Certain films enter theaters already burdened under the weight of negativity. “Warcraft” was immediately met with a barrage of snarky ridicule and dismissive criticism. To be fair the horrible track record of video game-based movies is enough to warrant a good measure of hesitation. At the same time the snooty, cavalier approach to the film by many critics was predictable. The presumed shallowness of video games and the condescending attitudes towards anything related to them showed in many of the more ferocious reviews some of which compared this film to the likes of “Battlefield Earth”.

Despite what many may say, storytelling and world building in video games and in movies isn’t that different. The evolution of the platform has allowed writers and developers to craft engaging narratives and immersive experiences within their games. And just like movies some hit their target while others wildly miss their mark.

Director Duncan Jones brings a special level of intrigue to “Warcraft”. He is a filmmaker who received high marks for his films “Source Code” and “Moon”. But he also comes from a video game background. In an interview Jones revealed a deep passion for the video game space and a knowledge that attracted him to the “Warcraft” property. This affection works heavily to the advantage of Warcraft fans who will easily identify Jones’ respect for the source material. Those unfamiliar with this universe will find it more challenging depending on your expectations. I am versed in the Warcraft universe, just not heavily versed, and I had no problem navigating the world Jones and co-writer Charles Leavitt put together.

“Warcraft’s” ambition reaches beyond a single film. It clearly sets itself up as a series which handcuffs this film to the normal first installment issues. We get a lot of table-setting and we get information dumps aplenty. Many characters are introduced and sometimes the sheer number of them can be overwhelming. At first it can be a struggle to see where everyone fits in, but over time each finds their place within the story. All of this contributes to what is unquestionably a setup movie, yet I quickly found myself engaged in its hyper-fantasy landscape.

A big reason for that engagement is due to Jones’ heavy focus on character development. It doesn’t do every character justice but for the most part it adds more depth than expected. It offers the mandatory introductions but also tries to define the characters’ personalities and their motivations. Unfortunately it tries to juggle too many which leaves some characters and relationships underserved. Side stories also fall victim to the film’s attempt at tackling too much. It felt like certain plot lines needed more attention, but at the same time their inclusion showed a clear desire to offer more than the usual shallow story and even shallower characters.

It could also be said that some of characters aren’t helped by the casting and performances. Ben Schnetzer instantly comes to mind. His portrayal of a young ostracized mage gets better as the film progresses, but is really rough early on. There is also the odd casting of Ben Foster as mystical Guardian named Medivh. He never seems completely comfortable with his character. While others also show some inconsistencies, Tobey Kebbell certainly does not. Here he once again amazes in a motion capture role. He plays a respected Orc chieftain and a new father named Durotan. He is the most compelling character even though Travis Fimmel is the closest thing to a lead role.

As a whole the story has an entertaining messiness to it that mixes well with my appreciation for the source material. But it should be said that the messiness never leads to incoherence (as some have suggested). The plot is very straightforward and the side ventures into the world’s composition never derail the simplicity of the main story. As I mentioned, some side stories and relationships deserve more attention, but Jones does a good job of spelling out their relevance to the world and his main story.

I also think the film looks really good. Sure, a CGI-heavy movie like this has moments where the effects are not top form, but much of it serves the fantasy world well. The orcs look spectacular in both appearance and motion capture quality. The world’s locales were also presented vividly and with unique character. Perhaps the worst visuals were in the real life costumes. The human armor is noticeably flimsy and fake. But as a whole the movie presents some wonderful visuals.

Strangely “Warcraft” is a film with noticeable flaws that should significantly hurt it yet doesn’t. It is another popular punching bag for critics yet I still found it to be fun and entertaining. Perhaps it is my affection for the video game franchise. Maybe it is my love for the corny 80’s fantasy pictures like “The Ice Pirates” and “Krull”. The question becomes how does this film work for those without that lighthearted connection? So far it doesn’t seem very well. That’s unfortunate because “Warcraft” actually deserves better.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Truly great movies leave indelible marks. It may be through an emotional connection to the story. It may be through a remarkable performance or a signature scene. But it could also be through the brilliant imagery that films carves into your mind. That’s what this feature is all about – highlighting great images from great movies. Today we have a great one from 2010.

So what are thoughts on this fantastic bit of sci-fi from Christopher Nolan? Is there a particular image that stands out to you? There truly are more than a simple post can contain. Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

While an understandable superhero movie fatigue has sat in for many, longtime invested fans look forward to each new installment to the Marvel in DC cinematic universes. For me personally, the Captain America films have been particularly exciting. Part of it is due to my love for the Cap character dating back to my childhood. But it is also because the previous two films have been among Marvel’s best especially 2014’s “The Winter Soldier”.

The third Cap movie holds an unusual position in Marvel’s grand picture. It doesn’t actually feel like a Captain America film. It feels much bigger and broader – an Avengers-like installment if you will. Anthony and Joe Russo return to direct a screenplay by Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus. The filmmakers have certainly made a movie which seeks to expand the MCU’s narrative rather than telling a tighter more focused Captain America story.

The story is inspired by a fantastic Marvel comics crossover event that ran from 2006 through 2007. The story had a ripple effect that reached to several individual hero comics most notably Captain America’s. Here (as expected) there are few similarities to the comic arc other than a rift between the Avengers. The massive destruction and casualties following the Avengers previous battles have driven governments worldwide to adopt the Sokovia Accords which places the Avengers under United Nations control.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) signs off on the resolution seeing the Avengers as no better than criminals if they are unwilling to play by rules. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) stands firm in his trust of the team’s judgment and his distrust of the politics behind governments. The rift between heroes presents itself early on but the film takes its time in developing it. Along the way the it ties up several loose ends from the previous two Cap movies as well as put heavy emphasis on his continued search for Bucky, A.k.A. The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan).

“Civil War” features so many moving parts and most of them function well. The established characters still have the same charm and charisma and I still enjoy spending time with them. That’s one reason it is easy to be effected once the tension springs up. Marvel Studios has done a great job introducing their characters and developing the relationships between them. A couple of noticables are missing here but some new players are added into the fold (Chadwick Boseman is fantastic as Black Panther and Tom Holland takes on the role of Spider-Man). Storywise things are the best when the focus is on the. But it flounders a bit in telling the story of a mysterious Sokovian militant played by Daniel Brühl. His story is a bit scattered and never has a satisfying end.

Another strength of the film is its pulse-pounding action. Part of what made “The Winter Soldier” great was that it used a lot of traditional effects and stunt work. It’s the same here. Intensely choreographed action sequences come in spurts and each are incredibly impressive. Of course we get some CGI, but the hand-to-hand combat and wild chase sequences are mainly done via old-school means and several of the scenes are still carved in my memory. The film also steers clear of the big, mind-numbing, CGI laden finale. No crumbling skyscrapers or citywide devastation. It’s still a violent ending, but much more personal and consequential.

The movie should also be commended for genuinely trying to ask some significant questions and deal with some weighty issues. And it doesn’t just toss them out there and them leave them behind. These dilemmas run throughout the film. Characters wrestle with death and loss. Others struggle with responsibility and consequences. And while the film may not be an appeal to deep thinkers, among its large amounts of fan service it does explore areas that few from the genre care to.

“Captain America: Civil War” feels like it could be titled “Avengers: Civil War”. In fact, it actually serves as a better Avengers sequel than last year’s “Age of Ultron”. But we do still get plenty of Captain America and his character is still the most intriguing piece in this entire puzzle. But as a whole the movie does more to alter the landscape of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we know it. By the end things are much different. Characters have been impacted. Relationships have been affected. Most importantly it sets before us a very interesting landscape and the potential for some incredibly intriguing storylines. I can’t wait to see where things go next.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

There are several interesting stories surrounding “Red River”, the 1948 Western directed by Howard Hawks. At the time John Wayne was a Hollywood star, but many of the bigger names in directing and producing didn’t consider him a good actor. That reputation led to Gary Cooper being first offered the lead in “Red River”. Cooper declined leaving the door open for Wayne who eagerly accepted. What resulted was an eye-opening performance from the Duke that literally changed the direction of his career.

Wayne’s enthusiasm was spurred by the opportunity to work with the great Howard Hawks. At that point in his career Wayne had made well over thirty movies but he had often found himself typecast. But “Red River” offered him the chance to step outside of his reputation. Hawks oversees this western version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” which pits a stubborn, crusty Wayne against an earnest, loyal Montgomery Clift.

Clift was an interesting choice. This was his first movie (even though “The Search” actually released first) and he was a very different actor than Wayne. Clift was one of the original method actors and he brought a quiter, detail-oriented performance. But surpringly Wayne matches him in subtlty. This invigorates the film’s pivotal central relationship.

Borden Chase and Charles Schnee’s story starts with Thomas Dunson (Wayne) and his longtime trail hand and pal Groot (Walter Brennan) breaking off from a wagon train to head south into Texas. Dunson’s plan is to stake a claim on some land and make a name as a cattle rancher. The wagon train is attacked by Indians and the lone survivor, a young boy named Matt (Mickey Kuhn), comes across Dunson and Groot. They take Matt in and head for Texas. The trio travel further south near the Rio Grande and with one cow and one bull build a huge cattle ranch.

The story hops ahead fourteen years. An adult Matt (Clift) has returned from school and is set to help Dunson run the ranch. Due to post-Civil War poverty they can’t sell their beef in the South so Dunson sets up a rigorous and perilous cattle drive north to a railroad town in Missouri. They hire several hands and head north. The drive proves more difficult than Dunson is willing to admit and a rift forms between him and his disillusioned men. Matt is the man caught in the middle. Does he side with the trail-weary men or does he stay loyal to his father figure and mentor?

Hawks doesn’t make that an easy question to answer. He tosses in all sorts of physical and moral dilemmas along the way that complicate the relationships. Wayne’s mule-headed Dunson teeters between hero and villain and his stubbornness threatens not only the morale of his men but their safety. Matt balances that with a level-headed but subordinate approach. He’s a clearer thinker but is handcuffed by his loyalty to Dunson.

But while that central conflicted relationship is the centerpiece, “Red River” does so many other things well particularly with its Western boundaries. The cattle drive scenes are some of the very best of the genre. There is one particular famous stampede sequence that still lives up to its praise. Russell Harlan (probably best known for his work on “To Kill a Mockingbird”) handles the cinematography which captures the many facets of ‘life on the trail’. 99% of the film takes place outdoors and Harlan often shoots in a way that accentuates the hardships but also the open-aired freedom this small band of men experience.

But it all gets back to Wayne, Clift, and a soured father/adopted son relationship that plays out like a Greek tragedy. The two leads are superb particularly Wayne who surprised me just as much as his contemporaries when the film first released. The Duke shows a level of acting that goes far beyond the cardboard cutout performances he so often delivered. When you toss in Clift’s grounded method approach, Hawks’ confident direction, and a sure-footed story, “Red River” stakes its claim as a true classic of the Western genre.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

By the time Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant hooked up to make “North by Northwest” both were starting the last leg of their phenomenal careers. Grant would make six more films before retiring from acting in 1967. Hitchcock would direct seven more features including “Psycho” and “The Birds”. Both were considered among the best of their craft, but they also shared something else in common. Despite their brilliance, shockingly neither ever won an Oscar for their work.

Hitchcock didn’t make it a secret that Cary Grant was among his favorite actors and this was their fourth movie together. The script was written by the great Ernest Lehman (who also never won an Oscar despite a career filled will superb work). Lehman’s ambition was through the roof. His intent was to make “the Hitchcock movie to end all Hitchcock movies”. Not an easy task but one he pulled off mightily.

The story itself takes many of the Hitchcock signatures that had developed over the years, it accentuates them, and then playfully heightens each. They’re all here – the twisty storyline, the beautiful and mysterious blonde, the McGuffin. Lehman works hard to utilize each of his cohorts’ strengths. He creates perfect settings for Hitchcock to build tension and capture grand visual spectacles. He allows Grant plenty of opportunities to show off his natural charm and  sharp wit.

At times you’ll wonder if your watching a James Bond prototype. Spies, big action, a mistaken identity, a sizzling but complex romance – all of it can be found here. Grant plays Manhattan advertising executive Roger Thornhill. Or is he Roger Thornhill? A certain mysterious stranger (played with leisurely villainy by James Mason) doesn’t think so. He has two of his goons kidnap Thornhill under the impression that he is George Kaplan, a fellow they have a pretty big beef with.

From there the story makes one wild turn after another as Thornhill scrambles to find out who is after him and why? Following him are the police, the bad guys, and even a shadowy government agency. Complicating matters even more is the sexy, mystifying Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint). Thornhill is seduced by her charms but puzzled by how much she knows about him. Saint doesn’t show up until halfway through and instantly injects the film with a new alluring energy as well as yet another thread of mystery.

Another Bond-ish element is how proudly it plays in the absurd and preposterous. Scaling the president’s faces on Mount Rushmore or dodging dive-bombing crop dusters is wild stuff. And let’s face it, the entire story is pretty far-fetched. But I go back to Lehman’s idea – “the Hitchcock movie to end all Hitchcock movies”. “North by Northwest” is intentionally outrageous and serves as a nice change of pace from the two darker movies it sits between in Hitchcock’s filmography – “Vertigo” and “Psycho”.

There are several other components that help make “North by Northwest” such a fabulous whole – a deviously fun Martin Landau, the auction scene (arguably Hitchcock’s funniest), a hilarious comedic turn by Jessie Royce Landis, a masterful score from Hitchcock favorite Bernard Herrmann, that now legendary Cary Grant suit. There are so many entertaining pieces. It’s lighter, flashier, and more stylish than some of Hitch’s other classics, but those are the things that make it a unique but fitting part of Hitchcock’s wonderful filmography.

VERDICT -4.5 STARS