Blue Chips.

Review #2365: Blue Chips.

Cast: 

Nick Nolte (Coach Pete Bell), Mary McDonnell (Jenny Bell), J. T. Walsh ("Happy" Kuykendahl), Ed O'Neill (Ed Axelby), Alfre Woodard (Lavada McRae), Bob Cousy (Vic Roker), Larry Bird (himself), Matt Nover (Ricky Roe), Shaquille O'Neal (Neon Boudeaux), Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway (Butch McRae), Anthony C. Hall (Tony), Marques Johnson (Mel), Robert Wuhl (Marty), Cylk Cozart ("Slick"), with Jim Beaver (Ricky's Dad), and Louis Gossett Jr. (Father Dawkins) Directed by William Friedkin (#037 - The Exorcist, #1438 - The French Connection, #1477 - To Live and Die in L.A., #2085 - Sorcerer)

Review: 

 “It wasn’t going to be the way coaches have been played in the past—you know, usually as the wise father figure. This guy was a deeply troubled man. That’s how I looked at Bobby, and that’s how I looked at this character. He had this overwhelming desire to win at any cost.”

There is a certain curiosity that comes to this film, really. This was the second of three movies that William Friedkin would direct in the 1990s, which you might remember included such works as The Guardian (1990) and Jade (1995). Oh, but this was a movie produced and written by none other than Ron Shelton, who you might remember was behind the scripts/directing of films such as Bull Durham [1988]* and White Man Can't Jump [1992] (fun fact: one scene in the original script of Blue Chips proved an inspiration for Jump). Apparently, the project had been in development hell since 1981, although it should be mentioned that Tates Locke claimed that the movie actually took inspiration from his 1982 book Caught in the Net (as co-written with Bob Ibach) that had detailed the offenses of Locke as a head coach at Clemson in the late 1970s (ironically, Bob Knight actually was set to write the introduction to the book but rejected it because he took the book as saying "that everybody cheats", which he disagreed with)**. Shelton couldn't direct the movie due to his involvement with Cobb (1994), but Friedkin's love for basketball got him interested in the project (he even got to direct his basketball idol in Bob Cousy). The movie was not a big success with audiences at the time (he was once quoted as saying that he couldn't overcome the difficulty of capturing "the excitement of a real game, with its own unpredictable dramatic structure and suspense"), but time has probably rewarded those who consider that college sports has only recently moved into the "NIL era" in which, well, now college athletes can control and profit from their name, image, and likeness. Timely or not, consider that one of the coaches appearing in the national championship game this year involved a coach in Kelvin Sampson who once endured a show-cause order that meant he couldn't coach in college for five years for a select group of violations committed under his watch.

The game of college basketball has never been particularly squeaky clean, anyway. Amateur athletes in the NCAA had interesting definitions when you consider the guy (Walter Byers) who created the term "student-athlete" also once called a team as doing “ghetto run-and-shoot basketball” (Jerry Tarkanian, coach of said team and justifiably hated Byers, happens to appear in this film)***. Scandals evolved from point shaving to slush funds. Blue Chips (1994) could not foresee the absurdity that arose with scandals involving universities and athletes, in which one school was accused of procuring a madam for athletes (which led to Rick Pitino being fired) and a murder that led to an actual scandal. So here we are with a movie about a man that rips himself apart in a decidedly non-heroic movie. But the movie is honest about where certain people in higher places are in terms of values: in the toilet. Cynicism runs free because the pursuit of the almighty victory (and dollar) has never been more blatant and, well, celebrated. Nolte actually shadowed Bobby Knight and went to practices and games. He pulls off a tremendous performance, riding the line of perceived morals with commitment that isn't just an impersonation or bluster for the sake of it. It happens to be a part with amusement in cynicism, as evidenced by how he says he happens to be a religious type that changes from recruitment to recruitment. By the time he gets to the last game, the juxtaposition of him versus Knight might as well be looking at a mirror (incidentally, Knight is only caught in barely audible dialogue, he apparently was mic'd up but said too many profanities). Walsh is the other highlight, managing to evoke great adversarial power that handles people as if they were commodities (with the exception of the climax, of course). The rest are fine, whether that is an ordinary but committed McDonnell, the delightfully cynical (if not underused) O'Neill or adequate work from actual athletes trying to do both basketball and acting - O'Neal is not in it that much, but he is quite engaging while Cousy plays the "wool over the eyes" just fine. The movie can't exactly capture all the fun and tension from seeing an actual basketball game, but it does leave one with a rush with what they see (particularly for those who recognize cameos such as Dick Vitale). The 108 minute runtime manages to make an effort in seeing the extent one could actually lose (or lie to) themselves in trying to win at all costs. As a whole, it is a committed Friedkin movie in charm and execution that is at least honest enough to prove a watch for the energy drawn out by Nolte in a morality tale that still has a resourceful bite to it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Happy Monday and Go Cougars. If you want to hear more about college basketball movies, try Glory Road (2006).

*See, by having these little notes in the bottom, I save space in the actual review by not referring to Bull Durham as overrated. 

**By that point in time, Bobby Knight had already done such lovely things as hitting a head coach in the back of the head (Joe B. Hall) and choked and punched a sports information director. Never let anyone tell you about the glories of Bobby Knight without saying how much of a miserable human being he was.

***Tarkanian sued the NCAA a few times, fun fact. 

Sweetie (1989).

Review #2364: Sweetie (1989).

Cast: 

Geneviève Lemon (Dawn / "Sweetie"), Karen Colston (Kay), Tom Lycos (Louis), Jon Darling (Gordon), Dorothy Barry (Flo), Michael Lake (Bob), Andre Pataczek (Clayton), Jean Hadgraft (Mrs. Schneller), and Paul Livingston (Teddy Schneller) Directed by Jane Campion.

Review: 

I suppose I could cover a few more New Zealanders in their vision of filmmaking, so why not Jane Campion? She was born to parents that actually had founded a theater group. She actually studied anthropology in university, but it was her studies with visual arts that helped shape an interest in filmmaking, specifically because she apparently came to a dissatisfaction with the limitations of filmmaking. She directed her first short with Tissues in 1980 and began studying at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and made more short films. Peel (1986) won the Short Film Palme d'Or. The attention that Campion received for her short films got her to develop a feature, one that would be to "do something modern and something that pursued the interests of my own film generation". Choosing to do this over something she came up called "The Piano Lesson", the eventual movie was written by her and Gerald Lee that had its script developed in spurts over three months in 1987. The movie made a bit of money in its native Australia, and Campion obviously was encouraged to make further feature films, with An Angel at My Table (1990) being among the first of her seven subsequent features in her career.

Calling the movie as one that is revolves around family dysfunction is probably a bit too simple to go with, although the name of the movie sure has one thinking of it in their lives. Of course, the thing with these sisters is that one can gleam that really, they could be thought of as two sides of the "nut" coin. But nothing is what it seems on the surface for its 97-minute runtime that can range from curious to meandering, as if there isn't really one total take to peg the movie, although each of its sisters certainly show their own way of being starved of affection and all-around intimacy (there are those who interpret the movie as having dysfunction that really revolves around sexual abuse, but I mostly saw it as a family of people that simply refuse to accept true reality). Lemon and Colston make for a compelling double act when you look at what lurks at these people beyond the physical viewing, mainly because the movie is more about the unsaid than anything, which can lead to a bit of dark amusement (or haunted expression, but it's a give-and-go). Lemon (who had considerable experience in the theater and Australian TV in what was her second film role) plays this creature of wayward pleas and quixotic aims that we can see even in the smallest way in people we might know* to worthwhile conviction that is just as tragic as it is pathetic to see her towering presence. Heck, you see her first with a boyfriend and you barely even notice when he basically disappears from the picture, that's how much she takes the movie and rolls along in chaos that is very raw and yet is one you can see is the cog that gets things moving in the cycle of enabling and rejection. Colston has the tough task of playing a role that is filled with superstitions and hang-ups that come with a relationship that we only see in bits and parts (specifically one goes from the set-up to "months later"). She does fine enough with playing the uptight nature that comes with another side of chasing something that is hard to define in affection (Lycos merely is the normal one, at least for a guy who has a hang-up about a misplaced tree), suffice to say. Darling and Barry sell the key pieces that come with fractured people and misplaced visions that don't lend to easy resolutions. The stories crash in and out in a way that comes and goes for observations that you just have to look for yourselves when it comes to how people really are beyond words and images, which might hurt just as much as it makes for dark amusement. Ultimately, the movie is whatever you want to believe it is about: family drama, black comedy, or voyage into the strangeness that comes with people and isolation. It makes for a curious experiment for a feature debut that might just work for you, whether you know what lurks beneath the surface.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I had a half-brother who was an annoying drunk and a less tolerable person when "sober". He was a miserable person that at a point in time that could even make a crack about how someone walked in their own house. Things can get better, although it didn't occur like this film where they fell from a tree and died, no, it was slightly funnier.

The Bigamist (1953).

Review #2363: The Bigamist.

Cast: 

Joan Fontaine (Eve Graham), Ida Lupino (Phyllis Martin), Edmund Gwenn (Mr. Jordan), Edmond O'Brien (Harry Graham / Harrison Graham), Kenneth Tobey (Tom Morgan, Defense Attorney), Jane Darwell (Mrs. Connelley), Peggy Maley (Phone Operator), and Lilian Fontaine (Miss Higgins, Landlady) Directed by Ida Lupino (#799 - The Hitch-Hiker, #1651 - Never Fear, #1811 - Not Wanted, #1991 - Outrage, #2189 - Hard, Fast and Beautiful)

Review: 

At last, here is a movie where a woman was directing herself for a major feature film, as this was apparently the first of its kind in the sound era. It just happened to be the sixth feature film by Ida Lupino and her near swansong. The Filmmakers, the company behind these films in collaboration with her then-husband Collier Young, wasn't merely just a vanity project, they released such movies as Charles Lederer's On the Loose (1951), Harry Horner's Beware My Lovely (1952). There were just two more movies released by the company after The Bigamist: Don Siegel's Private Hell 36 (released in 1954 and co-written by Lupino and Young) and Harry Essex's Mad at the World (1955). After co-writing two of her previous five movies as a director, this was one with a different type of writing: Lawrence B. Marcus and Lou Schor wrote the story while Young wrote the screenplay by himself. It should be mentioned that by this time, Young was married to Joan Fontaine, as if one was essentially writing about himself when talking about loving different women (actually it went both ways, Lupino married Howard Duff pretty quickly after she and Young were divorced). The company had to distribute the movie itself when RKO Pictures pulled out, and the company effectively went by the wayside in trying to get into self-distribution. Lupino continued to direct in television for several years afterwards while directing one more film: The Trouble With Angels (1965)*.

Incidentally, bigamy is a considerable crime that could range from infraction (Utah) to a felony. Perhaps coincidentally, this movie was released in the same year that the "largest mass arrest of polygamist in American history" was done, in which Short Creek, Arizona had hundreds of Mormon fundamentalists arrested while children were removed from their families (some children never returned to their families). If it was made in a slightly different timespan, who knows what kind of exploitation would've been made about the sordid things that happen with living a double life. At any rate, it probably isn't too surprising to see the movie is a noir of its own, complete with a lengthy flashback that eventually will see a perhaps inevitable clash of the traps that come with the times one lives in within an 80-minute runtime. With a title like that, one might see the angle for someone to turn it into exploitation fare or something to perhaps preach to the pulpit, but what we really have is a movie with three solid leads that are presented with clear-cut honesty about the foibles that come with a person that simply does not want to decide between two women where he knows someone is going to get hurt. It is the kind of wishy-washy nature that could only happen with a man that has the particular status to be wrapped up in such a venture (some people have mistresses, others, well, have women). It helps to have a quartet like this, packed with two Academy Award winning actors with Fontaine and Gwenn and a future winner with O'Brien. You can see where O'Brien shines in the dilemma that comes with a man that cannot be hated but is instead found to be in a weird sort of road where one would wish him luck with a performance that rides the line of loneliness with commitment. His bout with lies and truth (the ones he tells to others but also to himself) tangle with ambiguity because you really don't know where he will find himself at the end of the prison road (beyond the money part). Fontaine may be his first love, but Lupino gave him something distinct as the other side of a coin wrapped with bare truths for a man who could not stand to be alone or "not doing the right thing". Lupino and Fontaine each play it straight to the point of what might as well be two sides of the same woman: distant on one side that one might forget really does love them and a side that is distinctly unsentimental but vulnerable. Gwenn handles his part with dry observation (as one does when mostly being inquisitive here). The movie isn't exactly as curious in its execution as say, The Hitch-Hiker, but at least it has enough of an ending in ambiguity to at least stick the landing. In short: one isn't seeing bigamy be endorsed on screen but instead one sees the idea that some marriages are suspectable to not being the "norm" than others, particularly when the gossip is around the corner. It ranks firmly in the middle of Lupino's other works but makes for a fair swansong to the run of Lupino movies for an era that didn't necessarily have many people like her making movies with something interesting to show on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, this sounded too tabloid, but I kid you not: Lupino also starred on a TV show with her husband Duff with Mr. Adams and Eve...as executive produced by Young.

Anybody's Woman.

Review #2362: Anybody's Woman.

Cast: 

Ruth Chatterton (Pansy Gray), Clive Brook (Neil Dunlap), Paul Lukas (Gustave Saxon), Huntley Gordon (Grant Crosby), Virginia Hammond (Katherine Malcolm), Tom Patricola (Eddie Calcio), Juliette Compton (Ellen), and Cecil Cunningham (Dot) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party, #2187 - Christopher Strong)

Review: 

Well, there are quite a few movies about drunken marriages, so it isn't too surprising to see it here with Dorothy Arzner's 7th credited feature film as a director. The movie is based on the short story "The Better Wife" that had been written by Gouverneur Morris (evidently, the movie was going to be released under that title but went with the other title instead); Zoe Akins and Doris Anderson wrote the screenplay adaptation. Admittedly, Chatterton probably has slipped under the radar as an actress. But hey, she had a busy life beyond the acting life, which apparently began when her friends challenged her to become a stage actress when she criticized the acting when seeing a play in Washington. After a decade-and-a-half of stage work (including Broadway), she scored a contract with Paramount in 1928. Her work in Madame X (1929) and Sarah and Son (1930, as directed by Arzner) got her Academy Award nominations. She stopped acting in films by 1938 at the age of 45, although she would appear from time to time in stage and later in television. She even wrote a handful of novels in the 1950s and did I mention the part where she was an aviator that flew solo across the States a few times? While this movie isn't particularly noted among audiences of the time, one can at least be satisfied with its restoration in recent times by the UCLA Film & Television Archive. This was the third film Arzner had released in 1930, having been involved (alongside ten other directors) in the all-star revue Paramount on Parade (1930), which was released in April of 1930 (the aforementioned Sarah film had come out first in March), with this movie coming out in August; Colbert (who also had been featured in the Parade film) returned to star in the next Arzner movie alongside Fredric March with Honor Among Lovers (1931).

To say that the film is fine is not a particularly hard thing to say. Its 80-minute runtime is pretty routine when it comes to, well a 95-year-old movie that comes and goes in the scenario and executing it. Some of that is more successful than other times, particularly since this is the kind of movie where it wraps up in a "tidy bow" in the last few minutes that you either will accept or just sigh down the road as you wonder what sounds best to watch next.* For Arzner, it is about as competent and involving as one already has seen in her earlier films in trying to depict the general challenge that comes with being a woman where everybody has some sort of opinion of "who they are to somebody". Sure, the outsider view is taken with the eventual realization that one does in fact need someone, particularly someone who at least looks like they understand who they are on the outside beyond just being a clinging post in the dark of night. In that sense, Chatterton does relatively fine in maneuvering the waters of perception and actual action that is snappy enough to elicit enough charm to at least give the movie the fighting chance it needs. Sure, Brook is not given too much to really do besides being the soused up one of the "odd couple", but he plays it with dogged interest to at least seem like he isn't totally on autopilot. Lukas was the dependable supporting presence that you could find for a variety of movies (big or small) in his time, so he plays the "man with foreign-sounding name" with serviceable commitment to at least make a capable triangle seem plausible. As a whole, the movie presents a capable woman trying to make the best of things of a life that has to adjust the upheaval in routines that is more than just being an anybody but instead being a somebody, one who can live within places rather than apart from it all. It might not be a great "Pre-Code" movie, but it might just prove worthwhile enough for those interested in a decent time with Arzner at the helm.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Sorry for the delay. On occasion, I find inspiration for a review is split over the course of several days because I somehow get distracted in the most absurd of ways, which either involves rest or searching up old sports stuff. I recently managed to score a free trial of a newspaper archive and on a lark looked up box-scores of the 1968 ABA Playoffs for fun. You would be surprised what gets covered and doesn't find its way into telling a sports story.

Blue Steel (1990).

Review #2361: Blue Steel.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Officer Megan Turner), Ron Silver (Eugene Hunt), Clancy Brown (Detective Nick Mann), Elizabeth Peña (Tracy Perez), Louise Fletcher (Shirley Turner), Philip Bosco (Frank Turner), Richard Jenkins (Dawson), Kevin Dunn (Assistant Chief Stanley Hoyt), and Tom Sizemore (Robber) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark)

Review: 

"What was interesting to me was kind of a heretical, irreverent look at a particular moment in time. You have this woman who's a police officer. And believe it or not, that was very difficult to get made because the police officer was a woman. I was asked to make her a man, and then we could get financing. I said no, the whole point of making this was that she was a woman. It seems so strange today to think of that as being an obstacle, but it was a big obstacle."

The road for what became Bigelow's third feature film is a tricky one. According to Bigelow, Universal Pictures had tried to develop a movie that would be about gangs in East Harlem that had her interested in writing and directing that had come after Walter Hill had been in the process of setting up a producing deal there around the time of Streets of Fire. Years later, Oliver Stone apparently was interested in doing a project but about South LA gangs...and then he got involved in Salvador and Platoon while she did Near Dark. Long story short, Stone liked that film and was interested in doing whatever she wanted to do next, complete with being producer, and Bigelow sent him, well, the script for Blue Steel, which eventually came around with Stone and Edward Pressman producing. I wonder who exactly came up with what in the script for the film, since Bigelow shares the writing credit with Eric Red; they had previously written Near Dark (1987) together, although Red has apparently labeled the script as basically a "female version of The Hitcher". Apparently, the climax of the film (you know, the gun fight) would've had Curtis nude, but she said no to that, being quoted as saying "Everyone would be watching my breasts flopping around instead of watching the scene." Bigelow in the past was quoted as having an interest in "treading on familiar territory", describing Blue Steel as a "mutation that maybe implies a different genre". The movie was released by MGM in the wake of Vestron Pictures' impending doom as a company, and the movie made a small amount of money while Bigelow next directed with Point Break (1991).

Some reviews of the time compared the movie to Halloween (1978) because of the whole boogeyman thing and having Curtis, I guess, but I don't seem to remember the part in the earlier film where the lead became a cop. But what we do have is a weird movie, one that is entertaining but stupefying in its execution to varying levels of effectiveness that tries to play two different angles: the plight of a (woman) cop that has to come to terms with who they really are when faced with rough surroundings...and also a nut that has an obsession with her and, well, things that lead him to want to shoot again and again. Technically speaking, the movie is kinetically interesting in general action while dragging along at 102 minutes to a conclusion that will befuddle the viewer in its certain positioning (ambiguity or overwrought, you might wonder) while seeming digging new ways to throw itself in melodrama. But how many films do we let certain things fall by the wayside because of our relative enjoyment, anyway? Is it nitpicking to wonder where the line should be drawn with a movie where a robbery takes place but somehow the guy in the front of it thought he saw a knife rather than, well a gun*. But Curtis does hold the film together with a generally tense performance that shows the struggle that arises with her position that only is solid when she essentially plays nice in the box she is constrained to, and that's without even mentioning her interactions with the other side of the coin of someone trapped in the strange world of struggling with their position and place. We the audience know what we know, so if someone can badger her about her method the way they do in one particular scene, imagine how is in an actual active scenario. If you're not with her and her charm that comes through even in the plight around her, then, well, the rest of the film goes down with her, for better or worse. Silver is mostly effective in evoking tension, albeit with a few obvious beats (bad enough he carves names into bullets, does he need to have voices in his head and also spout lines about death?) to go with the newfound power of a gun, which I'm sure could be interpreted in different ways**. The scenes the two share with each other are curious enough to make a worthy enough cat-and-mouse game to a certain point, being more interesting in the start and close rather than the holding down that comes with stretching things out. Brown moseys about with a casual charm, albeit with late usefulness in the long run, since it is more a movie of doubts and moods that might as well be a dreary dream. You don't exactly get much time to spend with Bosco and Fletcher[*] besides the bare minimum that comes with semi-resolved (?) family tension either. By the time the movie moves to its endgame around Wall Street, you have a movie that is frantic enough to possibly override the inevitable quibbles because it has a committed director and star that want to make an entertaining thriller. In a sea of varying effectiveness when it comes to women-leading action movies, Blue Steel is at least a solid enough recommendation to seek out for the ride it goes on in the curiosity about the nature of power and, well, the thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I don't want to pick all the way to hell, but probably the most ridiculous idea is that our lead comes to her parents, sees a fresh bruise on her mom, arrests her dad but decides in the middle of a conversation with him in the back of the car to just...let him off with a warning to not be who he is anymore. Or something. 

**Something something Freud something something penis. Actually, I wish my memory was a bit better, because I swear it isn't too particularly hard to find a movie about someone finding a gun and deciding to mosey around the city with it. Instead, I keep wondering why I haven't watched Gun Crazy.

[*] Bosco was a Tony Award winning actor for 1989, while Fletcher, well, you know her Academy Award-winning role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but for me, her performances as Kai Winn on the massively underrated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was probably just as cool.

Novocaine (2025).

Review #2360: Novocaine (2025).

Cast: 

Jack Quaid (Nathan Caine), Amber Midthunder (Sherry Margrave), Ray Nicholson (Simon Greenly), Jacob Batalon (Roscoe Dixon), Betty Gabriel (Mincy Langston), Matt Walsh (Coltraine Duffy), Conrad Kemp (Andre Clark), Evan Hengst (Ben Clark), Craig Jackson (Nigel), and Lou Beatty Jr (Earl) Directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen.

Review: 

"We always wanted this to feel like a throwback, and action movies back in the day used to take a little bit more time to meet the characters. They weren’t so scared of losing the audience’s attention back then.”

You may or may know that Congenital insensitivity to pain is a rare condition that select people suffer from. Shockingly, it apparently is important for people to feel pain in their upbringing, mostly in childhood, because people really do need to know if a burn injury is bad. Strangely enough, there is a place in Sweden (Vittangi) that has a cluster of people with the condition. This is the fifth film from the directing duo of Dan Berk and Robert Olsen, who made their debut in Body (2014) after having first met at NYU. The movie was written by Lars Jacobson, who had previously written Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017), and he also served as an executive producer on this film. It was Berk and Olsen who stood firm on having the film start out as long as it does (about 25 minutes) as a romantic comedy rather than the straightforward action that the script had. They also had Jack Quaid in their mind when making their own pass at the story because of his role on The Boys*. Perhaps not surprisingly, they have stated their intent in trying to grab the magic left by films such as Lethal Weapon (1987) and Die Hard (1988) when it came to being "really funny but grounded". 

Well, it has been a bit of while since I got to remind myself of Nobody (2021), which you might remember had an absurd level of violence for a thriller that had its own little twist upon those awakening to kicking ass. Here you get a movie that happens to set itself in the Christmas season (Santa suit robberies) in San Diego**. This film has its own particular twist to move onto the breach of the everyman type of movie, which may or may not work depending on one's level of patience for a movie (110 minutes) that cannot even end cleanly enough. But as an action movie that seems to take its cues from horror in for a particular effect, it works just enough for me to at least recommend it as a curiosity. It is the kind of movie you'll find one day in the pile of action movies when shopping (or, sigh, when looking at a streaming service) and believe, yea, that might work out for a drunken stumble someday.*** The brutality of the action sequences is at least satisfying because you have a lead who basically isn't meant to flinch at any point, and Quaid manages to fit the bill of everyman charm that has to roll on improvisation from the very get-go as one ripped out of the proverbial shell of a life. Quaid and Midthunder make a worthy enough pairing to at least set the trap that arises with making decisions because screw it, you just want to (this is mostly a way of saying that some decisions made by people can be a bit silly but never too stupid). For a film that wisely knows to not have much of a body count, Nicholson leads the group of adversaries with varying levels of effective menace that arises in wayward planning and temperament that is semi-effective. Batalon at least delivers a smidge of wisecracks to carry the movie along a tiny bit, as is the case with Batalon and Walsh. Honestly, I wonder if the movie could've leaned in even more as a comedy, since it barely seems to really need a "narrative pull " (out of the- you know) when one has decided to lean away from being a clear-cut action movie. As it stands, it is sometimes funny but not nearly as consistent as it might have been, particularly since, well, it stretches itself to actually finish to where it ends up. As a whole, the less one knows, the better when it comes to going with a semi-solid action movie that tries to roll in warmth and lands mostly in the sweet-spot for general entertainment. Feeling something for a hero that can't feel the pain is a worthwhile goal to accomplish in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I'm sure at least one of you know what The Boys is.

**I've never visited San Diego, but it is not Los Angeles, so fuck yeah, go Padres. I know the movie was shot in South Africa but hey, whatever.

***Movie Night does not endorse drinking, particularly since the shots I once took on November 7, 2022 tastes like lime. Besides, soda is cheaper.

Black Bag.

Review #2359: Black Bag.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Kathryn St. Jean), Michael Fassbender (George Woodhouse), Marisa Abela (Clarissa Dubose), Tom Burke (Freddie Smalls), Naomie Harris (Dr. Zoe Vaughan), Regé-Jean Page (Col. James Stokes), Pierce Brosnan (Arthur Steiglitz), Gustaf Skarsgård (Meacham), Kae Alexander (Anna Ko), and Ambika Mod (Angela Childs) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky, #1526 - Traffic, #1889 - Ocean's Eleven)

Review: 

Sure, let's go with a movie like this to throw some variety into the theater experience* for 2025. It probably isn't surprising to note that the movie was written by David Koepp, who had previously co-written Mission: Impossible (1996). It was during the middle of the process of writing that film with doing research that led to the inspiration for what eventually became this film, specifically because he found the personal life of a CIA guy more interesting than the spy stuff when it comes to having difficulty to sustain a relationship. Koepp wrote the script during the writer's strike over the course of a few months; previously, Koepp and Soderbergh worked together on Kimi (2022) and Presence (2024).

You might have an interest in the movie when it comes to "sleek" espionage thrillers...if you are big on the personal life aspects and being tantalized by talking in rooms. It's the kind of movie that admirers will call "the kind of movie Hollywood used to make for adults" and others will call "not nearly as clever as it thinks it is". It is drawn out on dialogue about the uncertainties that, well, come with personal lives with varying levels of blood (personal life or otherwise); Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? might come to mind moreso than Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005). It plays the game of observation and communication to 94 minutes that basically is a reaffirmation of one guy's love for his wife, if you think about it. Sure, one can't speak all they want to their wife about what they do (the term black bag was basically one Koepp made up, but go with it), but they can sure have fun with dinner games and conversation. You might as well call it a sharp smoothness when it comes to the dynamic between Blanchett and Fassbender, who have that sleek conviction in what they like to do (work or each other, either can be listed before the other). It basically starts and ends on separate dinner sequences that see our two leads watch the reactions of the others around them (one instance sees someone get their hand stabbed and then patched up, as one does) for an intimate movie. It is mostly enjoyable to see the game play out in viewing the interactions Fassbinder has with the others around him to set up his part of the trap as a man of the process that is pretty convincing and reflects well upon Blanchett, who has a cutting grace that might as well have the cutting power of a knife on butter. The others are fairly enjoyable in watching their timing when seeing things quickly play out (long story short: who plays who is actually who plays who plays who), which is mostly effective in seeing the vulnerabilities that play out with supposed "cool cucumbers" (as one might say) in Abela or Burke, which is a bit amusing. It casually lets its story elements play out in careful timing, right down to the sequence involving trying to seek out a liar with a lie-detector test. Its milage may vary on just how much one can take in dry suspense, but at least the experience doesn't try to pull the wool over your head and just ends where it feels best to do so. As a whole, it is a generally sleek movie to watch play out in the game of espionage and drawing out tension in the smoothest way possible that will work for those who buy in to what the film yearns to deliver in carefully constructed filmmaking. It is the kind of tight and snappy movie that you might want to see on a comfortable day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I don't usually say it, but man, there were no other people watching this movie at 2pm on a Thursday with me. Hell, I saw Anora at 11am to exactly one guy and Novocaine at 4:45 had seven other people.

Anora.

Review #2358: Anora.

Cast: 

Mikey Madison (Anora "Ani" Mikheeva), Mark Eydelshteyn (Ivan "Vanya" Zakharov), Yura Borisov (Igor), Karren Karagulian (Toros), Vache Tovmasyan (Garnik), Aleksei Serebryakov (Nikolai Zakharov), Darya Ekamasova (Galina Zakharova), Luna Sofía Miranda (Lulu), Lindsey Normington (Diamond), Vincent Radwinsky (Jimmy), Anton Bitter (Tom), and Ivy Wolk (Crystal) Written and Directed by Sean Baker.

Review:

"My true passion, and the only thing I’m truly interested in, is feature films that are made for the intention of going into a theater. Whether they make it there or not, I don’t know, but that’s what I want to focus on, and that’s how I fell in love with cinema. "

It's funny to get to enter in a new director* to the ledger, particularly with a movie that, well, managed to attract some attention. So, why don't we talk a little bit about Sean Baker? I trust anyone who wanted to be a filmmaker because of watching James Whale's Frankenstein (1931), and the New Jersey native even worked as film projectionist in high school. He studied film at New York University before getting into doing industrial films and TV commercials. He made his feature debut with Four Letter Words (2000). He then worked with Shih-Ching Tsou in directing/writing/editing on Take Out (2004). Starlet (2012) was among the first of his films to deal with folks of the adult sensibility (if you will), while Tangerine (2015) was about a transgender prostitute while Red Rocket (2021) was about a retired porn actor; he has been quoted as being interested in telling "human stories...that are hopefully universal." In each of his eight films, he has also served as editor and writer. Anora had a variety of inspirations: for one, Baker actually edited wedding videos in his younger years and a chunk of them involved Russians, and one story he had heard was about a young Russian-American newlywed who was kidnapped for collateral; long story short, when one doesn't want to make a movie about Russian gangsters but want to talk about themes of power, you go straight to money and oligarchs. The result was a movie (first screened in May 2024) that won five Academy Awards (Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, and Actress). Of course, the real reason I watched the movie is because, well, I noticed there were a few showtimes of it at my local theater, so let's go with it (believe it or not, if you really, really liked the movie, you could have a Criterion DVD of it in April).

I am going to be as nice as I can: it is a nice film. It may remind one of Pretty Woman (1990), but there even is a bit of Coming to America (1988) there, if you think about it. But really, who exactly believes this is the kind of movie where one person deserves four Academy Awards for it?** This is not a review meant to talk about "preferences" when it comes to what one expects or wants from a movie, because that would be a bit weird.*** Let's get it out of the way: it is a relatively entertaining movie, one that comes and goes in attempts to stir interest in juggling the hustle that comes with people and money that could probably be construed as a messed-up fairytale, right down to the tinsel-haired lead character. But man...you know damn well where it is going to go once our lead gets on the road of looking upon that sorry sap beyond the club scene. You know it, I know it, the exploitation director who would've loved ripping this off if Anora was made in the 1970s knows it. To quibble with the film length (139 minutes) is hard to do but let me be honest: the film is at its most interesting in the midst of its home invasion sequence, mainly because it manages to work in strange humor for the burrowing that comes in looking upon these folks ride the ship of foolishness down New York. It sits on the shoulders of Madison, who has to sell the moods one might see when it comes to having a free ride basically drop right into one's lap and wondering what really matters when one has the luxury giveth and taketh away. Sure, you don't really get to know her (besides what is basically a daydream, and no I don't really count the time spent at the club), but she sells the roughness that comes with this hard-edged person, one that is to be used and screwed like most of the other people in the film. It just so happens that the trio of Borisov-Karagulian-Tovmasyan that pop in end up helping Madison in providing chaos in the art of pursuit that goes through the gamut of emotions****. Borisov manages to accomplish the double-wire act of content with being the muscle in a group and the attentive nature of sensitivity (in an interview, he described "love is the same as attention to someone"). He watches just as much as he speaks because that's the way it is for guys like him, at least on the outside. Eydelshteyn can be construed as an obvious "red flag" when it comes, to, well, guys that get into marriages that are done in a Las Vegas chapel, but that does lend to a few amusing moments despite the fact that he disappears for a good chunk of the film; Ekamasova is the last piece for a certain type of pride and poise that is fairly convincing. The climax unites them all together for a release of the inevitable in people and power (timing the meet up between Anora and Galina is one for the books). With the ending, it sure is up to you, but Baker has stated that they wanted to "take it much further than [this whole idea of Stockholm syndrome] and have an act that could be interpreted, questioned and debated in many different ways." For me, I basically read it as just as a coping method for what cannot be solved so easily when it comes to transactions and people. As a whole, Anora is a pretty effective movie when it wants to be in terms of the humor that can be mined from seeing the truth beneath facades with screwball energy more than anything. If it seems up your alley to dance, it might work for you too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Since I log every director (credited or not, depending on how one terms a director), Baker joins the club (that I should probably triple-check) of 1,287 other directors.

**Most famously, the only other person to win four Oscars in a single ceremony was Walt Disney, in 1953, for a handful of documentaries and shorts that he had produced. Of course, winning for directing, writing and for best picture last happened with Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert with Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

***I probably made a mistake watching The Substance before Anora, because The Substance > Anora. 

****Okay, a good chunk of that is "fuck", but hey. See, I also wanted to refrain from using too many profanities in a review, would you call that progress? Then again, I'm not calling someone a "sex worker" when "prostitute" is an older word in the first place. 

D.E.B.S.

Review #2357: D.E.B.S.

Cast: 

Sara Foster (Amy Bradshaw), Jordana Brewster (Lucy Diamond), Meagan Good (Max Brewer), Devon Aoki (Dominique), Jill Ritchie (Janet), Geoff Stults (Bobby Matthews), Jimmi Simpson (Scud), Holland Taylor (Ms. Petrie), Michael Clarke Duncan (Mr. Phipps), and Jessica Cauffiel (Ninotchka Kaprova) Written and Directed by Angela Robinson (#411 - Herbie: Fully Loaded)

Review: 

"I kind of “riff” on a lot of genre influences in my work, [and] in “D.E.B.S.” I’m constantly quoting other movies. It’s kind of a “mish-mash” of influences."

Sure, why not. This was the feature film debut of one Angela Robinson, a Chicago native who had made a handful of short films for nearly a decade before getting her chance with a studio movie. D.E.B.S. was actually originally a short film done in 2003 that had been sponsored by a grant from POWER UP that came from her inspiration of drawing comics when in college (she studied and graduated from Brown and NYU). The short basically was one where she "was playing with the idea of a really outrageous WB show" (so basically a riff on Charlie's Angels). The result was an a 11-minute short (released in 2003, most notably at Sundance) that Screen Gems liked enough to want to make a feature film of, complete with Robinson at the helm (Jill Ritchie was the sole returning actress from the short). The movie was released to literally less theaters than you could imagine: 45, but somehow it generated a reaction from one producer to eventually spring a deal for Robinson to direct her next film: Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005). Robinson has mostly directed in television (ironically enough, it included an episode of the failed Charlie's Angels reboot). The movie eventually sprung some sort of cult following in the "I checked it out in the video store" sense.

Okay, so we've got a movie about a secret test in the SAT that tests one on recruitment to D.E.B.S: Discipline, Energy, Beauty, Strength. I think you can see where it might lend itself to aiming for goofy parody (complete with plaid skirts), but really you could call it an offbeat romcom (a spy and a kooky criminal) with two women that just happens to be a PG-13 rated movie. It has the hit-or-miss quality in being a parody on the level of say, I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (1988), which basically means you'll either get into the movie and chuckle or will just find it a bit of a lightweight. Eh, I liked the movie fine, mainly because it had the commitment to actually go where it wanted to go without feeling like a slapdashed product, which is more than one can say for certain movies of its ilk. "Camp" or not, one will at least get the impression that Foster and Brewster are having at least some fun trying to establish a repertoire with each other; it's a "meet cute" movie that happens to have a bit of greenscreen, what's not to get? Foster is quite proud of her appearance in the film, stating once that people apparently go up to her and say that the movie made them feel "comfortable being who I am". Her shaky road to realizing what she actually wants (coming of age meets coming out?) is interesting enough to work, mostly because the movie rolls on self-realization that is at least "real". It just happens that Brewster (she's named for a song, heh) has that "it factor" when it comes to charm even in the muddle of hang-up neurosis. You get two people yearning to figure out who they are with someone around them, Brewster just is a bit funnier when accomplishing the sell (you get a scene about accidentally snapping a bra, just to point the goofy stuff). The others are fine here and there in those little side gags (not every parody has that many well-defined people besides "smokes cigarettes" anyway). You get a bit of appearance time from Duncan and Taylor that mostly fill a bit of story time (well okay, Taylor is bitingly interesting, but a regular TV viewer already knows that), which is particularly interesting to reveal that really the "secret test" is all about measuring one's ability to lie (interpret that however you like). Its cheeky enough to get away with cheap gags because it has silly fun and doesn't bite more than it can chew. The 92-minute runtime is about what you might expect in drawing every last little gag you might hear from a spoof, which is fine by me when driving off into the sunset. Ultimately, it is the kind of movie where one can be called a "gay slut" and chuckle with the shallow but committed nature that may just be up your alley, midnight movie or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mickey 17.

Review #2356: Mickey 17.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Mickey Barnes / Mickey 17 / Mickey 18), Naomi Ackie (Nasha Barridge), Steven Yeun (Timo), Mark Ruffalo (Kenneth Marshall), Toni Collette (Ylfa), Holliday Grainger (Gemma), Anamaria Vartolomei (Kai Katz), Thomas Turgoose (Bazooka Soldier), Angus Imrie (Shrimp Eyes), Cameron Britton (Arkady), Patsy Ferran (Dorothy), Daniel Henshall (Preston), Steve Park (Agent Zeke), and Tim Key (Pigeon Man) Directed by Bong Joon-ho (#1584 - Parasite [2019]).

Review: 

"What is repressing us from living a human life? What is stopping us from truly pursuing a genuinely human life?’ And I think the appeal of sci-fi is that it lets you deal with those questions and these stories quite directly.”

There is probably at least one review that doesn't describe the film as the one that came out after Parasite (2019). But so it goes. The movie is based on the book Mickey7, which was published in 2022 by Edward Ashton, who had apparently written it as an expansion of a short story he did years before about "a sort of crappy immortality" that attracted attention from the very get go of its publishing; incidentally, as a result of the film adaptation entering production, Asher wrote a follow-up book with Antimatter Blues in 2023. Bong has stated in interviews that he specifically wished to focus on the human printing concept presented in the book as "down to Earth", which also went down to the characteristics of the lead character as, basically "more working class". Due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, the movie missed its original release date of 2024 (after finishing production in 2023), as one probably already guessed.

Technically speaking, it is a pretty good movie to experience, when you get down to it. Messy, chaotic, and generally amusing, the best times one has with the film rely heavily on the double-act played by Pattinson. The underdog story is as familiar as it gets, particularly when it comes to "some bugs aren't as scary as bug-brained humans", but it is a movie that wears hope on its sleeves with actual commitment rather than, say, being a mishmash of slop or bland oblivion. In other words: regardless of how the movie goes with audiences (read: money), somehow, some time, someone will call the movie a cult classic, and they probably won't seem insane to label it as such. Pattinson does manage to be pretty distinct in the "two Mickeys", which can inspire chuckles in those interesting things that arise in what one can see in personality that ranges from lovable goof (take it or leave it) to assertive that each make for quite the timing in terms of differences, as one might see when paired with Ackie that makes for a few riveting sparks of chemistry and energy that feels as real as one might see in looking upon someone and believing it matters to be there for that person(s). Ruffalo and Collette are amusing in parts when it comes to the synthesis that comes with riffing on the power-mad weirdos that inhabit certain spheres of society (so no, the movie explicitly is not based on any one politician), although the former sounds more like a Marlon Brando pastiche than anything. You can feel the ooze and wonder aloud where all that goes if one was even remotely dealt like that in our actual world.* For a movie with a "good" label, I wonder why I do wish I liked the movie more. I liked the movie but wondered why the nebulous "and yet" tried to get in my head. Complaining or talking about a movie's length seems futile for some, but I can at least see where someone thinks it runs (137 minutes) a bit lethargic, mostly because its foundation to set the stakes sure feels like it takes a while.  Somehow, I can't help but wonder if I just expected something different with the whole "man is being printed over and over to die as a crash-test dummy for people who start at not caring about what happens to him" thing. Quibble with what you feel about the question that arises in off-brand immortality vs how the film handles it however you like**. Bottom line: one gets a handful of stuff to chuckle about just as much as to quibble about. The visuals are generally pleasing to go along with a few amusing moments involved with the "creepers". The climax does stir a bit of a lasting impression for a movie that aspired to inspire some curiosity alongside its goofs that can at least be applauded for going on its own in hit-or-miss energy. As a whole, it manages to deliver most of the energy one might see coming in a chaotic space adventure. It has a few interesting moments to dwell on in the weird world of exploitation and overall hope for what might work just in your sweet spot for creeping enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Movie Night does not recommend getting rid of people as shown in Mickey 17. I do however recommend watching movies like The Substance. And disgustingly complex hamburgers.

**seriously, you can comment here anytime, it could even to say I should get hit by a bus.

The Substance.

Review #2355: The Substance.

Cast: 

Demi Moore (Elisabeth Sparkle), Margaret Qualley (Sue), Dennis Quaid (Harvey), Edward Hamilton-Clark (Fred), Gore Abrams (Oliver), Oscar Lesage (Troy), Christian Erickson (man at diner), Robin Greer (nurse), Tom Morton (doctor), with Hugo Diego Garcia (Diego, boyfriend), and Yann Bean (The Substance voice) Written and Directed by Coralie Fargeat.

Review: 

"“It’s really a movie about our bodies and about the reality of how we feel in our bodies. I needed to speak to the reality of the way our flesh can reflect our mental deformation, and I knew this had to exist for real.”

Honestly, I probably should've tried to make the trip to see the movie when it was new. I vaguely remember checking a showing for this particular film a city or two away from where I was when it was still in theaters...and, well, sometimes it seems better to wait for it to hit DVD like the champion for physical media that I strive to be. In honesty, I didn't really know anything about Coralie Fargeat prior to going in with this, but I'm sure her first feature Revenge (a rape and revenge action thriller released in 2017) was something I should've paid attention to. She wanted creative freedom for her next film to go along with casting and arranging a movie that was quite a venture to do when it comes to prosthetics and the like. Apparently, the movie was originally signed to be distributed by Universal Pictures (through a deal with Working Title) but go figure, a few film executives (take a guess at the gender) did want to release it as is, which led to Mubi acquiring rights to release the movie, which resulted in what you might call a bonafide hit; the movie was nominated for five Academy Awards and won one for Best Makeup and Hairstyling.

One of the things I will say is that for some odd reason, certain parts of horror actually makes me have a laugh when seeing the execution of, well, the guts of a movie. I probably enjoyed this movie far more than if I had seen it in a theater with people if only because I had such a good time from the get-go looking at the absurdity that comes with the obsession we have with women's bodies at all costs. We care so much about how an ass looks because it's real to them, damn it. I joked once that it had been a while since someone tried to do a movie about a woman so obsessed with trying to turn back the clock that they would take anything to get it back with The Wasp Woman (1959)*, and that was a bit on my mind when watching this movie, but I really should've tried to guess that the movie would remind me the tiniest bit of Being John Malkovich (1999), a movie that technically is also about someone trying to manufacture a life away from the one they are currently inhabiting, complete with using a larger-than-life image of its star at a certain juncture (why else would one feature a large picture of a younger Moore?); one had a film tag about being someone else, this one asks about being a better version of yourself. I probably should see or mention movies that also apparently come up such as Death Becomes Her (1992) and Seconds (1966). In short: we have a fairy tale kind of movie that can be as horrifying as much as it can be darkly amusing by the time it closes its 141-minute runtime of messiness about the way we can rip ourselves apart when it comes to image that is captured in gloriously symbolistic ways. The movie coasts along on visuals and vibe more so than trying to get too invested in, well, the substance within the substance (if you think about it, by doing this process, one is stuck in a place in perpetuity when having to await the next delivery week after week while only getting older and older). For all we can try to be in united for others in helping and promoting people...we really can rip the hell out of each other when the opportunity presents itself. We can hate each other just as much as we can hate ourselves and what we look like because some people really do crave love like it was crack. It just so happens we have a quality trio to hold the movie up when it comes to listening and hearing just what we see in one's self-image as we move through the tunnel of light. I'm probably not as familiar with Moore as I would like to admit.** However, she pulls off a tremendous performance, one who manages to sell the visceral pain that comes with being so alone in a body that can only go so far and be so much before it all snaps. Having to be caked in makeup of varying levels (turning the idea of playing a role a decade younger than they actually are on the head) is quite the endurance test for anyone, and Moore handles it with the type of grace that can only come from someone who clearly is committed to the material in knowing what it all is about when wrapped in a business built on flesh and bone that can be comprised of truth and plenty of lies (consider that we never see her interact with anybody that seems like an actual friend). Qualley matches her with a burning intensity and energy that is hypnotic to see play on screen in the furor that comes with youth and trying to control oneself in maintaining an image at all costs, particularly since we sure see plenty of Moore and Qualley in skin that probably says more about us that we'd like to admit (such as living through others, perhaps).***

And then of course there is Quaid, who was cast a few months into preparation for the film because the original choice in mind (Ray Liotta) died. Suffice to say that it is interesting to see Quaid here.**** He manages to evoke a type of disgust and excess that is so easy to see in our actual everyday lives and make it strangely amusing to see pop in from time to time, particularly with the camera angles used to see him (consider the shrimp eating scene to how he is seen by the end). I can certainly see where one might wonder just where the film could've ended, because technically there are two other ways to envision film before it splatters its way to the final realization, but then I say to myself: is there really such a thing as going too far in horror? The answer, to those with the skin to say it, is no, no, no, and hell no. I sometimes wonder when rating a movie to hopefully not come back to it later and think it was a tad too high...but this is the kind of movie where I wonder if I will like it more the second time around (when I can just say some of the highlights without spoiling the curiosity for those who haven't seen it) because of the visceral delight I had in seeing it, one that manages to make one see and hear the horror (and darkly amusement, in my mind) that comes with the body and we would do for perfection. Fargeat clearly likes to experiment with what she wants to make for films, and I look forward to seeing what might lurk next for her as a whole.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Starting now, I'm just going to put some notes down here rather than waste space on parenthesis.  

*I was wondering a bit what Corman would've done in trying to ape off The Substance for a knockoff, because you could certainly lean in on that theatricality.

**Well, Mr. Brooks (2006) was okay. Interestingly, I had considered Striptease (1996) for Acknowledged in August in 2024 but, well, Striptease seemed more suitable, suffice to say.

***I applaud anybody who likes to make a movie that actually goes ga-ga for gore and/or nudity because duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

****(speaking of movies I dragged me feet on, I actually thought about seeing him in Reagan [2024]...if the movie was actually as ridiculous at it sounded).

 

The Story of a Three-Day Pass.

Review #2354: The Story of a Three-Day Pass.

Cast: 

Harry Baird (Turner), Nicole Berger (Miriam), and Hal Brav (Turner's Captain) Written and Directed by Melvin Van Peebles (#1970 - Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song and #2184 - Watermelon Man)

Review: 

"I never did decide to become a director. That’s very flattering and nice, but I never decided to become a director. I just decided to show folks, especially minorities, like I saw them, not like they kept being shown around in cinema."

Melvin Van Peebles had made a handful of short films and looked for a job in Hollywood. He received a job offer as an Elevator operator or dancer. He elected to go to Amsterdam to study for a PHD in astronomy (as one does when having the GI Bill). But his films got shown in France (as aided by avantgarde ciné-club founder Amos Vogel) that had attracted curiosity. He moved to France and taught the language to himself. Evidently, he found that he could get a temporary director's card to bring one's work to the screen. He became a journalist and published his own novels before getting the director's card to bring one of his works to fruition with La Permission (which he wrote as a screen treatment and published as a novel before the film was released). He got enough funding by the French government and shot it in six weeks. The movie initially premiered at the San Francisco Film Festival (representing France) in October of 1967 before getting a release in later months. The film had a star-crossed starring duo. It was the last movie role of Berger, who had performed in film in her native France for a handful of years before suffering a tragic car accident that saw her die at the age of 32 in April of 1967. Baird (born in British Guiana and educated in Canada and Britian) had done a handful of movies and TV since the late 1950s but this was his one notable lead role prior to glaucoma sidelining him by the 1970s and his death in 2005 at the age of 73. The movie attracted attention in Hollywood (go figure) and from that Van Peebles got an offer to do Watermelon Man, and the rest is history.

It is a curious love story, mainly because it features flawed beings trying waywardly to cope with the idea of being with anyone. The nightclub sequence in which one gets to see quite the curious shot of our lead has to be seen to be believed in the apparent talent of its director, complete with expectation versus the actual reality. It isn't too far from a French New Wave movie when you get down to it. Baird and Berger are a curious pair to see play out, namely because they each have scenes where they are imagining the other in scenarios distinctly different from each other (one as an aristocrat and the other as a tribal man). The inner voice of Baird talks at times during the film about the conflict that arises with staying in the system (the military - incidentally, Van Peebles served in the Air Force) in the face of nagging difficulties. Berger is shaky in gracefulness that comes with one's own challenges in ambition versus reality, particularly since they only see Baird through a specific prism that can only be surprised at how Baird reacts to specific incidents because of his race (such as being called a certain phrase or being seen by his white comrades). Brav makes for an effective side presence in condescending authority when it comes to trust (imagine saying any of what is heard for a newly "promoted" person). Their double act together can only go so far in a time and place that still reminds them of who they are - one black, one white, complete with a varied understanding of oneself and the languages (you get both English and French). There is no hope of just having an easy out (nothing such as Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, for example) within a movie that can be tender just as much as it can be subversive. As a whole, it shows the potential of its director in what one can accomplish with a cast and style all to oneself. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Foxy Brown.

Review #2353: Foxy Brown.

Cast: 

Pam Grier (Foxy Brown), Antonio Fargas (Lincoln "Link" Brown), Peter Brown (Stevie Elias), Kathryn Loder (Miss Katherine Wall), Terry Carter (Dalton Ford / Michael Anderson), Harry Holcombe (Judge Fenton), Sid Haig (Hays), Juanita Brown (Claudia), Bob Minor (Oscar), and Tony Giorgio (Eddie) Written and Directed by Jack Hill (#1654 - Blood Bath, #1740 - Spider Baby, and #2352 - Coffy)

Review: 

Sure, maybe one can't make a sequel to a successful hit, but they can sure make one that sounds right on the same wavelength. The resulting hit of Coffy made it easy to want to make another Grier movie involving action, albeit not as a sequel that Hill envisioned because American International Pictures apparently believed sequels did not do well with audiences.  Evidently, this was released by AIP as a double feature with Truck Turner. While it wasn't nearly as substantial a hit as Coffy (released thirteen months prior), it was generally well-liked enough and Grier continued her run in movies the following year with Sheba, Baby and Friday Foster. Evidently, Foxy Brown apparently became more of a cult curiosity than Coffy although Hill felt the earlier effort was better, particularly with the character he envisioned that could use their sexuality just as much as using down and dirty street fighting. Hill actually had two films released in 1974, with The Swinging Cheerleaders coming out a month after this movie; apparently, AIP treated Hill lousy enough to not even invite him to a screening of the film, which he shot in less than three weeks (the movie, which runs at 92 minutes, apparently was made on the same budget as Coffy at $500,000, albeit with a raise to both its director and star).

Admittedly, it is funny to make a movie that isn't quite a sequel while also not exactly having time to say the profession of the lead. She just kicks ass and seeks revenge against the scuzziness of the street (which even involved would-be politicians). Instead of a sister that fell to heroin addiction, now we have someone with a scuzzy brother and a dead government boyfriend who, interestingly enough, faces off against a couple involved in a drug/prostitute syndicate (strangely enough, it has a similar ending to the other movie in having a man get castrated). At least you get flashier wardrobe from Grier to go with plenty of violence and skin? I have to agree with Hill that Coffy was the better of the two movies, mainly because of the actual shock value that comes in a kickass lead that doesn't need to be a karate expert but instead is, well, Pam Grier. Sure, she may not get much to actually do that is particularly different from before with a little less guilt in the whole "vengeance" thing, but she still commands the screen just as well as before for obvious reasons. It is clear empowerment, and one is having fun while doing it, what more could you want? This actually was the last (of three) movies where Loder appeared, as she died of diabetes at the age of 38 in 1978. She grips the role with the right amount of chewing, at least compared with Brown (mostly known for Western roles), who dawdles a bit in showing menace. Haig actually appeared in both this and Coffy (where he played a heavy pretty well), and while he may have small time to do comedy, it works out fine I suppose. It definitely tries to up the ante in sheer audacity, whether that means a barroom fight or our lead lighting a farm (and two people) on fire after being sexually assaulted, or the appeal to a "neighborhood committee" to not only get revenge but to, well, play with a knife on a man's lower section. As a whole, it definitely is a slicker movie than Coffy that for better or worse does exactly what you would expect in shameless entertainment that will likely deliver the goods for what you want from a movie of its time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Coffy.

Review #2352: Coffy.

Cast:

Pam Grier (Nurse Flower Child "Coffy" Coffin), Booker Bradshaw (Howard Brunswick), Robert DoQui (George "King George"), William Elliott (Officer Carter), Allan Arbus (Arturo Vitroni), Sid Haig (Omar), Barry Cahill (Officer McHenry), Lee de Broux (Officer Nick), Ruben Moreno (Captain Reuben Ramos), Lisa Farringer (Jeri), and Carol Locatell (Priscilla) Written and Directed by Jack Hill (#1654 - Blood Bath and #1740 - Spider Baby)

Review: 

It probably has been long enough to finally cover a Pam Grier movie, isn't it? Well, I figured it would be best to go with the one with the catchy enough title, which was in the middle of Grier's tenure with American International Pictures. Born in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Grier got involved in stage productions as a teenager before going to Los Angeles to work the switchboard at American International Pictures. Anybody who makes their debut (in a bit role) with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) clearly has good fortune on their side. Jack Hill soon casted her among the leads for New World Pictures' The Big Doll House (1971) when he liked what he heard and saw when she participated in a "cattle call" for actors sent to read for parts (he has been quoted as citing her "authority"). The movie was a hit, and Grier was soon cast in the not-quite sequel The Big Bird Cage (1972), which was sandwiched between a handful of supporting roles. Coffy came about because Larry Gordon lost the rights to the film Cleopatra Jones (1973) and AIP wanted to make a movie to beat it to the market. This one was released in May, two months before the release of Cleopatra Jones. This would be the first non-prison lead movie for Grier that would lead to a handful of further feature roles for the remainder of the 1970s. While her leading roles dwindled in the next couple of years, there have still been enough highlights for a lifetime, as evidenced by Jackie Brown (1997). This was the third of four movies made with Hill. They returned to make Foxy Brown (1974), one that Hill had less control over as a movie that was initially aimed to be a follow-up to Coffy.

I find myself wondering just how much fun one can have with movies of this time period, one that dance the line between timeliness and allure with their style and character presence. As it turned out, there is plenty of each to be found with this movie, which manages to excel in general excitement with a snappy lead that exudes charm and style from the get-go while managing to have a tight conviction in showing a system in all of its bleak facets that would make one go for the idea of trying to strike back at it. It is lurid enough to actually make a quality vigilante movie for 90 minutes of sheer pulp that can't just be labeled as sleazy. Unlike certain movies of its time, you've got a lead who isn't a certain type of expert or playing it for humor but instead one wrapped in the terrors of what they believe themselves is important to do versus the conflict in seeing it actually play out. So yes, Grier kicks ass and looks good doing it, but there is more to her in terms of timing and conscience for how she handles herself that is quite curious to see play out on screen. It just so happens the supporting cast around her is scuzzy enough to make the experience worth seeing vigilance play out all the way to the grisly end (this is a movie that has a character killed by being dragged around with a rope before saving the gnarly-ness for last: shotgun to the groin). It isn't even a movie that wraps itself up in a neat bow, because at the end of the day, the disgusting drug trade and other purveyors of the sewer known as crime will still be around somewhere the law can't quite reach (whether by chance or deliberately) but so it goes. As a whole, it is pretty easy to see how Grier became such a star to see and hear with how much she is wrapped up in making this role more than just straight exploitation by playing it as an avenging angel with resilience that is devastatingly breathtaking in more ways than one.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.