Any Given Sunday.

Review #1523: Any Given Sunday.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony D'Amato), Cameron Diaz (Christina Pagniacci), Dennis Quaid (Jack 'Cap' Rooney), James Woods (Dr. Harvey Mandrake), Jamie Foxx (Willie Beamen), LL Cool J (Julian Washington), Matthew Modine (Dr. Ollie Powers), Jim Brown (Montezuma Monroe), Lawrence Taylor (Luther 'Shark' Lavay), Bill Bellamy (Jimmy Sanderson), Andrew Bryniarski (Patrick 'Madman' Kelly), Lela Rochon (Vanessa Struthers), Lauren Holly (Cindy Rooney), Ann-Margret (Margaret Pagniacci), Aaron Eckhart (Nick Crozier) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, and #1265 - Natural Born Killers)

Review: 
"I love intelligent films that come at you fast. I don't have attention deficit disorder, my mind moves fast. There's a lot to deal with in my films. We had so many facts to go through, so the governing style was flash, cut, flash, repeat."

One needs to see a bit of distinct vision every now and then from a director, and Oliver Stone closed out his 20th century with another distinct focus in football. He had been a student at Yale University before doing service in Vietnam first through teaching students English in Saigon to wiping Merchant Marine ships to dropping out of Yale and enlisting in the United States Army. He went into New York University after that and graduated with a film degree in 1971. He made his first film as a director with the cheapie Seizure (1974) before getting the chance to write Midnight Express (1978), which resulted in an Academy Award for his script despite inaccuracies of the depiction of the real-life prison story. The Hand (1981) followed for Stone as a director, but the five years between this and his next was crucial, since he wrote Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Scarface (1983) in that time. He rocketed to further prominence with Platoon (1986) that kept him busy over the prevailing years, with this being his 15th as director/writer. He has touched subjects such as war with Salvador (1986), biopics with The Doors (1991), to crime with Natural Born Killers (1994), all seeming distinct in their provocative nature by Stone.

I wonder if Stone wanted to make the ultimate football film. What we have here is truly a hodgepodge of clichés and assumptions you can have in a sports film, right from an upstart rookie becoming a star and then needing to not become consumed in arrogance, a wearied wise coach (perhaps like Tom Landry?), action montages, and even having actual athletes as stars (of which there are several notable ones of the past like Lawrence Taylor or Johnny Unitas). Stone had first expressed an interest in a football project with an early 1980s script about an old linebacker he wrote in mind for Charles Bronson. Years later, he met journalist Richard Weiner. He had developed a script with former player Jamie Williams about a black quarterback. This would be combined with scripts done by John Logan and Daniel Pyne alongside inspiration from You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise by Robert Huzienga Jr (former team physician of the Los Angeles Raiders detailing player injuries); Stone and Logan would get screenplay credit while Pyne and Logan got story and Weiner and Williams were consultants. This frenzy also applies to editing, since there are four listed as part of the film. Stone clearly was under the mindset that football was somehow like war, particularly with how it marched on as a team together as opposed to individual only, while also seeing the other sides of football life (like the pain and egos). On a basic level, I would say that this is a decent movie, wrapped with making an involving film packing an ensemble worthy of carrying most of its weight that Stone wants to put on them on and off the field that can be fairly entertaining. Of course it also is considerably lengthy at 162 minutes (157 for the director's cut, in which twelve minutes were cut for pacing while adding six minutes of other scenes) with a self-importance like no other in its presentation of football players as the modern gladiator (complete with a brief flash of Ben-Hur to drive home the point) with all of the excesses that come from Stone's view on the matter. It is firmly a film of the 1990s in all the right and weird ways, one that I chuck a smile at when it stops doing flashes of editing and focuses on just the basics.

Pacino does quite well with the material required in garnering a leader one could rally around in all of the moods required, whether that involves weary loneliness or stubborn dominance that seems fairly convincing in rally curiosity. Diaz matches him in cleverness that never seems like a doorstep to forget about, a figure of new-school arrogance that does seem quite amusing. Quaid does fine with a man on his last leg of fame (and perhaps health) - respectable without being drowned in pity. Woods doesn't have too much to really do, but he is quite a conniving figure behind the lines that has one really good scene to munch on involving him being caught in a lie about the health of the players. Foxx (picked after Sean Combs lost the role apparently because he couldn't throw a football) captures the bravado of a rising star and all that comes with it in good detail, whether that involves brimming confidence or sparring words with anyone. Others such as Cool J and Taylor make the best of their time on screen in charm and coarse acting that resonate the siding of the football action in its business and excess. It can't quite keep every thread going without being a bit lost, but at least its numerous showing of games do look fairly convincing (hits and all) within a fictionalized football league (in the year 2001 no less). It still has a punch when it comes to the TV-infected sensationalism and other various topics, and it definitely seems willing enough to want to inspire a thought without bashing your head with it. On the whole, it lumbers to points about football gladiators and its exploitation a bit too much, but it does work itself enough to win out in the end.

Next Time: We venture into the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Scarface (1983)

Review #1471: Scarface.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony Montana), Steven Bauer (Manny Ray), Michelle Pfeiffer (Elvira), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Robert Loggia (Frank Lopez), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Alejandro Sosa), Harris Yulin (Bernstein), and Angel Salazar (Chi Chi) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible and #1230 - Carrie)

Review:
"I have a reputation as an action director because I know how to kill, how to shoot people, how to spill blood."

For such a popular film of its era, there are two things that stick out really particularly well about it to note. The first is the fact that the inspiration for the film came from the desire of Al Pacino to want to do a remake of the original Scarface (1932), which Pacino loved as a "model for all gangster pictures." He approached his manager and producer Martin Bregman to do a film and had asked Oliver Stone (who had just won an Academy Award for his screenplay in Midnight Express in 1978) to do the screenplay, although he initially rejected doing it (noting his dislike of the original). An eventual shift from doing a period piece to one set in the present day led to Sidney Lumet being brought in as director. It was he would suggested that it would be set in Miami, with the region having seen a mass emigration of Cubans just three years prior (referred to as the Mariel boatlift). Stone found this premise intriguing enough to sign on to write the film, although Lumet would soon bow out due to creative differences. The director brought in to take on the film was Brian De Palma, a director associated as a figure of the New Hollywood movement of the previous decade that had gone from being inspired to do films in college to doing his own modest works in the late 1960s to his first prime hit in Carrie (1976). Influenced by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma is known for his highly stylized films that typically fall within the suspense and crime genres.

What's the second fact you might ask? This was actually not well-liked upon original release. It proved a lightning rod for critics of those who found it excessive in violence and language (you don't say?) or too stereotypical (it isn't like there was a disclaimer at the end about the "dedication, vitality, and enterprise" of Cuban Americans - oops, never mind), and there was a considerable fight over the rating (which was deemed to be X by the MPAA before eventually being rated R). To that I say: what the hell did you expect, a walk in the park with gangsters who deal in cocaine? Loud, provocative, and unrelenting in what it wants to be in content, it deserves its reputation of respect as a film for that era of weird excess with no problem as an imperfect show for its makers. It is a film that intimidates you with excess to the limit because it knows exactly what it is doing about its tale of the dark side of the American Dream that attracted a great deal of people that liked what they saw play out on screen (such as with hip hop and countless references and imitations of quotes from the film). It shouldn't prove surprising that I found the film pretty well done as a film of excess that looks upon the abyss of what it means to rise to the top and the pitfalls that come in trying to stay there. De Palma makes the best of his cast and scope of 170 minutes in delivering entertainment that shocks its viewer with a tremendous burst of energy. Pacino shines with energy, raw and focused in his pursuits and appetites like a lion that make a captivating watch, with plenty of scenes one could highlight, such as the dinner sequence about "saying goodnight to the bad guy" or the tense would-be assassination scene, or the climax (involving that often repeated line involving a "little friend") and so on. Bauer follows along with just as well as a figure along for the ride of mayhem with charm, while Pfeiffer (in a breakthrough part) proves just as alluring in curiosity in her presence. The rest prove just as well in presence, such as a dedicated Mastrantonio and Colon or a smarmy Loggia and refined sleaze in Shenar. Regardless of how much one knows about the film or its lines, one will find themselves in for quite a ride with this film, a stroke of excess and sleaze to make a interesting crime film for its age that lands most of its punches and earns its reputation with stature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dog Day Afternoon.

Review #1450: Dog Day Afternoon.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Sonny Wortzik), John Cazale (Salvatore "Sal" Naturale), Charles Durning (Sergeant Eugene Moretti), James Broderick (Agent Sheldon), Lance Henriksen (Agent Murphy), Chris Sarandon (Leon Shermer), Penelope Allen (Sylvia), Sully Boyar (Mulvaney), Susan Peretz (Angela Wortzik), and Carol Kane (Jenny) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, and #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express)

Review: 
"I don't think of myself as anything but an actor struggling to find the next role and when I do get the role to try and see if I can find any way into it."

"While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film is which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing."

How can one talk about esteemed method actors and not think about Al Pacino? Although Pacino had ambitions of baseball as a teenager, he soon shifted focus to acting, for which he would have to take modest-paying jobs to help finance study, with one job being a mailroom employee for the magazine Commentary. He acted in small plays in New York, but he wasn't accepted into the Actors Studio when applying as a teen (he would attend the HB Studio for four years until being accepted into the Actors Studio). He cited Lee Strasberg and the Studio as a key effect on his future career in putting all of his focus into acting, and the two would even appear in films together in later years (most notably with The Godfather Part II). He soon shifted to stage work (which he has continued to make on-and-off star appearances), performing for the first time in 1967, with his debut in Broadway coming two years later. That same year, he also made his first appearance in film with Me, Natalie. The 1970s proved to be a tremendous decade for Pacino, starting with notice in The Panic in Needle Park (1971), and it helped him get attention for his next role: The Godfather (1972), for which he was picked over prominent other choices. One of the eight films in the decade Pacino did was Serpico (1973), which he did with Lumet to tremendous success (including an Academy Award nomination, which he received four other times in the decade). Lumet was known for his distinct prolific work over a lengthy career in films (over 40 in a half century starting with 12 Angry Men) and television (primarily doing work in television in the fifties), noted for their social realism and naturalism while mostly set in New York (where he grew up after being born in Philadelphia) that served him well as someone labeled an "actor's director".

The film is very loosely based on real-life events that occurred on August 22, 1972, where failed bank robbers John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturale held nine bank employees hostage for 14 hours in attempts to take money for an sex change operation for the former's lover, which resulted in one death and 20 years for Wojtowicz. The exploits of the robbery were covered in an article ("The Boys in the Bank" by P. F. Kluge) for Life magazine, and while writer Frank Pierson wanted to interview Wojtowicz personally in prison, an agreement couldn't be reached about how much to pay for the story. Wojtowicz would later state that only 30% of the film was accurate, although he did find that Pacino and Sarandon were captured accurately (the actual amount robbed was over 37 thousand in cash and over 175 thousand in traveler's checks, and this doesn't even count the allegations from anonymous sources that it was actually organized by a Mafia family). For an biographical film (of sorts), it is interesting to note the improvisations done through the dialogue at times (which keep with the structure of Pierson's screenplay), since Lumet encouraged the actors to show spontaneity when it came to rehearsals (a hallmark of his when it came to establishing trust with his actors) that would help in making lines come out naturally (the famed Attica! line was improvised, for example).

One always seems to feel on the edge when it comes to a film like this, where you can feel every little moment of tension and furor that is headlined by a tremendous performance from Pacino. He molds himself into a frantic pace in a tour-de-force achievement of wired hysteria that we cannot take our eyes of, where our view of him through the film and the people that see him through their television or right in front of their eyes seem to muddle each other into something worth pondering about. The 1970s were certainly a divergent time for America, particularly in light of what people saw on their television screens or in the streets, and seeing someone holding a bank hostage isn't too different. Even now the film proves relevant because of the nature of fame (or infamy) in the eyes of a curious audience looking for some sort of person to relate to or stand with (regardless of how one feels about glorifying/boosting certain actions) in social media. The others prove just as well in following along on a natural tense pace, such as Cazale (who did over a decade of work in the theater before making his first of five film appearances in The Godfather) and his well-placed subtlety as the lead man to a situation that gets worse and worse by the minute. Durning proves resilient with growing tension through some bluster that takes a good chunk of the first half more so than the second for effect. Broderick and Henriksen fill the screen nicely, while Sarandon delivers well in evoking curiosity and humanity for the second half of the film, particularly through the phone call sequence with Pacino. When the film opens itself up in tension and details, we care to see where it all may lea to without too much judgement or impatience. On the whole, while it may prove a bit too much to hold for all of its 125 minute run-time, this is a film worth checking out to see the raw spirit of the times play out in fascinating detail from Pacino, who makes for a frantic yet always interesting presence worth viewing to the bitter end.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dick Tracy.

Review #205: Dick Tracy.

Cast
Warren Beatty (Dick Tracy), Al Pacino (Bigboy Caprice), Madonna (Breathless Mahoney), Glenne Headly (Tess Trueheart), Charlie Korsmo (The Kid/Dick Tracy Jr.), Seymour Cassel (Sam Catchun), Charles Durning (Chief Brandon), Dick Van Dyke (John Fletcher), Dustin Hoffman (Mumbles), and William Forsythe (Flattop) Directed by Warren Beatty.

Review
First off, this film is adapted from the comic strip (about a detective who fights crime against various villains) created by Chester Gould in 1931. This already had a few adaptations to films, radio, comic, TV, and novels. Anyway, this film has some similarities to Batman, which had been released a year earlier. Both have dark elements, riveting action, and even the same composer (Danny Elfman) The colors and style in this film are excellent, you see a limited but comic like feel invoked all around. The acting is good, but the fact there is an all star cast in the first place is more interesting. It has good makeup (that garnered an Oscar) The hype for the film might've been a bit much (again sounding familiar to Batman...). The story isn't as developed as Batman, but this film still has enough colors and fun to keep you interested and entertained. The sad thing is that after over 20 years, There have been 0 sequels (though Beatty has recently got the rights back, but he is 75, there's that obstacle), but either way, this is something that will be remembered for being a decent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.