exuberance I jumped into this film without hesitation and without appreciation for the sheer power that this aged piece of cinema could bring. A Man for All Seasons is an Oscar award winning film, it currently has a rating of 8.0 on IMDB.com [as of 5/27/11], and plenty of positive reviews to keep this film floating on the DVD circuit or eventual blu ray for years to come, and quite frankly, perhaps I will rediscover this film later on in life, but for now - after finally completing this nearly two-hour behemoth - A Man for All Seasons felt shallow, underwhelming, and certainly not worthy of the accolades that it has found throughout the years. Absolutely it is grandiose, and one cannot complain about the subject matter, and for those looking for their Orson Welles fix, this film will provide it. BUT, this is not a film that can sustain itself. Taking away from the credit that is due to Alfie or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? this film just doesn't push the boundaries of film making like the other entries this year were able to do. It is disappointing to see films lauded in their time, but falling flat on their faces today. This, my friends, is the tale of A Man for All Seasons.

To begin, what can a viewer be proud of with this film? The costumes and ability to build such a large period film is standing-ovation impressive. The visuals will not send your eyes away hungry. Welles' attention to the detail of his character only shows how impressed he was with the story itself. Yet, that is all I can applaud. Watching this film, in fact, re-watching this film, sometimes scene by scene, I found myself asking the question - what did I miss? Why wasn't I being pulled further within the conflict of religion vs. politics? Why wasn't I applauding the dedication of Thomas More to his plight? As I squandered these questions, the question that inevitably came through was, "What type of movie was this?" A Man for All Seasons has no action sequences, has no direct love interests, and honestly no real humor or moments of dread. This film falls into the distraught world of being merely a true slice of recreated history. The scenery will tell you that it is true, but to the unread mind, one must merely take this as truth. Where was the music? Where was the intensity of More's life? Why did this film completely and utterly bore me nearly to death?

I am not a man who desires a big spectacle of Hollywood-ism when I sit down to watch my films, in fact, the less at times seems to capture me further into the plot, but with A Man for All Seasons it felt like I had seen this beautiful cake, only to take my first bite and it to be stale. Paul Scofield's portrayal of Thomas More should have been the crux to the film, allowing every eye to focus on his detailed nuance, but in the end, it just felt tired. I could not see the character he was attempting towards, and I could not see any dramatics behind his eyes. He was a place mat, a mere "somebody: to hold the door for the other actors that needed the work. How could he have beat Michael Caine or Richard Burton? It just doesn't make sense. This was a filmed play, nothing original or exciting about it - yet those within the blogs are using headlines like, "Best Film Ever". Did I miss something? Even the always valuable John Hurt was under served in this film, hiding behind the weaker Scofield character, and missing a fuller opportunity to shine.

While I argue that it was the acting that sent this unmanned vehicle plummeting to the sea, one must also consider the direction. This was a very bland film, despite the other options recognized that year, one must see that the camera provided no further inside into this world. It stayed still, the eye was focused on merely one character at a time, and when one walked it walked safely behind. Perhaps "safely" is too kind, the camera remained uninspiring and unoriginal as it focused on the lesser, menial moments of this film. Take a look at the basics behind this ten-minute long scene above, where Scofield walks the room without any excitment, compassion, or character - while our camera focus' us on what will happen next. The camera, in A Man of All Seasons becomes the biggest spoiler of the two hours, allowing no imagination to follow and less focused direction. There was hope early, but it just fizzed as the two hours progressed. As I attempt to put my finger on which point I completely lost interest [probably around the 23:15 mark], I continued to keep hoping that something, honestly anything, would change the perspective, but again with lacking directing, non-creative camera focus, and just a bland hope from all characters, this film quickly began a transform into mush. Despite the accolades, it just fell short.

As you may or may not guess already, I really had higher hopes for A Man for All Seasons, but sadly it just failed, and it failed hard. Sure, these images look beautiful, but substance is also needed behind the camera, and this film was utterly lacking. For those fans of Orson Welles, it is worth a few glances over the shoulder, but overall, it was painful to watch. Found in my "501 Must-See Movies", this was obviously not a "must see". This is not going to be pretty, but it gets a yellow highlight with black mark, not to be watched again (perhaps, I should say, unless a Blu of this hits, then I may - MAY - force myself back into it) Ranking along the lines of the Road Warrior I just forced myself through, this feels troublesome due to the lacking excitement. It is films like this that I wish I was part of the Academy in 1966, so that a better outcome could have been determined. How did this film happen?

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981)

Mad Max is a lost soul. Through the tedious and perilous journey of the first film, Max survived a dystopian future by fighting automobile villains and dusty roads, but ultimately losing his family. It was an emotional journey, one filled with pitfalls coupled with Gibson demonstrating his acting ability to the screen for the first time. While not the greatest film of all time, there was some ingenuity to the car crashed, the desolate landscape, the Gibson’s personal philosophies. While the film itself hovered around mediocrity, there was some creativity and originality that found bonus points. With Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (sometimes merely called The Road Warrior) none of that originality or emotional characterization came forth. Considered by many as the true “first” Mad Max film (and in some circles the better of the three), this film falls prey to the rinse, wash, and repeat Hollywood spin cycle. With plenty of crashes, no emotion, less development of side characters, a villain that felt more like Casey Jones instead of a genuine baddie, and a story that seemed lacking in anything exciting, The Road Warrior fell. It fell hard.

What should have been a simple sit down to view an iconic moment of cinematic history, in reality transformed into a full week torture-fest. Picking up where the last film concluded, The Road Warrior provides a very quiet opening, with merely explosions and punk skater dog-soldiers screaming into the air. The scenes are set to bring chaos back into Max’s life, but where Road Warrior crumbles is the penultimate question, “Why?” Why does Max care? Is fuel, an unemotional attachment, his only reason for assisting these survivors whom seem to be doing well themselves and have been for quite some time? Transforming a film whose original genre was a bleak view of human existence and personal Australian sentiment into a full-fledged no-holds barred action film proves a disservice to the original film. Max becomes a paper thin character, fueled (no pun intended) by a need to get more energy and slightly pushed by the wild hair of a boomerang boy. Frustration emerges as this film provides no new platform for Max to evolve as a character. As an audience, we are given a further glimpse of this destroyed planet, but nothing that pushes Max beyond the boundary set in the original film. We know he can drive, we know he can fight, but who/what pushes this man? In this reviewer’s opinion, having just spent a week trying to discover the “why” and “what” of Road Warrior, the answer cannot be found.


Disappointingly we are not even pulled into the original film. Where is Max’s memory of his family? Where are the scenes of an internal struggle between the reality of his existence and any current dreams? Road Warrior felt both rushed and disjointed by having too many villains, too many instant connections, and too many “heroes”. The Gyro Captain, the Casey Jones-esque guy merely called Humungus, the red-Mohawk biker, the kid with wild hair, the semi-love interested that floundered, and so forth. This was a film of ideas that were nowhere near final development. This is a sequel; it has the same character from the original, BUT not the same character from the original. This was not the “Mad Max” that we were originally introduced to, and that becomes a big fault to this film. Why build this emotional character only to ignore it the second time out and replace a true apocalyptic drama with nothing more than explosions, fire, and the occasional boob shot. It felt like a cheap knock off, instead of a true addition to the Mad Max world.

Overall, I wasn’t happy with this film. Found in my “501 Must-See Movies”, Mad Max: The Road Warrior disappointed me further than the original did. I was prepared to fully enjoy this entire series (not having seen Thunderdome yet), but they just fell flat. It was like watching, what did happen in many-a 80s action film where character development fell to the wayside and was replaced with the wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am action. If you don’t believe me, see the original Rambo vs. the rest released. Watching this “sequel”, I just kept waiting for something to tie me back to the original film, but no luck. Yes, The Road Warrior could stand alone, but did we want it to? Was there a small part of me that hoped that Humungus would take me back to the original? Absolutely. Perhaps my hopes were too high for this film, but with the amassed critical praise, it did not deliver. Mel Gibson solidified himself as an action star when it could have been something more. Yellow highlight with a mark. Much less excited then when I finished the original. Horrible.

Manhunter (1986)

Like any good crime drama, Michael Mann's "Manhunter" never gives up, never asks you to forgive, and never takes the undiscovered route. From 1980s CGI, to Joan Allen manhandling tigers, to Tom Noonan giving us one of the most nuanced performances of any serial killer, "Manhunter" stands up to time and future remakes and nearly makes one forget about the Oscar-lauded "Silence of the Lambs" and the nearly laughable Brett Ratner remake, "Red Dragon". Michael Mann has this amazing capability to ensure that audiences are kept on the edge of their seat, while still delivering characters that feel more than just words on the screen. Take for example, Brian Cox's performance of Hannibal Lecktor. His school-boy demeanour coupled with sadistically slow speech will send goosebumps up your spine, and make one nearly forget the iconic performance that Anthony Hopkins brought to the screen years later. Yet, all Mr. Cox has is a few brief moments of screen time. This wasn't a Hannibal Lecktor horror-sequel machine, and thus a broader, more epic story was able to be allowed with Mr. Mann behind the wheel. This is not a Hannibal Lecktor movie, and thus "Manhunter" will always be pushed to the back shelves, but mark my word blog readers, "Manhunter" proves to be a worthy opponent to the Ratner directed counterpart.

With the youthful energy of Brian Cox oozing from the screen, one also must not overlook Tom Noonan's performance which shadows everything Ralph Fiennes attempted to muster in the remake. Noonan is quieter as the Tooth Fairy, making his body (height, fingers, scar on lip) create the sense of fear versus his actions which are typically all caught off camera. There is a scene where Freddy Lounds (played by the shifty Stephen Lang) is forced to open his eyes and we as audience members are given our first glance of Noonan in full figure. The scene is tight, the shot of Lang's eyes as Mann gives us no clue as to what we are ready to feast our eyes upon. The shot of Lang's eyes when they see the monstrosity before him, realizing there will be no escape from this evil. It makes "Manhunter" stronger than it ever has been, and better than its "Red Dragon" counterpart. Noonan is the star of this film, and he is partnered with William Peterson, again, giving us this flawed character that pushes for sympathy, but finds itself stuck in the same audience as the men he surrounds. Is he as crazy as the men he hunts for?

What makes "Manhunter" stand out is Mann's direction. Albeit, this is not the perfect film of the decade. Somewhere from print to DVD scenes were left out, and the entire ending seems choppy and disjointed from the rest of the film. The pacing seems wrong and suddenly we have this slap-happy moment where Dollarhyde has escaped his mental confides, where brainpower outlasts those with a gun, and instead inverts to merely enjoying life with a shotgun. It doesn't fit with the rest of the film, and is ultimately a downfall to the film, but everything leading up to this slam-bam ending is superb. There is a great scene where Graham has used the local paper to hopefully pull the killer out, which doesn't work, but the scene Mann builds is equally full of tension and fears. "Manhunter" is a defined film. It is a thriller, not a horror film, which the latter Hannibal Lector films quickly became. This is a film that has fear in the fore-front, without painting the walls with blood (have I been disproved due to the scene shown a the beginning of this review?) Mann makes Peterson's every move tense. Every scene in this film is brought out by something that reminds you of killing, of the killer, or merely that evil lurks behind it all. Check out the scene below where someone is merely reading a letter -- Yipes:

I remember watching this movie years ago and having trouble with the 80s feel to this film. There were parts that I used to feel bored me, but now, looking at it with more films behind my eyes, "Manhunter" transformed into a movie I wouldn't be afraid to watch again and again. Despite some technical glitches near the end (editing by a drunkard), the tiger scene alone is worth the price of admission. To see Joan Allen caress the tiger, feeling its breath, it is the strongest foreshadowing into the world of Dollarhyde. She is allowing the breath of the tiger to hit her twice, and one cannot forsee what will happen next. What makes Dollarhyde strong as a villain is the extra effort Mann gives to giving him a human element, the misjudged glances by another that gives the Tooth Fairy his fuel is icing on the cinematic cake. Noonan, with Mann's direction is powerful.

Found in my "501 Must See-Movies", this begins a new chapter into the world of "M", and I cannot express that it started with a bang. Next up, "Mad Max 2: Road Warrior", which hopefully will be a better outing than the last "Mad Max" experience. I think the review for that is up on this site. Overall, I really liked "Manhunter". I am adding it to the collection and standing firm that it is the best Hannibal Lecktor film within the past three decades. The tension between Graham and Lecktor and Dollarhyde was intense and brilliant. It gave this bleak impression that perhaps Graham wasn't the good guy, but instead another diabolical madman juggling a world full of them - the only difference here - he has a badge. This is getting a green mark with a blue star. I will watch this again - and I cannot wait to add it to the collection! This is the film to watch to see Noonan at his best, and Lecktor before he was Lector...