jollyjumpup

Pale Rider is a good movie, with plenty of well-directed action scenes and Clinr Eastwood's typical uber-cool persona. But whether you call it a "bold-faced rip-off" or a "Hollywood homage" there is no denying that Pale Rider is a carbon copy of Shane, with superficial changes to cloak its lineage.

Both stories involve a somewhat reformed gunslinger turning up like a gift from God to rescue hardworking folk from greedy evil capitalists. Shane, trying to out-ride his past, resists intervening in the plight of truly innocent homesteaders until he realizes it's the only honorable thing to do.

The Pale Rider "Preacher" jumps right into a fight at his very first appearance. Not quite the conflicted character Shane was.

Shane stole the heart of a married woman, who recognized the tragedy of his chosen path in life, which denied him the normal rewards and purpose of a family. He also won the hero worshipping adoration of her little son. Like the 14-year-old daughter in Pale Rider, the boy declares both love and hate for his hero.

While the core storyline is identical, the most glaring "borrowed" scene is when the drunken miner makes an ill-fated visit to the town. It's a trumped up version of Shane's most memorable moment, a lot more bombastic while being less impactful.

What separates the two movies is their tone. Shane, arguably the most authentic Western ever made, relies on low key realism. Very few gunshots are fired but when they are they are shocking.

Pale Rider has more of a graphic novel sensibility, including a few light-hearted sound effects and visuals thrown into the first fight scene to add some comic pizzazz, as well as modern slang dialog.

The characters in the films are also vastly different. Shane's homesteaders are simply trying to build homes for their families. The miners in the newer film are out for gold, despite their assertion that it's not about money. They do turn down generous offers for their claims (worth about 40-50 grand in today's money) which makes them seem more like dopes than victims.

There's probably no point in fans of Pale Rider who hadn't seen Shane first watching it now. They'd likely be bored by the comparative lack of action. But for those lucky enough to have seen it first, there's no doubt which film is superior.

I was really eager to see this, being a huge fan of the writer-director and anticipating an apocalyptic thriller worthy of the bold title. While the direction was crisp, the story was a major disappointment, a blown opportunity to explore the explosive political and social divisions in today's America that could possibly lead to a civil war.

It seems strange that the.writer who gave us Ex Machina and other unique and interesting films would deliver a lame political thriller with so little political substance. I can only guess that either he caved to the fascination some British filmmakers seem to have for military action or he was the victim of studio executives who washed out any controversial substance in the script development process.

The script displays a complete disinterest in creating a plausible scenario based on the real forces at work in the world today. There's a lame nod to white supremacists (which fits the standard Hollywood political agenda), but the main body of rebels is vague. And the pairing of Texas and California is a puzzling choice, since the two states couldn't be more different politically.

Ultimately what we have is a lumbering road pic with bits of intense action scattered throughout and a simplistic character drama that outshines the promised theme. Basically it's a less interesting, less tense, fictional version of "A Private War."

That said, if you're in the mood for a shoot 'em up action thriller without much suspense or provocative elements, this will probably do.

"Brooklyn 45" is not exactly a horror film although there are some scary moments. It's best described as a filmed supernatural stage play. It's also a promising step forward for writer-director Ted Geoghegan, who previously delivered the tepid horror film "We Are Still Here" and the dreadful "Mohawk."

There are only two sets in this movie, the exterior of a Brooklyn street at Christmastime, and the interior of an apartment off the street. Excellent set design and dressing spare us from claustrophobia. An intriguing storyline and good special efx keep us watching.

The cast is excellent all around. Their acting is believable enough to sell the wild supernatural events. The period costumes and hair styles are well done.

The only quibble I have is with the high key lighting. The imagery is crisp and the camera work on point, but the flat, ultra bright lighting robs the film of much needed atmosphere, particularly in the seance scene. Whether the director wanted to showcase the period set dressing or was afraid a dark setting might be too claustrophobic, it's a weird directorial choice.

Considering the other paranormal events going on in the room, it would have made perfect sense for the lights to go off and on for variable periods, which would have added much needed spookiness to the proceedings.