The Italian Job (2003)

Review #2222: The Italian Job (2003)

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Edward Norton (Steve Frazelli), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Gilligan "Left Ear"), Franky G (Wrench), Boris Lee Krutonog (Yevhen), and Aleksander Krupa (Mashkov) Directed by F. Gary Gray (#517 - Be Cool and #1806 - Friday)

Review: 

"The first line of my creative mission statement was the characters are first and everything else is second."

Nothing is immune to having a "remake" or re-whatever you want to call it. This is one that is apparently just "inspired" by it that naturally came out over three decades later. Well, if you can remake The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) and Ocean's 11 (1960- actually I take that back, that remake was better)...Apparently, the original writers brought up to try and do a script were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (best known as the writers of the James Bond films from The World is Not Enough [1999] to No Time to Die [2021]). Apparently, it was a pretty faithful pitch to the original, but it was rejected. As such, Donna Powers and Wayne Powers (who had a bit of TV experience and also co-wrote the films Deep Blue Sea and Valentine to their, uh, credit) were then hired to come up with a script, which they did over the course of several drafts and exactly one viewing of the original film to get a sense of the tone. This was the fifth feature film for Gray, previously known for Friday (1995) and The Negotiator (1998). It is strange how worthy a movie can be in neat average qualities when having the weight of being called "The Italian Job" under it. It is a fairly made homage movie that strangely manages to reflect the defining qualities that defined the original in its own way: pretty sleek maneuvering for its climax (which it shares with the original), a distinct supporting cast, and a pretty standard lead presence. It takes a few elements of the original, namely in stealing some gold with Minis and having characters named "Croker" and "Bridger" and that's about it (well, there is a heist shown in the intro that takes place in Italy - Venice, to be exact).

It is a decent movie really, but you've probably seen plenty of these caper films to know where they are mostly going (, particularly since it ends up being longer than the original at 111 minutes. It has a collection of seasoned performances for an action film that plays by its rules of having its own mark as a film named "Italian Job" (as mostly set in Los Angeles) made in the era where one has fun trying to figure out what a special effect looks like (or stunt work, in other cases) rather than calling it blobby filler. At least Wahlberg has an equal when it comes to middling charisma in Norton, who nearly phones it in the whole way with the energy of someone literally forced to be cast in this film, although at least with Norton there is the idea of an adversarial weirdo. I wonder just how good Wahlberg was in Boogie Nights, because every other performance I've ever seen of him seems to remind me of an old B-movie (which, hey, those are respected, unless it is the Planet of the Apes remake). In other words: the people around Wahlberg are more interesting, whether that involves an old pro like Sutherland all the way down to comedy relief such as Green (as nicknamed "Napster", which by this time was already in the "revamp" stage of decayed names) or an effective Theron and Statham when it comes to credibility. The film is lightly funny, probably not as much as the original when it comes to that spry buildup, but it is solidly credible in every category anyway that it doesn't particularly matter. The eventual chase sequence is pretty well handled, all things considered, managing to utilize the city streets (to go with tunnels and a helicopter) to worthwhile execution that doesn't leave one with a sinking feeling of misplaced interest. In the end, being a notch below the original is a compliment here for a movie that is generally entertaining in the aspects that matter most when it comes to useful action and the charm to make it bounce for the right angle needed.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Italian Job (1969)

Review #2221: The Italian Job (1969)

Cast: 
Michael Caine (Charlie Croker), Noël Coward (Mr. Bridger), Benny Hill (Professor Simon Peach), Raf Vallone (Altabani), Tony Beckley (Camp Freddie), Rossano Brazzi (Roger Beckerman), Maggie Blye (Lorna), Irene Handl (Miss Peach), John Le Mesurier (the Prison Governor), Fred Emney (Birkinshaw), and John Clive (Garage manager) Directed by Peter Collinson (#608 - Tomorrow Never Comes)

Review: 

There are plenty of summer movies that could be chosen to roll with the long hot days or just as warm nights, but it probably stands to reason that The Italian Job is a good choice to kick things off on its good side. The original idea was thought of by Ian Kennedy Martin (a writer generally known for his British television work) as a TV drama idea involving a robbery in a traffic jam in London. It didn't go anywhere, but his brother Troy (also noted for his TV work, such as Z-Cars) bought the idea and wanted to make a movie set in Italy, completely with Michael Caine envisioned as the lead. And so, he made his spec script that eventually got the attention of Paramount Pictures and to the attention of producer Michael Deeley. He made a suggestion for a bit lighter film in terms of a caper (in his memoirs, he described the first draft as a bit complicated in political emphasis). Paramount chose Peter Collinson to direct the film, which would come out after The Long Day's Dying (released in 1968 that had Deeley as producer, as he wanted to see how Collinson would handle a film production); he would be a steady director in the following decade before his untimely death in 1980 at the age of 44. It was Deeley who came up with the iconic ending of the film, which he conceived as a solution to the fact that the endings that Martin tried to come up to conclude the film because in his words, the endings thought of all seemed to fall under "Irving the Explainer", where dialogue ends up being the thing for the filmmaker to depend on to get out of a problem (as opposed to visual explanation); he also thought of the idea because, well, he had ideas of possibly doing a sequel. Shot mostly in Turin, Italy with a hodgepodge of cars and stunts, the film was a success in its native England (but not so much in America) that has achieved a fame not always seen by caper films, even inspiring a charity fundraising event that sees plenty of Minis driving around the United Kingdom and Italy. A remake (of sorts) was released in 2003.

It really is just one of those films that invites delight and wonder even if you've seen a good deal of these caper and chase films. It is a pretty efficient 99-minute film that delights itself as firmly British and yet firmly amusing to those who encounter it. It indulges the pleasures of building up a caper that lives well on the great charm that arises in bringing together Caine at the pinnacle of his 1960s sharpness alongside a few neat cars and locations. Caine always seemed to know just the right moment for timing and charm, whether that involves plans or in casual dialogue that goes to show one can make anything sound cool, I suppose. This was the last film appearance of Coward (famed playwright and president of the orphanage that Collinson had spent most of his childhood in), who had been suffering from arteriosclerosis prior to his subsequent death in 1973. It may not be a plentiful part (they had him for just a few days), but he has the dignity to keep the role from waffling into nothingness. He just has the look and aura to sound on point when it comes to using the time wisely for esteemed lords of the manor (whether jail or otherwise). There are a few names known for those familiar with television of the time (as stated by its producer), and it only makes sense that Hill was there in his ragged weirdness. Car commercial or not, it does make the Mini look like its own character when it comes to handling the action (amusingly, there was a shot scene that had a part of the car chase occur while an orchestra played "The Blue Danube" but it was deleted). The music score by Quincy Jones (such as say, "The Self Preservation Society song, as sung by the cast or the intro song as sung by Matt Monro) only adds to the comfortable nature of the film when it comes to general mood. It builds its setup and execution with worthwhile timing that has a nice balance of humor (that one line about doors is the easy one to go with), but undeniably it is the climax that makes me appreciate how it all goes together: it really is just better to have the film dangle right on the Alps. As a whole, it is pretty neat in engaging a clear caper with winning charm and commitment to make for a pretty good time. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Cat's-Paw.

Review #2220: The Cat's-Paw.

Cast: 

Harold Lloyd (Ezekiel Cobb), Una Merkel (Petunia Pratt), George Barbier (Jake Mayo), Nat Pendleton (Strozzi), Grace Bradley (Dolores Doce), Alan Dinehart (Mayor Ed Morgan), Grant Mitchell (Silk Hat McGee), and E. Alyn Warren (Tien Wang) Directed by Sam Taylor (#667 - The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, #903 - Dr. Jack, #918 - Why Worry?, #938 - Girl Shy, #1331 - Coquette)

Review: 

Amusingly, this was the first film starring Harold Lloyd in which his character name was something other than "Harold" since Hot Water (1924; of course in that movie, that character was named "Hubby"). The movie was the eighth and final film collaboration between director Sam Taylor and star Harold Lloyd. You may remember that Taylor got his start as a director with Dr. Jack (1922) after a number of years as a writer. He directed Lloyd alongside Fred C. Newmeyer (back when co-directing was the rage) from that film all the way to For Heaven's Sake (1926) before going on to direct a variety of other stars such as Will Rogers and Mary Pickford. Taylor may not have been a distinct director of his time in say, personality, but he was a dedicated filmmaker regardless. This was near the end of Taylor's career as a director, where the release of his next film in Vagabond Lady (1935) was his penultimate feature before closing his career out with a Laurel and Hardy production in Nothing but Trouble (1944); Taylor died in 1958 at the age of 62. At any rate, the genesis for this film came from a novel that had been first serialized in The Saturday Evening Post by Clarence Budington Kelland (a prolific writer that had plenty of stories turned into films, such as Mr. Deeds Goes to Town [1936]) that Lloyd had liked enough to buy the rights to when only the first chapter had been out for the public (yes, a two-year gap between this and Movie Crazy was something critics of the time needed to point out). Taylor and an uncredited Clyde Bruckman did work for the script adaptation while Lloyd did a bit of uncredited directorial work (as one probably expects from someone producing his own film). The next feature film with Lloyd would come in 1936 with Leo McCarey's The Milky Way.

Admittedly, when one is considering the fact that Movie Crazy (1932) was the only good feature of Lloyd's first three sound efforts, it sort of seems easy to say that The Cat's Paw (the name refers to a guy being used as a dupe) ends up being just as decent (at least this time, the "well-meaning boy or fumbler type of character", as I said in my last Lloyd review, doesn't seem too much on the nose here). Sure, it is a bit weird (take a guess at the stereotypes and wonder where the line is drawn), but it is pretty efficient at 102 minutes in letting Lloyd grow up just a bit. Not packing as much slapstick but still pretty loaded in useful principles, he may be playing a "fish out of water", but it is a compelling one to watch that straddles the line between silly and the eventual figure of actual interest without needing a climax involving stunts (unlike a handful of previous Lloyd films). Making light of dirty politics is handled in a silly way that at least is funny for a little while Merkel and Lloyd make a pretty decent pairing to go with a worthwhile honest dishonest man in Barbier. So yes, the climax involves a bout of trickery that amuses me because well, who doesn't love a bit of stage magic. As a whole, Lloyd may have a strange time getting into the groove of making consistent sound features, but The Cat's-Paw is a worthwhile example of Lloyd still trying to make his style of comedy connect to the audiences at large. While not everything has probably aged well in the nine decades since its release, it will likely be worth one's time.

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Free and Easy (1930).

Review #2219: Free and Easy.

Cast: 

Buster Keaton (Elmer), Anita Page (Elvira), Trixie Friganza (Ma Plunkett), Robert Montgomery (Larry Mitchell), and Lionel Barrymore (director) Directed by Edward Sedgwick (#774 - The Phantom of the Opera, #1774 - The Cameraman, #1937 - Spite Marriage)

Review: 

At last, it was time to hear the words of Buster Keaton in a film. This was the third feature film with Keaton at the hands of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which came after The Cameraman (1928) and Spite Marriage (1929). Followers of Keaton already know that his MGM tenure was the one he regretted the most, but at least those two films were actually liked by people even when it came to studio-maintained mayhem. With this film, one would get the weirdest of the two worlds: a movie where Keaton gets to talk and also gets to be in the foreground in favor of featuring cameo appearances from performers such as Willy Haynes, Jackie Coogan, Lionel Barrymore and, well, also Cecil B. DeMille and Fred Niblo. The film was shot in several languages such as Spanish (the latter was called Estrellados, which had Keaton play opposite a different lead actress) and French (mainly with intertitles, but still). There are three credited writers: Richard Schayer (a career guy behind co-work such as The Mummy) wrote the "scenario", while Paul Dickey did the "adaptation", and Al Boasberg (one of the co-writers of The General) was behind the dialogue. Made for roughly $500,000, the film was enough of a hit with audiences that Keaton would continue to do a few more films with MGM, such as his next sound feature with Doughboys (1930) and five further films until 1934.

Poor, poor, poor Keaton. There have been so many good Keaton movies in the previous decade that it becomes apparent not long into this one that he has become a puppet for mediocre setups. Sure, his accent when it comes to voicework is pretty earthy on the ears and he does have some interesting moments when it comes to antics within the backlot. But the romantic triangle is flabby and pathetic, and the overall execution is 92 painfully average minutes that cannot measure even with one of his weaker silent efforts such as say, The Saphead (1920). It is plain and all-around just not interesting to watch a movie dilly-dally on a set when you've seen better days for Keaton in mayhem. You've seen better movies when it comes to "inside a studio" in films such as Show People (1928), which incidentally was also an MGM film. The funny thing about Page was fresh off The Broadway Melody (1929), the original all-talking MGM musical (mediocre as hell to folks like me, but it was a really big thing back then). Her and Montgomery have about as much energy together as a sound test. Probably the one highlight is Keaton getting to audition as an actor and doing such things like bumbling a line about swooning queens. He may be playing a silly boob, but at least he at least is physical enough and committed enough to even try his hand at singing. God help us the film is one of those that thinks it is amusing to have a conversation where characters think they are talking about the same thing but actually are not. I don't even feel like thinking about the downbeat ending, because, well, it seems fitting to give an ending where our hero gets the shaft in a non-memorable movie. In the long run, going from any random silent Keaton feature to this film is practically like night and day. It is a movie that probably would've been better if done a few years earlier because, well, Keaton would've had the time and energy to really make it a worthwhile effort. Instead, it is just not worth the effort to call it a lame movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Streets of Fire.

Review #2218: Streets of Fire.

Cast: 

Michael Paré (Tom Cody), Diane Lane (Ellen Aim), Rick Moranis (Billy Fish), Amy Madigan (McCoy), Willem Dafoe (Raven Shaddock), Deborah Van Valkenburgh (Reva Cody), Richard Lawson (Ed Price), Rick Rossovich (Officer Cooley), Bill Paxton (Clyde), Lee Ving (Greer), and Stoney Jackson (Bird) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders, #1728 - Another 48 Hrs, #2217 - The Warriors)

Review: 

Paramount Pictures really liked 48 Hrs (1982), as directed by Walter Hill. He had co-written it with Larry Gross as a production that had Lawrence Gordon as one of the key producers. So, two years later, here they all are for a film again. And so, Hill wanted to make a film that he thought would be a perfect one for his teenage self that would have things he still loved even now: "custom cars, kissing in the rain, neon, trains in the night, high-speed pursuit, rumbles, rock stars, motorcycles, jokes in tough situations, leather jackets and questions of honor". Of course, in the words of Gross, Hill wanted to do a movie that basically was his "own comic book movie", which might sound a tiny bit like the inspirations for The Warriors. Casting hiccups (i.e. wanting Tom Cruise but getting beaten to the punch) and a sudden inspiration during writing...led Gross and Hill to take the success of Flashdance (1983) as a way to make the film as basically a musical, since, well, if one "stylized movie" can get going, why not this? Did I forget that one other inspiration for the type of reality depicted for the film was John Hughes? Yes, Hill not only wanted to make a movie that was something that could be great for his teenage self as a high school flick, a comic book-type film and also a musical. The film, meant to be the first of a planned trilogy (all with Pare tapped to star, naturally)...did not work out well, filing to make back its $14.5 million budget. Gross has gone on record stating that the film did have influence when it came to ones that were (in his words) "completely saturated in...iconography", such as RoboCop and Se7en, with his theory being that those films did stylization with a balance of gore that hooked the audience in ways that were not done with Streets of Fire. In 2008, Paré and Van Valkenburgh participated in Road to Hell (as directed by Albert Pyun), a sort-of follow-up.

I wish I could love it. I really do. The film is wonderfully shot by cinematographer Andy Laszlo when it comes to that weird world of another time and place that makes for a fruitfully interesting vibe and such for 93 minutes. To me, it just comes off as a more average rendition of The Warriors (1979), complete with an even less interesting idea behind its main duo because dear god, it focuses on the wrong two! I swear, one has more fun with the cheesy retort between Pare and Madigan than the attempts of trying to make me care about him and Lane (oh look, an ex-boyfriend encountering his ex-girlfriend in a rescue operation, makes one want to slip on Casablanca). Hell, according to Madigan, when she read for the film (for the part played by Van Valkenburgh), she apparently found the nomad soldier-for-hire the more interesting one. With the charm of someone seemingly ripped out of a Howard Hawks film, she steals the show away from Pare, who plays it all too cool that really only works if one is Clint Eastwood. Lane (present in a handful of films such as Coppola's two 1983 films in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish) may have a suitable presence when it comes to singing, but I think I actually found her more interested in chemistry with her lead...in A Little Romance, five years earlier. One just has to view the film around them as if it was one of those cheesy teen films where the action matters more than if the sucker gets the girl. Of course, Dafoe wearing a leather...apron (?) is far more belonging to the vibe of goofball adventure, complete with a casually weird vibe that would make a fascinating comparison with The Loveless. There is something oddly amusing about Moranis not getting to do schtick with this role, which is staid but kinda funny. It is a lean movie of pretty simple Western values that has an axe-fight in the middle of a crowd before closing its mish-mash of vibes and a song naturally named "Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young". As a whole, it is a film that looks nice and has a few moments of good-natured fun within its fable elements of rock and roll to clash with mediocre leads and stuff that only scratches the surface of being more than just "okay" entertainment. It might be among Hill's ambitious ideas for filmmaking, which therefore makes it more than just calling it one of his average productions of his heyday. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Warriors.

Review #2217: The Warriors.

Cast: 

Michael Beck (Swan), James Remar (Ajax), Deborah Van Valkenburgh (Mercy), Marcelino Sánchez (Rembrandt), David Harris (Cochise), Tom McKitterick (Cowboy), Brian Tyler (Snow), Dorsey Wright (Cleon), Terry Michos (Vermin), David Patrick Kelly (Luther), Roger Hill (Cyrus), Edward Sewer (Masai), Lynne Thigpen (the D.J.), and Thomas G. Waites (Fox) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders, #1728 - Another 48 Hrs)

Review: 

“Our film doesn’t say everyone is supposed to be a lawyer or a doctor or something. The movie sees gangs as a defensive alignment in order to help you survive in a harsh atmosphere.”

In 1965, Sol Yurick made a crime novel that took inspiration from Xenophon’s Anabasis involving gangs and a desperate run back to Coney Island through rival turf. He had been a social investigator within New York City's welfare department for several years prior to becoming a fulltime writer. Lawrence Gordon (once a vice president within American International Pictures before starting to produce films with Dillinger in 1973) was the one to spearhead a production as a producer, even if it would be a semi-cheap film made for Paramount Pictures with a director in Walter Hill that had two films to his name with Hard Times (1975) and The Driver (1978); at the time, only Hard Times was remotely successful. Hill delivered re-writes to the original script as done by David Shaber (the actual Yurick novel was, well, a straight-to-the point book about a gang in all of the rough-and-tumble moves). The wild road of making a film on location in New York City led to a good deal of success and turmoil in filmmaking (Waites, apparently seen as a "potential next James Dean", got into arguments with Hill about the nature of the dialogue and filmmaking that saw him get suddenly get killed off, to which he demanded to not be credited for the role). The film was rushed a bit to beat the rush of a film that came out in the same year in The Wanderers, which was a Bronx coming-of-age story involving teenagers in gangs; both movies were pretty moderate hits, but only one attracted a bit of violence within screenings (which because pundits really are as dumb as you think, they linked to the film just because someone died) that saw a brief halting of advertising by Paramount. The introduction of Hill's director's cut makes reference to the Battle of Cunaxa (in tying the run of a group of people back home) to go with other additions (comic book panels) that apparently were things that Hill could not do due to the rushed time to make the film. Your milage may vary on whether the panels add anything substantial to the film. 

There is something about filming on location that really brings out the ingenuity in a director, particularly one as interesting as Walter Hill in lean and mean adventure that really could double as a Western (Hill was once quoted as saying that every one of his films was a Western, although it wasn't until one would be amused to compare this to Hill's fourth feature with 1980's The Long Riders). It is a certain kind of capsule movie that has a look one can't just replicate when it comes to grime that works so well here for a relatively breezy 92-minute runtime that goes right in for a useful kinetic journey that just has the feeling of...being in a rush. It has the coordinated energy in its arrangement of fight sequences to go with a handful of amusing moments involving appealing people (punks probably had a field day). Beck (picked after Hill watched him star in a film called "Madman") and Van Valkenburgh have that type of wavering chemistry that could only come from people that believe they can navigate the stormy waters. Sure, you can't really define these characters more than a sentence or two, but that can go for anyone here and yet they still make it worth the trip. Remar (in just his second film role) has a chaotic energy to him that commands the screen in stupefying fervor worth appreciating. Of course, Kelly (making his film debut) does well in that worthwhile type of sadistic derangement that naturally has the most enduring bit of the whole film involving "come out to play" (emphasis on that last word, dragged out). It is a movie one catches for the exhilaration and madness, all of which gets going with that buildup in the starting sequence involving a collection of gangs and a man named Cyrus (if one looks up Anabasis, that involved a large group of Greek mercenaries hired...by someone named Cyrus the Younger, which, well, ended with Cyrus dying). It isn't a film about the social problem but instead a frenzy of coordinated chaos that is broadly crude but totally the kind of movie to slip on one night and enjoy for its clear-eyed dystopian nature that just busts loose.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.