Just a few more classic reviews left before the drive-in opens, so I wanted to take some time to introduce you guys to movies you may have never heard of, but should take the time to see. John Ford was a four-time Academy Award Winner in the Best Director category, so it was always assumed that everything he did was high quality. I don’t know about everything Ford did, but I do know that the guy knew how to turn real history into a fascinating story.

Prisoner of Shark Island is the dramatic telling of the story of Dr. Samuel Mudd. For a quick history lesson, Dr. Mudd is the physician who set John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in (oddly enough) Ford’s Theater (as far as I know – no relation). Dr. Mudd seemed like an innocent man doing his sworn duty to treat all patients when he was put on trial for conspiracy to murder President Lincoln. Dr. Mudd is also the reason that people who have their name tarnished say that their name is mud.

There are a variety of conflicting stories about Dr. Mudd, and it is obvious that John Ford sits firmly in the “the doctor was innocent” camp. Ford decides to follow the storyline that saw Mudd treat Booth while not knowing who Booth was, and did not report Booth to the army authorities until he was told about the assassination the day after it happened and put two and two together. Once he realized he had treated the assassin, he told the army. Many witnesses to the events dispute the good doctor’s version of the story and claim that the doctor not only knew Booth, but had conspired with Booth against Lincoln in the past.

What I liked about this classic flick is that Ford is not shy about his stance on the subject. He commits to Dr. Mudd being innocent and turns the doctor into a hero for saving a fort full of prisoners and soldiers. The truthful part of the story is that Mudd did indeed save an entire fort filled with soldiers and prisoners from yellow fever. The disputable part is how innocent Dr. Mudd really was in the whole conspiracy to kill the president.

The movie does raise an interesting question: The only reason Mudd gets dragged into the story is because he treated Booth’s leg, so did Booth know he was going to break his leg and planned his treatment in advance with the doctor? It seems silly, but it is just one of the interesting points the movie covers.

John Ford took historical events and turned them into fascinating stories. It helps that, with this story, a lot of the drama really took place. So there was no need for Ford to add a whole lot. The characters are well developed, and the movie moves along at a pace that keeps it exciting. This movie was made during an era when Hollywood studios would put out dozens of new movies a month, so finding a classic is not as easy as it sounds. The fact that Ford created a classic during an era when movies were a dime a dozen remains a testament to his ability to tell stories.

The Prisoner of Shark Island is a movie you can actually learn from. It takes real events, and presents them in a dramatic format. It is a movie that is well-written, well-directed, and contains a lot of great acting performances. This movie also benefits from Ford’s insistence that his movies avoid the cliché dialogue and sets that other movies of his era were famous for.

If you want to see a great movie made by a great director based on a subject you are familiar with, then see John Ford’s The Prisoner of Shark Island. Not only will you enjoy it, you may even learn something.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic who starts to tremble as drive-in season gets closer. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

To be honest, we did not see Deadpool at the drive-in, but not for any fault of ours. Since the movie was released in mid-February, we had to go see it at a hard top theater. So, we decided that we would go all out and see it on the IMAX screen, which was the right choice. But to be honest, this movie would be good on any size screen.

After many years of rumors and innuendo back and forth, the Deadpool movie was finally released. Before anyone asks, no Ryan Reynolds did not reprise his Wade Wilson role from the X-Men series for this Deadpool movie. This Wade Wilson is nothing like the mindless killing machine we saw in the X-Men (Wolverine) movie. This was the real Deadpool, and it is a movie that was done to perfection.

Is this a family movie? Well, if your family enjoys decapitating bad guys and throwing around F-bombs like they are part of mama’s home cooking, then yes it is. But if you are like most families, then this is not for kids.  This is a movie for adults only, which is just how Deadpool is supposed to be.

There are a lot of things left out of this movie that were a little disappointing. My hope is that they bring Deadpool’s two inner voices into the second movie because, in my opinion, those voices offer half the comedy in his comic books and in his video game. This is the Deadpool origin movie, and it was loosely based on the origin story that was already out there. When I say loosely, I really mean loosely.

The core of this movie is a love story, which is something no Deadpool story I have ever read has ever been. I found the love story angle to be something that Reynolds and the others who made this movie had to put in there to make Fox Studios happy. After all, Fox is the studio that continues to mutilate the Fantastic Four series and put out lousy superhero movie after lousy superhero movie. When I first saw that Fox was involved in this film, I was disappointed. Luckily, Marvel was also involved, and I am convinced that it was Marvel that saved this movie.

Reynolds is Deadpool, almost. To me, Deadpool is a huge, muscle bound smart ass who is not interested in doing anything but causing chaos. Reynolds has it all except the muscle bound part. Yes, Reynolds got really ripped for this movie. But Deadpool is built more like Bautista, which I felt was an important part of the story. But, we do not get Bautista as Deadpool, we instead get lean Ryan Reynolds. The good news is that Reynolds makes it work, and it is easy to get lost in the movie.

The movie takes a lot of liberties with the Deadpool that comic fans are familiar with. Reynolds’ Deadpool is not nearly as deformed as the one I remember reading, and Deadpool’s humor tends to be a little more bathroom-based. But, I am going to admit that I like the fact that Reynolds avoided the potty humor and went to comedy that was more entertaining. Reynolds’ performance as Deadpool was convincing and extremely entertaining. The supporting cast was also fun to watch, and I would suspect that many of them will be back in the sequel.

Right from the clever opening credits which are a satire of the opening credits we see in every single superhero movie, we know we are watching a movie that was meant for the audience. Deadpool breaks the fourth wall on a regular basis, but he only does it as Deadpool. As Wade Wilson, Reynolds never addresses the audience directly. But when he is Deadpool, it is like he is sitting next to you watching his own movie.

There are some minor flaws with Deadpool, but there are also plenty of reasons why it was the first R-rated movie to open with more than $100 million at the box office. There are plenty of really good reasons why this movie will pull in close to $1 billion in worldwide box office before it is done. It is a funny movie, and it is the kind of movie that you have to buy when it comes out on Blu-Ray because you will want to watch it over and over again. Trust me… it is that good.

Rating: 4 out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in maniac who hopes that Deadpool makes it as a second feature when the drive-in opens. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

Kevin McCarthy is one of those actors who made a ton of classic movies that most people don’t even talk about anymore. His list of starring credits includes Death of a Salesman, Stranger on Horseback, and Nightmare. I think the reason he does not get the credit he deserves is because he did so much television early in his career, and the movies he did later in his career (such as Looney Tunes: Back in Action and UHF) were dismissed as awful. We all know that UHF is a cult classic, but that did not seem to help McCarthy’s reputation any.

The one movie Kevin McCarthy did make that people generally accept as a classic is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. One of the most difficult things for a lead actor to do in any movie is show the transition of their character from one mindset to another. Alistair Sim did it masterfully in Scrooge when he turned the character of Ebenezer Scrooge from a miserable skinflint, into a loveable old man. McCarthy does the same thing in Invasion of the Body Snatchers when he transitions Dr. Mile J. Bennell from the calm and cool skeptic, into the raving lunatic who needs to warn the world about alien invaders.

The thing I really liked about Invasion of the Body Snatchers is that it is based solely on the horror involved in not knowing who is who. Are you talking to your wife, or are you talking to an alien carbon copy that is designed to kill you and take over the world? After a while, the movie gets very creepy about its whole premise, and it is impossible for the viewer to look away.

This movie benefits from the generally demure approach that most 1950s movies had. This movie was made in an era where people went to the theater two and three times a week for entertainment because not everyone had a television, so movies tended to settle people in before blowing their minds. This movie is so filled with Americana when it opens that it might as well come with an apple pie with each showing. The entire transition from a calm and collected (and honestly boring for the first 20 minutes or so) movie into a horror-filled nightmare is done at an expert level.

This movie stood out when it was first released because of its high quality compared to the other 10 or so movies that were released the same week this one was. The funny thing is that the production budget for this movie, as with most movies churned out in Hollywood in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, was low. But director Don Siegel made great use of what he had and, just as what director Byron Haskin had done three years earlier with the War of the Worlds on a limited budget, turned out movie magic that completely works on the screen.

The only real star of the movie is McCarthy, because the movie focuses much more on telling the story than it does on giving anyone else any screen time. The only complaint I have about Invasion of the Body Snatchers is that it jumps from scene to scene a little too quickly in spots. But there is enough substance there to make sure that the pace of the movie does not ruin anything.

The end of the movie is filled with frantic action that ends with Dr. Bennell convincing the military that something has to be done to stop the alien invaders. I kind of wish that Siegel had not taken the movie that far because it would have been more effective, especially to a 1956 audience, to leave the end of the movie open for interpretation. But Siegel decides to give us closure, and we are forced to send our imaginations off into another direction to try and determine the “what if” question surrounding this movie.

If you love old horror movies, then Invasion of the Body Snatchers is one that you have to see. It starts off as a subtle story about any town in 1950s America, and erupts into a terrifying tale about an alien invasion that seems impossible to stop. All in all, this one is worth checking out when you have an hour and a half to kill.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a Lockport resident who may or may not be his real self at this time. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

It was inevitable that if Will Ferrell made enough movies that he would eventually stumble into a classic. While his body of work includes some of the worst comedies ever made, he does get credit for the laugh classic that is Anchorman . This is a movie that points a camera at everyone who lived during the 70s and shows us just how ridiculous we were. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Anchorman is as accurate as it is funny. In that way, it is also pretty disturbing.

The comedy in Anchorman is pretty low-brow, but some of it is extremely funny. There is nothing subtle about Ferrell’s humor, which is probably why he fails at so many of his attempts to be funny. He only knows how to go for the jokes that fall into the potty humor category, but Anchorman manages to take that potty humor and elevate it to a new level.

In Anchorman, Ferrell plays the clueless news anchor Ron Burgundy who only says what is on the teleprompter, and has absolutely no idea how to function outside of his news studio. The cast of characters that surround Burgundy are more clueless than he is, which is evident because they follow the guy anywhere. Despite the many layers of stupidity in this movie, it all works and comes together to create something that is hilarious from start to finish. Even the Smokey and the Bandit end credit bloopers seem to fit the whole aura of Anchorman perfectly.

I think the other thing that makes Anchorman work is the supporting cast surrounding Ferrell. Let’s face it, Will Ferrell cannot carry a movie by himself. He proved that in Kicking and Screaming. He has movies with extremely funny moments, but those movies never hold together from beginning to end. When he is given a strong ensemble of funny people, like he had at Saturday Night Live, then he becomes the focal point of a strong group.

Paul Rudd and David Koechner play their roles perfectly and both come off as the creepy guys that seemed to permeate the 70s. But the guy who steals the movie is Steve Carell with his performance as the completely brainless Brick Tamland. The guy loves lamp, and we love Brick for it.

Without Carell, Rudd, and Koechner this movie would never work. Fred Willard is perfect as the station manager with several dark secrets, and Christina Applegate gives a performance that does not damage the movie at all. Ferrell is playing the main character in Anchorman, but he cannot be funny without the cast. To me, this just proves that Ferrell should have stayed at Saturday Night Live, or put together a comedy team that would make movies and put him at the forefront. I understand the lure of big movie money and the impossible-to-resist temptation to be a movie star, but Ferrell was simply funnier as part of an ensemble and Anchorman is proof of that.

Ferrell and the entire group that put together Anchorman tried to recreate that magic with Anchorman 2, but the jokes had already been told and the shtick was simply not funny anymore. Anchorman is lightning in a bottle, and it required the entire cast for that lightning to work. I am pretty sure they are using Anchorman 2 as a torture device in Gitmo on those enemies of humanity, because I can see no other use for it.

All of the talk of a spin-off movie for Brick and another Anchorman movie (despite the massive failure of Anchorman 2) only shows that Hollywood still does not understand its own product. Movies like Anchorman only come along once in a very long while, and their parts cannot be removed to create more equally funny movies. Nor can you do a sequel to something like Anchorman and expect success. It simply does not happen. Anchorman was a one-shot deal, and it was Ferrell’s one chance to show that he really can be funny in the right situation. Unfortunately for Ferrell, the right situation involves working with people who are better actors and funnier than he is.

Rating: 3 out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in movie fan who is done giving Will Ferrell a chance to impress him. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

Movies like Clerks used to always bother me because people who knew the movie always looked down at people who had never seen it.

“You’ve never seen Clerks? Pfft. What are you, a loser?”

But as I got older, I realized that insecure people use movies as some sort of measurement for social acceptance and I have better things to do with my time. Once I got past the cult of personality Clerks created, I started to appreciate the movie for the brilliant work of art that it really is. But I also started to realize that Clerks could have been just as successful as a comedy album as it was a movie. It is what you hear that makes Clerks so popular, and not what you see.

There are plenty of crude sexual jokes in Clerks, but they are all funny. The humor comes from putting the main character Dante into as many awkward situations as possible. Instead of rolling with the day he was handed, Dante fights with it and the results are amazingly funny.

The stoner humor in Clerks works on a limited basis, which is why I never understood why Jay and Silent Bob became a thing. There are also plenty of Kevin Smith inside jokes in this movie that the audience is supposed to laugh at, but not really understand. But the core of this movie is the constant barrage of impossible situations that Dante has to deal with, and the way that he deals with them. In most cases (as with any good comedy), he fails miserably.

The other core of this movie is Dante’s best friend Randal, and the way in which Randal has absolutely no regard for anyone or anything. Randal works at the video rental store across the street from the convenience store where Dante works, and Randal absolutely hates customers. He also hates working, but he loves delivering obscenely funny porn movie titles in such a deadpan way that it is impossible not to laugh.

The visual aspect of Clerks, to me, was never very entertaining. This hockey game that Dante complains about almost missing throughout the entire movie looks like it was played by a bunch of guys who had never played hockey before. The grainy black and white overall production of the movie can sometimes make it difficult to watch. But none of that matters because the script is so unbelievably funny.

Fans had waited for years for a Clerks sequel and the sequel failed to live up to the legacy that the original Clerks had created. But it should be noted that the sequel barely failed to live up to that legacy. When writing within the Clerks universe, Kevin Smith could be considered one of the best comedy writers in Hollywood. The problem is that when Smith gets outside of the Clerks universe, the quality of his work falls way off.

Clerks added plenty of little sayings to pop culture and gave guys movie lines to quote for years to come. No matter how many times I watch the movie, I laugh at it. It is basically an amateur film that winds up being one of the funniest movies you will see. But I will admit that Clerks is not for everyone. The humor is not necessarily refined, and it is targeted at a very specific type of audience.

If you like crude sexual jokes and well-timed stoner humor, then you will like Clerks. If you like the worst actors you will ever see put in situations where they are actually very funny, then you will like Clerks. The best part about Clerks is that at its lowest point, it is still not as pointless as anything done by Seth Rogen, Judd Apatow, or Adam Sandler. That alone is enough reason for everyone to see Clerks at least once in their lives.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in enthusiast who is not even supposed to be here today. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

Clint Eastwood was in a lot of movies, and many of them can be considered classics. But the most common formula for a Clint Eastwood classic includes Clint directing the movie as well as starring in it. By the time he got to The Outlaw Josey Wales , Eastwood already had a few directing hits to his credit such as Play Misty For Me and High Plains Drifter. Eastwood’s unique and deliberate method for telling stories is what makes his movies stand out, and it is also what makes The Outlaw Josey Wales a classic.

The Outlaw Josey Wales checks in at two hours and 15 minutes and has one Oscar nomination to its credit. Eastwood has this way of making every second of a two hour and 15 minute movie count, but he rarely gets involved in complex plotlines. The basic premise of The Outlaw Josey Wales is revenge, plain and simple. But the movie does such a great job at pumping up the anticipation of seeing that revenge that you can feel the exhale when the movie finally ends.

One of the things I love about Clint Eastwood directed movies is how unpredictable they can be, but how nonchalant he is about their unpredictability. We actually care when two ranch hands are kidnapped by a Native American tribe, and Eastwood ratchets up the emotion for these two ranchers at a couple of points in the movie. But when the rescue of these two ranchers turns out to be anti-climatic, we feel almost let down.

Clint Eastwood has this way of making us feel bad for expecting the unexpected in his movies. We probably should not have expected those ranchers to be killed, but we did. When it turns out that the ranchers are fine, Eastwood slaps us in the face for expecting the worst. He does that over and over again in this movie, which is one of the things that makes this movie emotionally exhausting.

As a movie fan, I always appreciate the performance of Clint Eastwood in a western. Eastwood created the cool and calm Wild West character, and he could make that character a bad guy or good guy, depending on the needs of the movie. Eastwood can also have his main characters walk that line between bad and good, and force us to make the decision for ourselves. That is exactly what he does in The Outlaw Josey Wales, and I always fancied Josey Wales as a good guy, but I can understand the argument that paints Wales as a horrible and conceited person.

Each character in The Outlaw Josey Wales has a purpose in telling the story, and I always liked the idea that Clint Eastwood does not bring in characters for one-liners or shallow plot devices. If a character has a line in a Clint Eastwood movie, then that line means something. Everyone from the granny who runs the ferry service to the carpetbagging salesman matter in this movie, and that helps to give the movie a ton of substance.

The script for The Outlaw Josey Wales is well done and moves along at an excellent pace. Each scene builds on the previous scene so well that the only comparison I can really make is to a Quentin Tarantino movie. Despite The Outlaw Josey Wales being two hours and 15 minutes, it needs every second to tell the story right. Everything we see we need to see in order to understand the ending. But, as with every Clint Eastwood movie, the end focuses only on the main character, and several minor plotlines are left unfinished. But we really don’t care because we get what we need from those plotlines in terms of finding out what happens to Josey Wales.

Clint Eastwood is an iconic actor, but he is also one of the finest directors Hollywood has ever seen. The Outlaw Josey Wales may not get mentioned with some of his great films like The Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby, but it deserves to be recognized for the work of art that it really is.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in movie fanatic who loves watching Clint Eastwood westerns. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him an email at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

I try to be very careful when it comes to allowing cult movies to cross over into classic status because, in my opinion, not many cult movies are classics. Cult movies are fun, but they usually lack some of the basics that make up a classic. For example, the Rocky Horror Picture Show is a fun cult movie, but it lacks a point for it to be a classic.

The Big Lebowski is one of those cult movies that crosses over into the realm of classic because everything about the movie is handled perfectly. The bowling aspect of The Big Lebowski is actually used as an anchor for the plot, instead of some bizarre distraction that gives the movie flavor. Then there are elements formed around the bowling aspect (“Nobody [bleeps] with the Jesus.”) that are extremely funny, but bowling actually serves a purpose in this movie, which is nice.

Another aspect of The Big Lebowski that allows it to be a classic and a cult movie is the fact that the bizarre elements of the movie do not take on cartoonish characteristics that make them silly. In Dude, Where’s My Car?, the bizarre elements escalate until we get a pair of panties from a 50-foot girl. In The Big Lebowski, the weirdness seems somehow under control, and it never gets to the point where we lose interest.

What helps this movie to keep it together is that the truly bizarre scenes are presented as dreams, and any good movie can have the strangest dream sequences it wants because that is what dreams are supposed to be. Yeah, people make some really weird decisions in The Big Lebowski, but people make really weird decisions in real life too. The dreams presented in the movie never cross over into the reality, which helps this movie to stay on target.

The Big Lebowski also presents us with characters that are quotable and fun to watch. The Dude, Walter, and Donny (“Shut up, Donny!”) move the story along and represent everything that is good about this movie. When tragedy strikes the three friends, their responses are emotional and realistic. Once again, the cartoon aspect is left out of the movie and we are given something we can actually enjoy.

While all of these things are important to a classic movie, to me nothing is more important than the comedy. In The Big Lebowski, the comedy is spot-on and the movie makes me laugh uncontrollably to this day. I have seen this movie dozens of times, and it still makes me laugh. To me, that is the sign of a classic comedy and an indication that this movie will keep being a feature presentation at theaters around the country for a long, long time.

The Big Lebowski creates its own inside jokes that its uses over and over again to perfection, but never so much that it wears them out. It is a well-written movie that is perfectly cast. It is hard to say that this movie made any of the actors’ careers, but it certainly did not hurt them. This is a fun movie that does not require any thinking, but it is also movie with perfect timing and iconic elements that seem to fit together perfectly. And then the rug just ties it all together. What more could you want from a classic film?

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in movie fanatic who cannot wait to throw on his bathrobe each night and enjoy a White Russian. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com. Be sure to listen to the debut broadcast of the new radio show Shenanigans on East Niagara Radio Wednesday night at 8 p.m.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

Quentin Tarantino gave some kind of banal reason for spelling the title of Inglourious Basterds the way he did, but I honestly never really cared why. To me, this is just another example of Tarantino being Tarantino, and I was able to get past the weird title without much problem. As with all Tarantino movies, you either love or hate this movie. There are very few people who could take or leave Inglourious Basterds. To me, it is a classic. Allow me to explain.

First of all, I am a sucker for a movie about World War II historical fiction. Secondly, there is just something about Christoph Waltz playing a smart ass Nazi that seems to fit so perfectly into the grand scheme of everything. This movie was perfectly cast, and that includes the fact that Tarantino does not appear in any scene. When I saw this movie for the first time, I cannot tell you how happy I was that Tarantino is not in it.

To me, this movie is absolutely perfect. Yes, I like how Brad Pitt played his role of hardened American Lieutenant Aldo Raine. Yes, I thought Michael Fassbender was absolutely brilliant in his role Lieutenant Archie Hicox. Yes, I thought Mike Myers was completely convincing as a British intelligence officer. It all worked for me, from the casting to the camera work. This is an example of a perfect movie, from start to finish.

There is some action in Inglourious Basterds, but the movie is centered more around the verbal establishment of certain types of situations. The film opens with a gripping scene that has Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (played by Waltz) systematically breaking down a French farmer until that farmer confesses that he is hiding Jewish people under his floor boards. The dialogue was gripping, the tension was palpable, and the execution of the scene was flawless. There are probably five or six extended scenes like this in the movie that rely on emotion to push them through, and every one of them works.

I always felt that the people who criticized Brad Pitt’s performance in this movie simply do not understand what acting is. Pitt is playing a caricature, and he does it extremely well. Waltz is also playing a caricature, and he may have pulled off his performance even better than Pitt’s. I find that people who do not like Quentin Tarantino movies will often criticize the more obvious elements of those movies as being childish or weak. Once again, either you love Quentin Tarantino movies, or you hate them.

Tarantino’s framing of this movie is very deliberate, and he uses his extended scenes as the foundation for the entire story. You can talk about the scene at the French farm or the scene at the German basement pub as though they were their own movies because they could literally stand on their own. The fact that Tarantino weaves it all together into a movie is absolutely amazing. The fact that the movie works makes this a classic.

There will be those who dismiss this review and the movie as more Tarantino garbage, and I understand that. I would even think that Quentin Tarantino understands that as well. But for people who just love good movies, this is one that you should see. If you wanted to see two movies that would be entertaining regardless as to whether or not you liked Quentin Tarantino, then you would see this movie and Django Unchained. But that is a discussion for a different review. For now, I will just say that if you do not at least give Inglourious Basterds a chance, then you are missing out on one of the more unique movies ever made. Who knows? You may even like Brad Pitt’s performance. I know I do.

Rating: 5 out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in addict who is patiently waiting for the drive-in season to start. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

The Magnificent Seven is the movie that inspired The Three Amigos, and the inspiration was pretty direct. I would even suggest that The Three Amigos was more of a tribute than a spoof, as The Three Amigos took everything from the small Mexican town setting to the soundtrack from The Magnificent Seven. In my anticipation of seeing this movie, I wondered how Yul Brynner could ever play a convincing cowboy, and now I know.

This is the movie that broke Steve McQueen’s career wide open, but it almost never happened for McQueen. During the shooting of the movie, McQueen was constantly doing small things not in the script to draw attention to himself. Much of what McQueen did was left in the final cut, and that never really pleased Yul Brynner. At that point in time, Brynner was the biggest star in Hollywood and this was his project. But by the time filming was over, Steve McQueen proved to be Brynner’s equal in many ways.

The Magnificent Seven is the American version of the great Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. Magnificent Seven director John Sturges knew he was taking a chance by drawing direct inspiration from Kurosawa, but it paid off when Kurosawa sent Sturges an inscribed samurai sword in appreciation of The Magnificent Seven.

This is one of those classics that is probably flawed more than any other, but remains a great movie. Elmer Bernstein’s musical score is considered to be one of the greatest ever created, but yet it was only a runner-up at the Academy Awards. Yul Brynner proved to be a more than competent cowboy, and he brought a cool intensity to the Wild West that I had never seen before. Throughout the entire film, there was no doubt that Brynner’s character Chris was in charge, despite Steve McQueen’s best efforts.

The movie opens with what can only be described as a bizarre, yet amazing, scene. Brynner and McQueen drive a coffin-bearing carriage a couple of hundred yards through and old Western town and up to a typical Western cemetery. This is our first introduction to Brynner and McQueen in this movie, and it is extremely effective. The mood is tense, and the point of view we are given only helps to heighten the tension. By the time the scene is over, we are left thinking “That’s it?” But it was done so well, that it felt like it lasted hours.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I think it requires discussion. Yul Brynner was a Russian playing an American cowboy. While we have seen plenty of foreigners play cowboys before, none were or have been more effective than Brynner. What made Yul Brynner great was his understanding of his own physical attributes versus the characters he played. His lines in The Magnificent Seven were relatively limited to short sentences. He gave almost no long speeches, and when he did he would chop them up in that Brynner way. At no point throughout the movie, did you get the feeling that he was a Russian playing an American cowboy. His ability to play to his strengths and suppress his weaknesses is just one of the things that made him great, and one of the things that makes this movie so wonderful.

Yul Brynner actually starred in a few American Westerns, but none were as successful as The Magnificent Seven. The ensemble cast in this film includes Brynner, McQueen, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, and Eli Wallach. When great actors come together to do a fun movie, a classic will sometimes emerge. That is what happened with The Magnificent Seven.

Why do I call this movie the most flawed of all of the classics? Because there are plenty of moments that make you stop and shake your head with disbelief. The bad guy had the Seven in his grips, and then suddenly let them go. Not only that, but he gave the Seven their guns back. At the beginning of the movie, Steve McQueen fires several rounds into an open window because Yul Brynner thought he saw someone move the curtains. What happened to whoever was in that room? Why was McQueen allowed to arbitrarily fire into an open window like that?

Despite its canyon-sized cracks, this movie stands the test of time. This is one of those movies that is going to be re-made, but I don’t think the remake will stand up to the original at all. This movie was extremely difficult for the cast and crew to make, but the end result was something that I could watch over and over again. You can remake a script with new actors, but you cannot capture the same lightning in a bottle that the original did. With The Magnificent Seven, there is no way Hollywood could ever make this movie again. That is why it is considered a classic.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic who loves them old cowboy movies. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

In celebration of Quentin Tarantino’s new movie The Hateful Eight, I think I will dedicate the month of January to someone I consider to be one of the best directors of all-time. What’s that? You say you hate Tarantino and his movies? That is a common response, because Tarantino has no middle ground. Either you love his movies, or you hate them. I am not a big fan of Quentin Tarantino the person, but I love his movies.

In 1994, the movie world made a big deal about the “comeback of John Travolta” in a Quentin Tarantino movie. I always wondered why Travolta needed a comeback at that point in his career when he had just got done making the first two Look Who’s Talking movies. Granted, those movies did not compare to Urban Cowboy and Saturday Night Fever, but they did relatively well at the box office.

One of the reasons people were so antsy about Pulp Fiction when it came to Travolta was the idea of a “wholesome” actor like Travolta being in a Quentin Tarantino movie. Could the dad in Look Who’s Talking really succeed in a movie made by the guy who did Reservoir Dogs? The answer is yes, and the simple reason is because Vincent Vega is a character that is right in John Travolta’s wheelhouse. After playing Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction, Travolta suddenly found himself playing a series of intense roles that better fitted his talents. So, for John Travolta, working with Quentin Tarantino was the best move of his career.

People tend to dismiss Tarantino because of his prolific use of graphic violence, but the truth is that the guy is a great storyteller. Normally, I get frustrated trying to follow a movie that attempts to weave together four or five storylines because the whole thing can get confusing. But Tarantino’s deliberate approach makes it easy to keep up with what is going on in each of his movies.

What I especially like about Pulp Fiction is that all of the stories are connected directly in some way. It isn’t until Tarantino establishes the connection between the stories that he starts putting in details. The end result is that we can care about those details because we are not banging our heads against the wall wondering why we are watching a boxer screw over the mob.

Another element of Pulp Fiction that I like is how smooth the story progresses, despite how segmented it actually is. By all rights, this movie should be thoroughly confusing to anyone who is watching it. But it actually turns out to be a well-designed film that is surprisingly easy follow.

I do have to admit that one of the elements of a Quentin Tarantino film I do not like is when he gives himself a role that tends to break up the movie. In Pulp Fiction, Tarantino plays a racist who appears to be connected to every character in the story, for some reason. I don’t like the approach Tarantino takes when presenting his character, and I really do not like the way that this seemingly insignificant character has the ability to dominate the other characters. Tarantino’s characters are tributes to his own arrogance, and I really do not think they have any place in his movies. But, they are his movies, so we tolerate the roles he plays.

Pulp Fiction is a quirky movie that is made up of several intertwining story lines that are all connected at one single point. The ending of the movie is bizarre, but extremely entertaining. As usual, Tarantino pushes everything to the absolute edge and presents you with an ending that is uncomfortable, but so very good.

It is easy to see why people either love Tarantino movies, or hate them. While I cannot stand Tarantino the public figure, I am a huge fan of his movies. If you have never seen one of his films, then Pulp Fiction is not a bad way to introduce yourself to this crazy universe of stories. I appreciate the symbolism in the movie, and I really enjoy the detail Tarantino puts into every scene. To me, this is a complete movie, and I do not get to say that about many films.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic who loves Quentin Tarantino movies. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him an email at georgenroot3@gmail.com. 

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

NO SPOILERS

Stay with me on the beginning of this review. It makes sense when I am done. Ok, so you know how some iconic rock bands got started in the 70s, and they made timeless rock music using just the basic instruments, and they did so under the guidance of a world-famous producer? The band and the producer keep making great records together, but then the band starts to experiment with their sound and things start to change. After a while, the band and the producer part ways and the band kind of drifts into limbo. After a couple of years, another great producer steps in and says that he is going to strip the band back down to its raw roots and help the band make another great record. The result is a record that is even better than those first few records, and the band’s career is re-energized.

In this scenario, Star Wars is the band and that first producer is George Lucas. I always felt that once Lucas established the Star Wars universe with Episode IV, he should have passed it on to a major studio that could have put talented writers on those projects. Lucas has an unbelievably vivid imagination, but he cannot write a script to save his life. The second record producer in this scenario is Disney. I will say here what I said on Facebook: Star Wars is much better off with Disney and without Lucas.

I have nothing against George Lucas. The guy is a genius and has created some of the most iconic movie franchises in the history of film. Despite his incessant tinkering with his own films, I still consider George Lucas one of the greatest movie makers in the history of cinema. But he just cannot write a script to save his life. He is also way too in love with special effects, and that is just one of the things that killed Episodes I, II and III.

So now Star Wars, the band, gets that slick new producer who wants to strip down the movie franchise to its roots and make something that fans can really enjoy. Star Wars fans freaked out when Lucasfilms was sold to Disney because they were afraid that Disney would replace Luke Skywalker with Mickey Mouse, or something equally as silly. By the time Episode VII is done with its first run (which could take months), even the most hardcore Star Wars fans will be eternally grateful that Disney took over the franchise. If there is one thing Disney knows how to do, it is make movies.

The Disney Corporation’s legacy of film success cannot be denied. The princess animated films, Marvel and now Star Wars show that Disney knows how to put a successful template in place and then follow that template repeatedly. The Avenger movies are great superhero movies, and Fox’s attempts to compete with the Avenger series through the Justice League series will fail miserably. But that will not stop me from seeing the Justice League movies, which is probably the same attitude all movie fans have.

Disney brings all of the old band members back together for Episode VII, and adds in some new players to allow the story to continue. Disney reduced the amount of CGI used for this movie, and that decision succeeded in giving Episode VII a retro feel. But Disney is also smart enough to know that CGI has its place in modern movie making, and this movie definitely benefits from computer graphics. Where Episodes I, II, and III were burdened with too much CGI, Episode VII has the perfect mix of CGI and live action. This is the type of new Star Wars movie that George Lucas would have never considered making, which is why it is best that he sold the franchise to Disney.

While Episode VII definitely ranks in the top three of all Star Wars movies, I do have a couple of issues with the film. The first is that there is not enough development of the new characters. But I am able to let this slide because I know that we are getting buried in Star Wars films over the next few years and I am sure the stories of all of these new characters will get fleshed out. If there was one thing Lucas was good at, it was setting up every single character to be people that we cared about, one way or the other. This movie does not do that. With Episode VII, we get introduced to some likable and interesting characters, but we know nothing about them. But we do learn a little about them as we go along, which is just another way that Disney is making sure that the box office for future Star Wars movies is huge.

The other problem with Episode VII is that I absolutely hated Darth Vader by the end of Episode IV. Lucas’ ability to tell a story presented a Vader that was not vulnerable, and pure evil. Vader did not become compromised until later in the series. By the time Darth Vader develops a conscience, he is already one of the most hated villains in the history of movies. Episode VII has several bad guys, and none of them have any depth. The main bad guy does a horrible thing towards the end of the movie, but he has already been revealed to be extremely vulnerable. I did not come out of Episode VII truly hating any of the bad guys.

But all of those faults can be overlooked because of the one huge positive I took away from this film – Disney cared about making a great Star Wars film. Disney knew that this movie could have been 90 minutes of R2-D2 and C3P0 free-styling and it still would have made $1 billion. But a bad Episode VII would have also damaged the franchise. Disney honestly cares about making good Star Wars movies, and Star Wars fans can rest easy knowing that their favorite franchise is in good hands.

This is a great movie, and it was a great movie to see at the Transit Drive-In. I loved seeing this movie under the stars because, after all, isn’t looking to the stars what the Star Wars movies are all about?

Rating: 4 ½ out of 5

 +George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic who was in his glory at a major movie premier in December at the drive-in. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

The song "White Christmas" was first sung by Bing Crosby in the 1942 movie "Holiday Inn." Thanks to its significant play on military radio and its vivid message of Christmas at home, the entire country developed a massive emotional attachment to the song. White Christmas appeared again in the 1946 movie Blue Skies, where it was sung again by Bing Crosby. In 1954, the song finally got its own movie, and the movie is as much of a fun holiday celebration as the song.

Any fan of the movie "Christmas Vacation" is well aware of the fact that there is a movie out there that has Bing Crosby tap dancing with Danny Kaye. This is that movie, and it is a holiday classic that is not going away any time soon. Even though White Christmas was made nine years after World War II ended, it still draws on that same 1940s energy that made the song famous and, dare I say, immortal.

White Christmas is the story of two entertainers (Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye) as they embark on their career together after the completion of World War II. The music is lively, the jokes are 1940s corny, and the music is a lot of fun. The comedy in this movie is not going to appeal to the crowd that likes to listen to Howard Stern, but it is the kind of comedy that would make the little ones giggle.

White Christmas was one of the most popular movies of 1954, and that was because it was the perfect combination of just about everything the movie fans of that era loved. The songs, the stars (Crosby, Kaye, Rosemary Clooney, Mary Wickes, etc,), and plenty of the pageantry that people loved in the 50s are all in place. It is very easy to see why people in that era loved this movie, but it is also easy to see why it is hard for this movie to get over with newer audiences.

Christmas movies such as Alistair Sim’s Scrooge or It’s A Wonderful Life are timeless because the themes they deal with translate into each successive generation. White Christmas is a 1954 musical celebration that is very much rooted in 1954. By today’s standards, White Christmas is pretty dated. But it can still be a lot of fun for people who love old holiday movies.

If you are an emotional holiday sap (like me), then White Christmas might bring out some content grins and a few sniffles. I love the look of those old movies, and that 1950s movie look serves this production very well. The dull lines and obvious soundstage sets I associate with 1950s films are in full force here. I am not sure what the budget was for this movie, but it does look slapped together in parts. When the movie opens, I feel like I am on a soundstage in Hollywood, and not in Europe during World War II.

The other issue I have with White Christmas is that it really drags right at the moment when the tension should be rising. There is no question about the emotional peak of the movie because you know it is coming, and you know how it will play out. But, for some reason, that does not take away at all from the ability to enjoy the songs and the full musical productions.

All in all, White Christmas is a movie that anyone can watch, but it is not for everyone. Some will like it, some won’t like, and there will probably even be people who hate it. But it retains its place as a holiday classic, if for no other reason than it acts as Hollywood’s official tribute to the one Christmas song that America has come to love so dear.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in movie fanatic and a guy who just loves Christmas. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

For me, Scrooged is on the fence as far as being a classic holiday movie. Actually, for me, Scrooged is not a classic holiday movie. However, as with most movies with Bill Murray in the 1980s, this is a classic comedy. The Christmas part of this movie gets overpowered by Murray’s performance, and none of the rest of the cast are able to pick up the holiday slack.

Holiday classic movies are supposed to launch careers and elicit memories of holidays gone by. For example, as much as people want to insist that it is, Die Hard is not a classic holiday movie. It is, however, a classic movie in general because it is just awesome. It also launched several careers. Bill Murray’s career was already launched by the time he did Scrooged, and none of the other actors in this movie give a performance that really stands out. Then again, asking a second tier comedic actor to stand out in a Bill Murray movie is really asking a lot.

The focus of every good version of A Christmas Carol is the realization that a belief in Christmas can truly save your soul. The act of getting Ebenezer Scrooge to see the error of his ways is one thing, but getting him to allow his heart to well up with the feeling of Christmas is quite another. While Scrooged does an excellent job of showing how Frank Cross goes from being a jerk to a nice guy, it never really hammers home the Christmas aspect of it.

When we see his memories, they just happen to occur on Christmas. Nothing about Christmas triggers positive memories to Frank Cross. His memories are triggered by his love for Claire and the realization that he missed out on most of his life because he was either working or watching television. But, in all honesty, this story could have happened during Easter and it would have been just as effective, and just as funny.

The one thing I admire about guys like Bill Murray and Chevy Chase is that they knew that their comedic powers were limited. They knew that they were only going to have that precious comedic timing that so few get for so long before it would be gone. They would always be funny guys, but they knew that their time as two of the funniest people in the history of cinema was very limited. It is a lesson Jim Carrey never learned, and I believe the world missed out on some great Jim Carrey comedies because he was infatuated with doing things like The Truman Show.

At the peak of his comedic powers, Bill Murray made an adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. And while it is kind of easy to pick out his secretary as being Cratchit and his brother as being the nephew from Dickens’ story, the movie never really establishes Christmas as being the reason that Frank Cross changes his evil ways. What really changes his evil ways is his love for Claire and his desire to rekindle that relationship. At the end, he remembers how much he loves her and how happy the two were together and that is what solves the problem. Christmas is just an afterthought.

I had more than one person ask me when I was going to review Scrooged and I have avoided it because I did not want to anger people by saying that it isn’t a holiday classic. It is one of those movies that fails at its attempt to illicit images of sugar plumbs in people’s heads, but succeeds immensely in being one of the funniest movies ever made. A Christmas classic has Christmas as the center of everything. Christmas is the setting, Christmas is the issue, and Christmas is the solution. In Scrooged, the problem is not really Christmas. The problem is that Frank Cross became a miserable prick and now he needs to change his ways. The ghost of his old boss (playing the role of Jacob Marley) never even tries to establish the fact that Cross is headed towards a horrible fate. In the desire to make the comedy funny, the movie glosses over the direction that Cross’ life is headed in. But the movie hits a home run as a comedy, and that is why so many people love it today.

Rating As A Holiday Classic: ½ out of 5
Rating As An Overall Classic: 4 out of 5

RELATED REVIEWS: 

• 'The Polar Express' (2004)
• 'It's A Wonderful Life' (1946)
• 'A Christmas Carol' (1984)
• 'Scrooge' (1970)
• 'Scrooge' (1951)
• 'Christmas Vacation' (1989)

---

Check out East Niagara Post videos on YouTube, Vine and Periscope.

I wanted to do one more non-Christmas classic before we dive into four straight weeks of Christmas reviews and the movie I chose is Steel Magnolias. Yeah, yeah, I know. Chick flick, right? Except that this chick flick is one that all guys should give a chance because the chicks in this flick are harder edge than most guys in those adventure movies, and the story here is extremely compelling.

I found myself, one day many years ago, sitting on my couch (back when I had a couch) wondering what I should watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I caught the very beginning of this movie that had a very funny exchange between Tom Skerritt and Shirley MacLaine. I didn’t really pay attention to the movie title as I was flipping around and did not find out it was Steel Magnolias until the next commercial break. I have to admit, I was hooked and I could not stop watching.

It didn’t take me long to realize what the target market was for this movie, but none of that really mattered. There were so many funny little jokes running through the movie that worked so well that I couldn’t stop watching. But the one thing that really drags you into this movie is how it ratchets up the emotion until it gets to the emotional pinnacle towards the end. The whole movie is geared around how this group of lifelong friends handles the emotional peak in this movie, and it is done so well. The comedy intertwined within the pain is just perfect, and I have watched the movie several times since that first viewing . . . I am proud to say.

The other element of this movie that dragged me in is the way it celebrates small town life. Being a small town guy, I am always partial to movies that glorify the beauties of living in a small town. Back when I first saw this movie, Lockport was still the small town I wanted it to be. For a couple of decades, we lost our way and lost touch with each other. Maybe it is the resurgence of Lockport as that typical American small town that prompted me to write this review. As I sit in thought on the idea, I am almost positive that Lockport’s recent resurgence as a great little small town is what made me think of Steel Magnolias. That, my friends, is a strong emotional association.

In Lockport, people know each other. In Steel Magnolias, everyone knew each other. It was set in a small town that actually acted like a small town, and I could appreciate that. The small town gatherings reminded me of what we used to have, and what we have brought back again. I guess you could say that I saw a lot of Lockport in Steel Magnolias and that is one of the reasons this movie resonated with me.

While I usually agree with all of the casting in the classics I review, I have to disagree with Dolly Parton being cast as Truvy Jones. I get the idea that Truvy is supposed to be the “outsider” of the group until the new outsider Annelle (played by Daryl Hannah) shows up, but something about Parton’s acting just falls flat for me. This was a full nine years after she had done 9 To 5 and I just was not feeling the emotion from her performance. When compared to the job the other actresses in the ensemble did, Parton stands out as being particularly flat (Ha! Insert bad Dolly Parton joke here.).

Yes, it is a chick flick. But it is also an emotional roller coaster that gets you to really care about what is going on with all of the characters. From a guy’s perspective, Steel Magnolias is just a really good movie with an excellent cast. The comedy is really funny, and the emotion is thick. My wife loves this movie too, but she mostly gets into the sappy parts of it which I just tended to ignore. Why is this a classic? Because it is a chick flick with something for everyone, and that is hard to find.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

 +George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic and noted hater of chick flicks, except Steel Magnolias. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

East Niagara Post is the official media sponsor of Hockey Day in Lockport.

I usually like to go back a little further for my classic movies, but this is one of those films that will just not go away. It is constantly either being spoofed or tributed in popular culture, and it has spawned its own sub-genre of movies that are as confusing and pretentious as this one.

I think my favorite take on Inception was when it was spoofed on South Park as being completely ridiculous from start to finish. The basic message behind the South Park episode is that just because something is complicated does not mean that it is entertaining. I kind of get where Christopher Nolan was going with Inception, but he overthinks a lot of this movie and it gets lost in itself  . . . which seems appropriate.

Let me assure anyone who did not understand Inception that it is perfectly acceptable to say that you just did not get it. There is a huge and pretentious following for this movie that looks down at people who do not understand the underlying plot of the film. The truth is that I don’t think anyone in the movie really understands what it is supposed to be about, so the general public is allowed to be confused as well.

There are two plot elements to this movie that I find really hard to ignore. First of all, anyone who experiments with that many sleep-inducing drugs is going to wind up with a lot of physical and mental health issues. The movie seems to ignore the fact that these people are using a variety of experimental drugs to put themselves into a deep sleep a couple of times a week. I tried to dismiss this with my suspension of disbelief, but I just couldn’t do it.

The other thing that I have a problem with is the idea that you can get a “kick” in a dream that will instantly wake you up. In my dreams, I have been stabbed, shot, blown up, beheaded, thrown off a skyscraper and even run over by a commercial jet liner as it taxied down the runway (it was some dream about the Langoliers) and none of that has ever woken me up. Now, if I was induced into sleep by experimental chemicals, I am pretty sure it would take more than just a little “kick” to wake me up instantly.

Like I said, I tried suspension of disbelief on these things, but it just didn’t stick. If I can remain asleep after being run over by a 767 that was taxiing towards a runway, then I am pretty sure that being in a van that falls off a bridge and into a river is really not going to affect me.

Some of the writing of this movie seems sloppy to me. People can be shot in the head as their “kick” to wake up, but if someone gets shot in the stomach in their dream then they may die in real life? What the hell is that? It is almost as if Nolan is purposely trying to confuse people to make the movie seem more interesting. It doesn’t work for me.

Some of the ideas in Inception I found to be interesting. The whole idea of a totem to see if you are awake or asleep I found to be interesting. But all that did was take me back to the idea that if you need a spinning top to tell you if you are awake or asleep because you are not sure, then the sleep-inducing chemicals you have been using have damaged your brain and a spinning top is the least of your concerns.

The idea that people could literally build their own realities in their dreams and revisit them I did find to be fun. I have always wanted to do something like that, and I did like the way that Nolan brought it to life. However, he ruins it by insisting that people can build these realities and then actually live in them for the rest of their lives. Where would your body be kept, and how long can the human body really survive in a chemically-induced coma?

I have seen Inception several times, and I just don’t like it. Like I said before, I kind of get where Nolan is trying to go with it, but I don’t think he gets there. I am not so pretentious that I will presume someone is simple-minded because they did not understand Inception. However, I do have a knack for being difficult on people who are pretentious.

That being said, I didn’t like Inception at all. I wanted to like it, and I watched it several times to give it a chance to grow on me. It didn’t, and it never will.

Rating: 1 out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in fanatic who is living his life as a dream, within a dream, within a ham sandwich. Follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com. 

---

East Niagara Post is the official media sponsor of Hockey Day in Lockport.

I’ve never really liked the idea of referring to certain movies as big comeback movies for big name stars, because that would insinuate that the big name stars did not work for years before releasing their big comeback movies. Mickey Rourke worked steadily for years before he played the role of Randy “The Ram” Robinson in The Wrestler, but he was just in some terrible movies.

Over the course of time, actors take work just to stay working and those decisions can sometimes come back to bite them. For Rourke, it was years of subpar movies and small supporting roles that forced his “comeback” in 2008. What a comeback it was.

To answer the biggest rumor about this movie, yes Marisa Tomei does a few nude scenes that are gritty at best. If you are a 15-year-old boy, then you get to see boobies. But even if you are 15, you can appreciate just how much in context everything is with this movie . . . even the boobies.

As with most of the movies he did in the 80s, The Wrestler is a role that Mickey Rourke was meant to play. The entire movie is filled with amazing casting, and that helps to create a chemistry that really brings the movie to life. Rourke worked out for months to bulk up for this role and trained with professional wrestlers to get the moves right. His dedication to the movie pays off with big dividends.

One of the things that is lost in the hoopla about Rourke’s “comeback” in this movie is that it was also a sort of “comeback” for Marisa Tomei as well. She had languished for a few years with supporting roles in bad movies before her appearance in this 2008 classic. Ever since The Wrestler was released, Tomei has been steadily busy and is headed back to the big budget world with appearances as Aunt May in an upcoming Spider-Man movie and the newest Captain America movie as Marvel tries to salvage Spider-Man by bringing him into the Avengers universe.

Because The Wrestler is a low-budget movie ($6 million is a low budget when you consider the stars in this movie), it is forced to improvise when it comes to the special effects and action scenes. Mickey Rourke really did cut open his own forehead with a razor to bleed real blood (as all wrestlers have done at some point in their careers), the customers in the deli scenes were real customers and not actors, and the guy playing the steroids dealer in the movie really was arrested for selling steroids a few months after the movie was released. Improvisation because of a low budget has brought us some of the greatest movies ever made, and The Wrestler is another example of how that works.

If you are looking for a movie that highlights the glitz and glamour of professional wrestling, then this is not that movie. The Wrestler was based primarily on the life of wrestling legend Jake “The Snake” Roberts, and it is the kind of story that can be hard to watch. But Tomei and Rourke do such an excellent job telling the story that it is impossible to look away.

I love a movie that forces you to watch when you don’t want to and then delivers a story you will never forget. It takes the perfect combination of a good script, dedicated actors, and a good director to make a movie like that happen. By coincidence, those are also the very same elements that go into creating a classic.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5

+George N Root III is a drive-in lunatic and former fan of professional wrestling. You can follow him on Twitter @georgenroot3 or send him a message at georgenroot3@gmail.com.

---

East Niagara Post is the official media sponsor of Hockey Day in Lockport.