Sad for Stallone, happy for 'Spotlight' and other Oscar observations

This was an interesting Academy Awards. Far too long -- but they always are. The speeches were stronger than usual this year, I think the whole crawl at the bottom of the screen helped, and while the #OscarsSoWhite controversy rages on -- it didn't detract from the proceedings.

I thought Chris Rock did a decent job in what has always been a thankless role. His opening monologue was a bit scattershot, at times he seemed to be taking his fellow African-American actors to task more than the white elites of Hollywood. But many of his jokes, albeit a few too many at Will and Jada Pinkett's expense, landed. And I'm not sure anyone else could have done a better job of pointing out the absurdity of liberal Hollywood's persistent prejudice.

Here are the other big takeaways (for me) from the night.

Mad Max made an impact: I, of course, wanted my favorite film of the year to win Best Picture and Best Director, but for a blockbuster action movie reboot, that was perhaps asking too much -- at least this year. But I think it's a positive sign that the film cleaned up in the technical categories, dominating the first portion of the night. That a film like this, which took real artistic chances AND was a hit, got recognized like this gives me hope for the future.

Star Wars snubbed: That said, much of Mad Max's success seemed to be at the expense of The Force Awakens. It's pretty odd to me that the most successful film of all time in the U.S. (without taking inflation into account) and a critical hit, walked away with zero recognition for the Oscars.

Footage of Harrison Ford in a 2015 montage only reminded me of how much I think he belonged in the Supporting Actor category, and I thought the film was seriously snubbed for Best Visual Effects. Just another case of the Oscars being out of touch.

Ennio Morricone finally wins one: It wasn't a surprise thatwhen Ennio Morricone finally won his first Oscar for The Hateful Eight. The 87-year-old was not just a sentimental favorite, he deserved to win. This man is my favorite film composer of all time and it was very moving to see him embraced by his peers Quincy Jones and John Williams, although it boggles the mind that they seated this frail man up in a balcony.

"Til It Happens to You": I was stunned when Lady Gaga's powerful tribute to campus rape victims lost in the Best Song category to Sam Smith's perfectly nice theme from Spectre. Still, Gaga's characteristically great performance at the Oscars will likely bring a lot more attention to an important documentary The Hunting Ground, which needs to be seen and discussed. The finale of her song, with alleged victims holding their hands high in solidarity was easily the most moving moment of the night.

Stallone loss stings: The other moving moment I was hoping and rooting for didn't come. Sylvester Stallone was upset for Best Supporting Actor by Mark Rylance. I thought Rylance gave a very good performance in Bridge of Spies but I have a great deal of affection for Stallone as an actor, and he did the best work of his career in Creed. After this disappointing result I fear his fate will be the same as Mickey Rourke and Eddie Murphy's, two actors who returned to doing subpar work after Oscar rebuked them for deserving performances. I hope I'm wrong, but this loss hurt.

Spotlight shocker: I genuinely did not see that coming. I figured if any movie was going to knock The Revenant off its front-runner perch it would be The Big Short. And when Mad Max: Fury Road started racking up wins early, I held out hope that it had a chance. But Spotlight, the best reviewed of the eight nominees, won and I was pleasantly surprised. First off, bully for Michael Keaton, who's starred in two Best Picture winners in a row -- although he lost last year for Best Actor and was snubbed this year. Also I'm impressed that the academy got behind a smallish movie that hasn't been a big commercial hit and has been lagging in the awards race all year. Perhaps the Best Picture will win help this powerful movie find a wider audience, it's terrific and really deserving of one.

'The Witch' continues horror genre's winning streak

Anya-Taylor Joy in The Witch

Roughly this time last year, It Follows, one of my favorite horror films of the decade was released. It was a critical darling that stood the test of time and stayed on my top 10 list for the next twelve months. It wasn't a traditional shocker, it avoided easy jump scares, was devoid of gore and it had a visual aesthetic of its own.

This month, we have the arrival of The Witch, a terrifically spooky film that doesn't top It Follows but is similarly atmospheric and effecting. It plays for much of its running time like a drama. It focuses on a Puritan era family, led by a devoutly religious father, whose rebellious approach to religion gets him, his wife and children banished to the wilderness.

The family is played by a cast of largely unknown actors, although the mother, Kate Dickie, may be recognizable to fans of Game of Thrones. The patriarch (Ralph Ineson) has one of the greatest voices I've ever heard -- a deep, intense growl. He would make an amazing villain in a Bond film. But the real standout is the eldest daughter (Anya-Taylor Joy) who resembles a younger Margot Robbie. She is the put upon, under-appreciated child and her arc is the film's most shocking.

Still, the movie takes its time getting to the scares. This is not a bad thing. The best horror films -- think The Exorcist and The Shining -- take their time to create a world, give you a stake in the characters and then add layers of existential dread.

The Witch is beautifully photographed, and not unlike other eerie fables such as Under the Skin, its early scares are all in the silences and strange lingering images. That, and the score, with builds to an almost unbearable pitch of terror.

As the last act unfolds, the movie takes some surreal turns that I am still not sure I entirely understand, but they are nevertheless striking. Although the movie itself isn't necessarily going to make you scream with fear, it has a creepy power.

I'm happy to see it getting such strong reviews, but I fear that its commercial prospects are limited. Not unlike It Follows it's languid pacing and lack of stars seem to have resulted in a tepid box office. The same thing goes for my other favorite recent horror films, Goodnight Mommy and The Badadook. Although audiences clearly have an appetite for horror, these kinds of smart, thoughtful films more often than not don't crossover with mainstream audiences, who seem to gravitate toward dumber fare.

Of the best reviewed recent horror films, only The Conjuring, which also avoided gore for genuine thrills, has been a big hit. And that film boasted more recognizable actors (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) and a more accessible haunted house premise.

The Witch will not be for all tastes. It's more moody and brooding, and its setting can be claustrophobic and bleak. But this is the kind of movie that sticks in your head; its imagery and its mysteriousness are timeless. And its director, Robert Eggers, who makes his debut with this picture, is one to watch.

'The River Wild' and the case for more female action stars

The River Wild

I first saw The River Wild when it came out in theaters just over 20 years ago. It's not a masterpiece on par with Deliverance, but it's probably the second best film to make use of rapids for horrific effect. The movie was a change of pace for Meryl Streep, who seemed to be trying at the time to prove she could be successful outside her comfort zone.

The movie works, in a cheesy '90s thriller sort of way. A never better Kevin Bacon makes a really terrific grinning villain here and David Strathairn is quite good in what should be the thankless role of the emasculated husband.

It's the kind of slow boiling thriller they just don't make anymore. It really takes its time setting up the characters and the audience is aware of the danger Streep and her family face out in the wilderness far more than they are. And yet I found myself enjoying it.

Streep is great as always, although this will never go down as one of her more memorable roles. But her presence here elevates what might have been a routine thriller. We're so accustomed to male-driven action that seeing a woman in the central role of the hero is both liberating and inherently unpredictable. Male action heroes tend to fall into certain categories: The man of action forced to be violent or the coward forced to become a man of action.

Women simply bring more complexity to the table. Case in point, Charlize Theron in my favorite film of the year, Mad Max: Fury Road. Don't get me wrong, Tom Hardy is wonderful as the titular Max. But it's Theron's Furiosa, with her heartache, thousand yard stare and determined righteousness which that movie special.

A new study from USC's school of communication makes it starkly clear how far Hollywood has to go in terms of inclusion, not just with minorities but with women, who are woefully underrepresented despite making up slightly more of the population.

With the industry's bent towards action and thrillers, women must achieve equal representation or they risk being permanently marginalized. Here are a few films that provide a blueprint for female leads in action blockbusters:

Alien/Aliens - Is Sigourney Weaver the greatest female action star of all time? I think she has a legitimate case to make. In the first two Alien films, she delivers a master class in capable, fierce determination as Ripley, one of the coolest heroines in movie history. In the 1979 Ridley Scott original she is a bit of a cold fish at first, but rapidly emerges at the most rational person aboard a ship where she and her crewmates are being stalked by a vicious monster.

In the 1986 James Cameron-directed sequel she gets to do even more. She is tougher than any man on screen, and, more importantly, smarter. When the meat-headed, mostly male grunts around her give in to fear, she takes the lead.

Terminator 2 - James Cameron strikes again. Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor, who was more of a victim in the original, is transformed into a physically imposing force of nature in its big budget sequel. Although Hamilton's performance is a little over the top at times, it's wildly entertaining and she is relentless in this movie. She is not a damsel in distress for one second.

Kill Bill Vol. 1/Vol. 2 - Quentin Tarantino is getting dinged (and rightfully so in my mind) for the gender politics of his latest film, The Hateful Eight, but it's hard to quibble with the power of The Bride in the Kill Bill movies. Although the films are more about style over substance, Uma Thurman does arguably the best acting of her career in the physically demanding role of the The Bride, who is out for revenge and to reclaim her daughter. Her sincere and emotional performance elevates these films from feeling like high octane cartoons.

Death Proof - Another Tarantino entry, this one featuring all butt-kicking women taking on a deranged Kurt Russell as a psychotic stunt man. The movie owes a lot, plot and style-wise, to the Russ Meyer classic Faster Pussycat Kill Kill, but has all of Tarantino's hallmarks too (feet shots, cult movie references). It boasts one of the best car chase sequences of all time, but also the best girl gang action crew I've ever seen.

Zero Dark Thirty - Although Kathryn Bigelow's examination of the hunt for Osama bin Laden is not a traditional action film, it's still got plenty of edge-of-your-seat tension. At the center of the storm is the underrated Jessica Chastain in an incredible performance, which should have won the Academy Award. A propulsive, at times troubling film, that never diminishes the role women play, often behind the scenes, in our counter-terrorism efforts.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - I haven't watched Ang Lee's film for years, but when I look back on it, it's the gorgeous choreographed fight scenes featuring Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi that stick out most in my mind. I need to see the movie again, but there is no question that this film doesn't subscribe to traditional gender roles when it comes to action.

The Force Awakens - There have been some who have griped that Daisy Ridley's Rey was a little too perfect. Those people need to chill. Not only was the character a wonderfully and wholly original addition to the Star Wars universe, she single-handedly shook up the series concepts of what role women play in the narrative. What's more the film elevated Princess Leia, who had been saddled with the need to be rescued in previous films, to the rank of general. Pretty badass.

'People vs. O.J. Simpson' a great comeback showcase for its stars

Besides being terrific, addictive television, the new series American Crime Story: The People vs. O.J. Simpson gives a handful of actors, some of whom appeared to be long past their prime, an opportunity to shine and be rehabilitated.

Movie stars finding new life on television is nothing new. For instance, few people remember that Kiefer Sutherland was once one of Hollywood's hottest commodities, he is now forever imprinted in people's memories for his role on 24.

But great television roles have often jumpstarted film careers and in the case of others made some actors viable again.

I think the case could be made that after all is said and done, a lot of viewers of this show will look at the film careers of John Travolta, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Courtney B. Vance in a whole new way.

Travolta has been getting mixed reviews for his performance on the show, but I think he does great work as Robert Shapiro. He disappears into his role the least, but Travolta can't help but be distinct. He plays a tough role, Shapiro is both shrewd and pompous, quick-witted but also in over his head. Travolta modulates his character's mood swings well and after watching him in this I realized how much I miss seeing him in leading man roles.

I honestly can't remember the last Travolta performance I saw on the big screen. He had a terrific run in the late '70s and early '80s, then was redeemed by his comeback role in 1994's Pulp Fiction. But then, after a nice, likable turn in Get Shorty, there were a lot stumbles. In fact, the last good Travolta performance I can remember seeing was in 1998's Primary Colors. (I never saw his well-liked turn in 2007's Hairspray).

If he could just ditch the silly toupes I think he could continue to be a fascinating screen presence.

Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Courtney B. Vance in American Crime Story

Cuba Gooding Jr. has also been reborn on this show. After 1991's Boyz N the Hood, he was one of Hollywood's most promising young black actors. But after he won the Oscar for Jerry Maguire he made a serious of choices that ranged from bad to embarrassing.

He became synonymous for movies like Boat Trip and Snow Dogs. And although he had a very strong albeit small showing in American Gangster (as real life drug dealer Nicky Barnes), audiences had ceased to take him seriously -- until now.

Gooding Jr. has to do a lot of very intense physical acting as O.J. Simpson. Although he doesn't resemble him, Gooding gets his unhinged, self-absorbed nature. He is both proud and petulant, totally lacking in self-awareness. Most importantly, there is nothing funny about the role. It's a chilling performance that makes you take a second look at an actor who had begun to appear too silly in films.

As for Courtney B. Vance, his career was in no particular peril prior to this project, but he's someone who has gone critically under-utilized in mainstream movies. His performance may be American Crime Story's best. He takes a man who could have been a caricature -- Johnnie Cochran -- and really fleshes him out to make him complex, if not entirely sympathetic.

His delivery and presence are riveting and he deserves Emmy love for his work here. But the film industry has to take notice too. This is a man who deserves a meaty major movie role. Let's make that happen, please.

The ridiculously silly 'Zoolander 2' and the comedy sequel curse

"They're so hot right now"

Sequels in general are a dicey proposition. Comedy sequels are usually a disaster.

We go to see them because we're hoping to relive what we loved about the original and find ourself groaning at a pathetic retread with repeated punchlines that have lost their edge.

I'm not sure what we expect when going to see a comedy sequel. The success of a comedy in the first place has so much to do with timing and context, that it can't often be duplicated.

And I have literally never seen a comedy sequel funnier than its predecessor. Although they won't be going away anytime soon. In fact, I just saw a trailer for Neighbors 2, which looked pretty good.

The few that have worked for me -- Ghostbusters II, Anchorman 2 and Wayne's World 2 come to mind -- put some twists on previous routines and made great pains to tell a new story instead of retelling the first one. That said, all of those films have loud detractors and are widely viewed as letdowns.

Zoolander 2 isn't a letdown in my opinion. The original was a silly, unapologetically stupid spoof that no one really asked for. It was great fun. The fashion industry is vapid and detached from reality, and so deserving of ridicule, but original movie was never attempting to really say anything artistically.

The new Zoolander film has even less substance, if that's possible. But it revels in its ignorance in a way that I admired. I am sort of surprised its getting so savaged by critics. It's often hilarious and so self aware of its own idiocy that it doesn't collapse even when some of its gags do.

Kristen Wiig in Zoolander 2

Now, in all honesty, I viewed this film under the influence. So that might have colored my opinion, but I laughed a lot. Sure, it has way too many cameos. At times the look and style of this film reminded me of the bloated second and third Austin Powers films (again, flawed comedy sequels) where a lot of stuff is getting thrown at the screen in the hope that something sticks.

And the plot, if you can call it that, is tiresome and virtually meaningless. There are some gags that work quite well. Kristen Wiig gives a bizarre (heavily made up) performance as an almost incomprehensible designer. Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson still have great chemistry and timing. SNL's Kyle Mooney does a brilliant riff on a kind of snide hipster fashionista.

And I thought the always stunning Penelope Cruz has fun with a pretty thankless role.

Will Ferrell shows up towards the end as Mugatu and is delightfully over the top. On several occasions his character calls out how stupid what is taking place is, and I think Stiller (who also directed) is knowingly acknowledging how disposable this whole endeavor is.

Sometimes I resent that. When a movie tries to own its own ineptitude. And there is something sort of vain and indulgent about the Zoolander movies, especially when it comes to the gratuitous celebrity cameos. But I came, I saw and I laughed.

Did Zoolander 2 need to exist? Does any comedy sequel? But for a throwaway Friday night experience at the movie theater, I'll take it.

'Spectre' take two: The good, the bad and the future of 007

My James Bond obsession is well documented. I usually see every new Bond film twice in theaters, but when it came to Spectre I never got around to a second viewing.

The film was an enormous hit but it somewhat polarized critics and audiences.

Its harshest critics suggested it set the series back, that it squandered the promise of Skyfall (the series' greatest entry in my estimation) and may perhaps be the worst of Daniel Craig's four outings as Bond.

It was also widely perceived to be Craig's swan song as 007 after nearly a decade in the role.

Not only do I disagree with that summation -- I also hope that this isn't Craig's final Bond. The movie is definitely flawed, but not bad. It ranks about in the middle of the pack for me in the canon. And for reasons I'll get into later I think it would be a disappointing finale for Craig.

The film almost never stood a chance coming on the heels of Skyfall. That film was such an enormous critical and commercial success, that any follow-up would suffer by comparison. Also if you are a student of the Bond films as I am, there is a pretty consistent ebb and flow in terms of quality. In my estimation, Craig has only made one "bad" Bond film, Quantum of Solace, and he's quite good in that film, it's the script that lets him down.

There are problems with Spectre's script -- lots of them -- but it doesn't feel as tonally wrong as Quantum of Solace. But it makes some of the same mistakes. It tries too hard to be a direct sequel to the film that proceeded it, which is all wrong for a Bond film.

So let me break it down. The film's opening sequence is one of the greatest in the history of the series, and it stands up as the equal of anything in Skyfall. Its opening one-shot take of the Day of the Dead in Mexico City which leads to a breathtaking fight inside a pirouetting helicopter is something to behold. But the film never tops this moment, which isn't ideal. The most memorable part of a Bond film should never be it's opening.

That said, the first half of this film is pretty terrific. Craig is in fine form as Bond, getting to play a little bit more humor than before. A great, physically imposing bad guy with minimal dialogue (played by David Bautista) is introduced and although the trailers really spoiled the introduction of his character, Christoph Waltz comes off as truly creepy and menacing (at first).

The film starts to get derailed when it begins to try to tie in threads from the previous four films. The strength of Bond films, and their ability to work through transitions from actor to actor, was that the were self-sustained adventures, not an attempt to tell a narrative over several films.

I understand that with the Craig 007s there was a desire to delve deeper into the character's psyche, but what I fear they've done is make it very hard for someone else to fill his shoes, since this Bond seems very specific to the world of these four films. Ironically, it was Craig's strongest entry -- Skyfall -- which felt the most like a one-off entry, but Spectre references it too much, to its own detriment. Even the score resumes some of the same notes.

The film's biggest flaws are its leading lady -- as terrific an actress as I believe Lea Seydoux is I never brought that her character fell in love with Bond or even had much motivation to tag along with him. The other massive disappointment winds up being Waltz. Once he finally enters the story in the third act, his revelations aren't shocking and his performance brings nothing new to the series.

Javier Bardem was a villain unlike any we'd seen before. Waltz could be any generic bad guy from Bond films past, which is odd considering the fact that he is a terrific Oscar-winning actor. There are rumors that he will return for the next film, which is fine, as long as they give him more to do.

I also think, if the series is going to sustain itself, it needs to stop trying to tell a cohesive story over several films. I get the impulse, with Star Wars, the Marvel Universe and DC Comics all building their own cinematic universes. But James Bond is a strictly one-off guy. That's part of the fun. Sure, it's a little inconsequential, but it's also the pinnacle of escapism.

Spike Lee's latest doc captures the magic of Michael Jackson

I have definitely had my quibbles (to say the least) with director Spike Lee's latest output as a filmmaker. His narrative movies have become unfocused and messy, with their good ideas drowned out by the director's excesses and indulgences.

That said, his work as a documentarian has been peerless. He has yet to make a bad nonfiction film in my opinion. Perhaps the genre's requirement that he step back and tell someone else's story both liberates him and unburdens the audience.

While Lee's perspectives and style are not erased from his documentaries, they never intrude on the subject matter. That's why his When the Levees Broke, in my mind, stands as the best cinematic document to date on the Hurricane Katrina tragedy.

And his two recent films about the musical legacy of Michael Jackson, Bad 25 and now Michael Jackson's Journey from Motown to Off the Wall, are the definitive tributes to the late King of Pop.

I should probably preface this all by saying that Michael Jackson is quite possibly my favorite musical artist of all time. I find him endlessly fascinating and tragically misunderstood. And since the better part of his last two decades on this earth saw him subjected to merciless parody and ridicule, the true genius of his creativity has often taken a backseat.

What is so exhilarating about Lee's films on Jackson is that they are the energetic work of an obsessive fan. Lee pulls out remarkable archival footage of Jackson (interviews, rehearsals, concert performances, diary entries, more candid personal reflections) and lets his talent speak for itself. You see him singing like an angel, dancing like a dervish and pushing himself on a lifelong quest for perfection.

And even if you are not an unabashed Jackson fan, there is no denying the influence and impact he had on American popular music.

Michael before things went south

Bad 25 presented Jackson at the peak of his success, trying valiantly to reassert his dominance, but Off the Wall might be even better, since it portrays perhaps the most powerful moment in his career -- when he successfully made the transition from child stardom to adult fame.

Even if Jackson never fully developed in his personal life, he recognized that if he were to ever have longevity as a singer he needed to tap into his deep seeded sensuality and brooding. The result, Off the Wall, is easily the best R&B album of the disco era, and possibly Jackson's most personal LP as an adult solo artist.

Lee expertly charts Jackson's desire to break free from his brothers and establish his own superstar persona. He did that, brilliantly, by being an incredible human sponge. He absorbed the dance crazy, drug-addled scene of Studio 54, the songwriting and sound booth skills of Stevie Wonder, the film-making prowess of Sidney Lumet (on the set of 1978's The Wiz) and managed to synthesize it all into the most accessible crossover music ever made.

Jackson's hard work, dedication and perfectionism are the most compelling qualities examined in this film, how the life he observed around him helped color his music and vocal performances. Often people have wondered what he was channeling -- this film gives you some insight into what made him tick.

It is not, however, an attempt explore his demons, which are what the film's detractors will lament. My counterpoint to that will be that that side of Jackson's persona has been poured over endlessly. If you want an examination of his eccentricities you needn't go very far.

But if you are interested in how he crafted songs, what kind of stature in the industry he was trying to achieve and what musical influences played the biggest role in his life, this is the movie for you. It's currently airing on Showtime, and for MJ fans it's a real treasure.

'Hail, Caesar' is one big frothy inside joke and I liked it

George Clooney in Hail, Caesar

The Coen brothers like to alternate between their darker, more brooding fare and the occasional goofball throwaway. Their latest, Hail, Caesar, falls into that latter category.

I have always been a big fan of their silly movies. Although a couple have fallen flat for me, I think their broad comedies always get better with time.

For instance The Big Lebowski was dismissed by most critics and bombed when it first came out. And today, it remains one of their most beloved movies.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Hail, Caesar will earn more fans over time. It's languid rhythms are more of an acquired taste, and it's meandering plot is not the most accessible. Essentially it's a low key comedy mood piece, spoofing an era which will only be familiar to film buffs.

The movie recreates the waning days of the old studio system, when stars' pregnancies, affairs and addictions were covered up by fixers who worked in cahoots with the press and police. Josh Brolin plays the deadpan hero, but without the kind of signature quirks of typical Coen protagonists.

He's overshadowed by George Clooney, playing a buffoonish movie star, Channing Tatum, who has a showstopping dance number that will delight even the film's detractors and newcomer Alden Ehrenreich who gives a breakthrough performance as a dimwitted star of big screen westerns. The plot, involved a Communist kidnapping plot.

Ralph Fiennes has a small but sensational bit as a pompous director -- this guy can really do comedy. But Jonah Hill and Scarlett Johansson are pretty wasted in a subplot that doesn't really go anywhere.

But the Coens are too smart to make just a straight comedy mystery. They are clearly making sly commentary on the way the film industry still functions and the absurdity of extreme radicalism. It's not particularly heavy handed and there's not a ton of depth, but it's always watchable and frequently quite hilarious.

It's also a visual delight. When the Coens do a period picture they don't spare any expense, and from the costumes to the shot selection, this is a film that is firmly self aware. Still, I am not sure where it ranks within the Coen canon, and I would be shocked if it finds a big audience, because it's a little too self consciously clever and it is more witty than laugh out loud funny.

The audience I saw it with seemed primed for a riotous good time -- and it's not that type of movie. It's more a series of vignettes, and some are better than others, but they do work as a whole in yet another pastiche of Coen craziness.

Revisiting 'Cowboys & Aliens': A real mess of a movie

I had only seen the ill-fated Cowboys & Aliens once, when it first came out in theaters. And I'd always defended it.

I never tried to make the case that it was a classic or anything but I didn't think it deserved the harsh reviews and disappointing box office it received.

But now, after a second viewing, I can safely say it was kind of a disaster and almost a textbook case in how not to make a modern blockbuster.

I guess my mind was clouded to a certain degree when I first saw the film. I am such an enormous Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford fan, they're two of my favorite movie stars and actors working today, that I was predisposed to like anything starring them.

Also, I appreciated that the film was the very least an original concept that would be -- in theory -- blending genres in an unconventional way.

Now I never read the graphic novel on which Cowboys & Aliens is based, so I can't tell if the film was mimicking the tone of that book or venturing out on its own. What I do know is the director Jon Favreau (whose work I by-and-large like) and the scriptwriters spoiled what could have been a fun movie.

Cowboys & Aliens is the most frustrating kind of failure, because I think it could have been good. It has elements that are terrific -- the first 15 minutes or so are pretty engaging and both Craig and Ford make very credible western heroes. But as it gets going it gets increasingly muddled, humorless and mind-numbing.

The thing that galls me the most is that for some reason Favreau, who showed he could make fun popcorn entertainment previously with Iron Man, decided to make a movie with such an inherently silly title but with a premise so dour and serious.

The look of the film is grim and grimy, when it should pop. The aliens, while somewhat creepy are also pretty non-descript CGI nonsense. They have no discernible personality or style, even their ships look boring, and so when they are finally revealed they're kind of a letdown.

Harrison Ford and Daniel Craid doing badass right

As stunning at she is, I still don't quite know what Olivia Wilde was doing in this movie. Her subplot seems particularly absurd and grafted on. And while at first Craig has fun as a taciturn loner his performance is hamstrung by pesky, overly edited flashback sequences which burden the movie. Only, Harrison Ford makes the most of his role; he's particularly funny during a campfire scene where his grumpy rancher character tries to discern much of the plot.

The movie needed more scenes like these. It should have been campier or at least more knowingly silly like Zombieland, which mixed the road movie comedy genre with a horror film but never lost its sense of irony. Favreau seems to want to be staging Unforgiven with periodic alien attacks, and that's not something I think many filmmakers could pull off.

I am ok with chaotic action movies, but I shouldn't find myself not even understanding what's happening in any given scene. Cowboys & Aliens is chock full of these kinds of continuity questions and scenes were explosions punctuate dialogue instead of character development.

Curiously, this film, and the fourth Indiana Jones before it, both stumbled out of the gate trying to make a credible alien movie. I think it's one of the hardest genres because the look of the creatures has to be superb (because it has to compare with unique designs from the past like E.T. and H.R. Giger's Alien) but also the story has to be strong enough to sustain our disbelief.

I will give this film credit for presenting a sensitive portrayal of American Indians, which at least helps sidestep the problematic title of the film which is of course playing off the notion of cowboys and Indians. And there are some nice, nifty moments in the movie -- I particularly liked Paul Dano as Ford's sniveling punk of a son. But the film's clunky, convoluted plot and uninspired visuals will likely leave the film on the scrapheap of forgettable, albeit noble, failures.

A look back on my weekend with 'Die Hard'

For no particular reason, this Sunday, my fiancee and I decided to watch the original three Die Hard films -- and the only legit ones in my humble opinion.

We watched them in reverse as a nod to a friend who joined us for one, and who insisted on starting with 1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance.

All three were big hits in their day -- although ironically the most financially successful of the three, Die Hard 2, enjoys something akin to red-headed stepchild status within the trilogy.

It's not hated, it's definitely a good action movie, but it doesn't have the same fandom the other two do, but more on that later.

Is this the greatest trio of action films ever? I won't go that far. But they are all strong, grounded entries that provide Bruce Willis with a great opportunity to do credible action while constantly making wisecracks.

In the CGI-dominated era in which he live, the practical achievement of these films is remarkable. And while each of the films take narrative leaps into the absurd (the subway travel estimates alone in Die Hard with a Vengeance are laughable), they have so much propulsive momentum that I didn't really mind.

Bruce Willis as John McClane

Here are some of my impressions of these memorable movies -- all of which have the terrific conceit of taking place within a 24-hour time frame. some twenty years removed from the last one:

Die Hard with a Vengeance - Several things struck me about this film. Its reputation has only grown since its initial release, with some fans suggesting it rivals the original in terms of quality. I wouldn't go that far but it definitely does a lot with an inventive plot. The preoccupation with race and the occasionally homophobic bits of dialogue date it a bit -- but otherwise this is an exciting, top notch action movie.

It has some pretty enormous gaps in logic. How for instance, does the villain (played terrifically by Jeremy Irons) manage to plant bombs in all these remote locations while planning to rob the Federal Reserve? But what this film does very well is recapture the spirit of the original film. Willis' John McClane is once again stuck in a situation he wants no part of -- roused from a hangover, he's the pawn of an apparent psychopath which sends him on a wild goose chase in order to prevent terrorist bombings.

It benefits largely from its New York flavor, little details that residents of the Big Apple would appreciate. And like all the best Die Hard films it's funny in a disarming sort of way. Also, most importantly, although it's plot is larger than life, the action mostly isn't.

Die Hard 2 - This one gets a bad wrap. It's set in a D.C, airport, which gives it less aesthetic flavor than the Los Angeles or New York-set films. Instead of the McClane character getting sucked into a situation against his will, he pretty much inserts himself into the action here -- which isn't terrible but does change the stakes a bit.

This time some shadowy military general from abroad is being set free by some other shadowy bad guys. And instead of a charismatic type, like Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber, they are led by a pretty straightforward creepy bad guy, played this time by William Sadler. Still, their plot to take over the air traffic control and crash plans unless their demands are met is suitably scary -- and once things get going there are some terrific set pieces where McClane takes matters into his own hands when officials at the airport try to marginalize him.

The cutaways to McClaine's wife on board one of the airlines in jeopardy are pretty cheesy though and the attempts to make meta 'here we go again' type commentary are more eyeroll inducing than anything else. Still, I am a Die Hard 2 defender. The climax and finale work for me, it has a certain ruthlessness which I appreciate in an action movie -- I love when a character's demise is shocking enough to illicit an audible "oooooohhh." But I also understand why this one isn't a fan favorite.

The premise just isn't as irresistible and the setting pales in comparison to the iconic, albeit fictional Nakatomi building of the first film.

Hans Gruber

Die Hard - Which brings me to the first film. I recently sang its praises while paying tribute to Alan Rickman and I want to double down on that. These films are almost always as good as their villains and Hans Gruber is one of the all time best. First, his plan is pretty flawless, the one thing he didn't prepare for was McClane, which all things considered, is a fair thing for him not to have anticipated.

Second, he doesn't screw around. He kills Nakatomi instead of toying with him. He largely contains the McClane situation, until his underlings screw that up. He is a formidable foe for McClane, if not physically than at least intellectually.

Similarly, the McClane character (despite some somewhat sexist attitudes towards his wife) is an expertly drawn, sympathetic character. His wisecracks seem less like schtick and more of a defense mechanism in this film and Willis is effective when he is allowed to show his character's genuine fear and vulnerability.

Hilariously, the filmmakers were contractually obligated to first offer Willis' role to Frank Sinatra since he had once played a character from the novel on which the movie is based. Sinatra would have been 73 at the time and he was nowhere near Harrison Ford shape.

Still, in retrospect, it's remarkable that Willis got the part. He had one minor hit under his belt, the B-movie Blind Date, and was mostly known as a charming TV star. In a way, he was the Chris Pratt of his day, a cuddly television actor remolded into a movie star overnight thanks to a sensational role. What the last two Die Hard films got wrong is they missed the point of what made the original so spectacular -- its simplicity.

Die Hard is great because it presents a semi-plausible but heightened situation -- a hostage crisis where one lone cop has slipped past the perpetrators. Too many action films add layers of complexity and extraneous plot, thinking that will make the final result more effective, but often times the best action movie strip the fat and stick to a direct, compelling narrative -- Mad Max Fury Road is a terrific example of that phenomenon.

I had a great time revisiting these films. I don't think we'll ever see action movies like this again, so they are worth treasuring for time capsule value, as well as pure entertainment.