Heaven's Gate.

Review #2237: Heaven's Gate.

Cast: 

Kris Kristofferson (Averill), Christopher Walken (Champion), John Hurt (Irvine), Sam Waterston (Canton), Brad Dourif (Mr. Eggleston), Isabelle Huppert (Ella), Joseph Cotten (The Reverend Doctor), Jeff Bridges (John L. Bridges), Geoffrey Lewis (Trapper), Paul Koslo (Mayor Lezak), Richard Masur (Cully), and Terry O'Quinn (Captain Minardi) Written and Directed by Michael Cimino (#1458 - The Deer Hunter) 

Review: 

"I wanted you to feel what it was like to walk down a street in that period: to follow those noisy wagons, to cross all that activity, what you felt, what you heard. People made so much dust; my God, was it dusty! That makes the streets dirty... when hundreds of wagons go around, they raise dust. And very often, we took the time to record the background sound. In the store, for example, we recorded numerous conversations, with the intention of inserting them into the soundtrack later. This isn’t general background noise; you hear people, in a corner, argue over the price of a knife, discuss the merits of a particular rifle... each of those people are engaged in a very specific activity and you hear them."

Believe it or not, I was awaiting the chance to watch this film in the best scenario and presentation possible. No, I was not waiting for this day to come just to deluge you with some spiel about the production of the film being the legacy of the film for years and years. August seemed to be the best time to see if this film truly deserved to be acknowledged as something beyond just being thought of by critics and audiences as a failure. The attention to detail actually shouldn't be surprising considering that Cimino (the Yale graduate in fine arts of painting) was quite familiar with the arts before his filmmaking era had begun. In fact, his cinematographer for this film (Vilmos Zsigmond) equated Cimino's selection and placement of extras (which could be as many as fifty) in particular places for shots to painting to go with doing as many takes as it seemed necessary to get the right one to use for a scene. Let us run down the various versions of the film really quickly: Cimino's first screening was for studio executives in June of 1980 (initially before all of the hubbub happened, United Artists wanted a Christmas 1979 release), which ran for 325 minutes that he felt would only be a little bit longer than the final cut. The November 1980 screenings (which lasted a week and had critics going "the Devil has just come around to collect") saw a 219-minute version cut by Cimino. Five months later, a 149-minute cut came and died in theaters. Cimino would only direct four films (the last being The Sunchaser [1996]) prior to his death in 2016. Both of these versions were released in some form of the days of home media. In 2005, a "restored cut" came out for screenings that was assembled by MGM archivist John Kirk with no involvement from Cimino, who had stated that even the original premiere version wasn't really a "director's cut". Finally, in 2012, a version restored and supervised by Cimino himself that lasts 216 minutes and removes the sepia tint that had been present in every edition (which is one that you can see here); it was screened to apparent applause and ovations that Cimino got to hear for himself (while saying once that he "never needed vindication") before an eventual home media release, with the Criterion release being the one I saw for myself.

From 1889 to 1893, a reported range conflict, now generally referred to as the "Johnson County War" occurred in Wyoming involving county settlers and cattle companies (the Wyoming Stock Growers Association) trying to prosecute who they felt were rustlers that led to a variety of lynchings and deaths, such as Ella Watson and her husband Jim Averell or a murderous gunfight involving Nate Champion. The film utilizes real-life names such as Watson, Averell, Champion and Cannon but is generally fast and loose with actual events (such as the death of one person who actually lived until the 20th century). Cimino had envisioned making a film loosely based on the War since the early 1970s (after being inspired by the history of barbed wire in relation to the Old West), but it was only just before The Deer Hunter (1979) garnered Academy Awards that had United Artists onto the idea of giving him money and carte blanche to do what he wanted in filming (located mostly in Montana and Idaho). The result was a film that had a studio executive write a book detailing the movie in all the grisly details (Final Cut, published in 1999). What I see from this film (set in 1890) is one that tries to thread the needle of being the epic of mythmaking, one that wonders just what really lies beneath the fabric of what we call America (complete with a line musing about it "always was" a danger to be poor in the country). It is a movie all about tragedy in its mosaic that demands plenty from its viewer that is easy to see its qualities and drawbacks that are quite distinct from those who saw it in its "prime". Beneath all of the lush photography (and an edited tint, remember) is a film for those with the patience to gaze at the building tragedy that arises from knowing blood will be spilled on this soil as manifested by the destiny of those to live with people who look and act like themselves. The obsession for perceived perfection by Cimino bleeds out quite evidently in the weirdest of ways. In other words, to get to the climatic sequence of wagons and wood, one must see for themselves a sequence of roller-skating (which is where the title comes from) or plenty of stilted moments of this would-be love triangle. Kristofferson and Walken seem to battle for who dominates the screen best in terms of presence in the trouble of staying with the loyalty they wish to express to both Huppert along with the uncertain frontier (Walken has that certain type of glare and Kristofferson has that facade of trying to seem like a common man). Poor Huppert seems lost in trying to hack it beyond hazy charm when Walken can just waltz into his introduction without losing a step. Hurt gets to play an observer removed from actually being involved with the general plot (because of his hollow character) that is sort of effective in a sea of one-note stuff. Poor Bridges chimes in just as little as one thinks by the time of the halfway point, while Waterston seemingly is one really good scene away from being the true presence of soulless manifest the film seems to think he is. The film gives one a hazy outline to basically use their imagination in trying to make one see themselves in these folks that are not merely outsiders, which is only somewhat successful. Its battle sequence at the end makes for a poignant hollow victory for all involved, one where the blood will stay on the soil long after all involved have shuffled off the coil that is considered "settled" to go with that last scene of an older and, well, settled lead presence in the privilege that comes with compliance. I can't call it a great movie because really it is just a bit too bloated to really rise to greatness (although being close to sprawling flawed films like Dances with Wolves is not a bad thing), but I think it is pretty obviously a movie worth checking out to see for oneself (while paying attention, naturally) to assess where it ranks in the pantheon of tragic Westerns and mythmaking as a whole.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hello folks. As you can see, we have another August upon us, which means a theme month once again.

2021: "Anniversary in August"

2022: "Action in August"

2023: "Around the World in August"

The theme for 2024 is "Acknowledged in August", which will cover films that were either lambasted or forgotten by critics or audiences at the time of release in an attempt to see if, well, they deserve to be acknowledged for possibly worth having a cult following. What better way to start than with a film trashed to hell and back in Heaven's Gate? From Michael Cimino to Robert Altman, we will cover some films that may or may not be "something to acknowledge". There will be a few new releases covered alongside the Acknowledged stuff this month, as evidenced by the next review: Trap.

Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Wayne's World 2.

Review #1608: Wayne's World 2.

Cast: 

Mike Myers (Wayne Campbell), Dana Carvey (Garth Algar), Tia Carrere (Cassandra Wong), Christopher Walken (Robert G. "Bobby" Cahn), Kevin Pollak (Jerry Segel), Ralph Brown (Del Preston), James Hong (Jeff Wong), Kim Basinger (Honey Hornée), Chris Farley (Milton), Michael A. Nickles (Jim Morrison), Larry Sellers (The Weird Naked Indian), with Ed O'Neill (Glen), Gavin Grazer (Scott), and Aerosmith. Directed by Stephen Surjik.

Review: 

It did not take long for folks to realize that Wayne's World was a success. To recap, Wayne's World began twofold: Mike Myers came up with the idea of Wayne that appeared in sketches for Citytv's City Limits and CBC Television's It's Only Rock & Roll in the mid 1980s before Myers joined Saturday Night Live in 1989 and starred in segments for the show with Dana Carvey that were featured from time to time for the next five years. The 1992 film of the same name, doubted by Paramount Pictures to be much of a hit, made nine times its $20 million budget, ranking as the most popular film based on a SNL sketch (which it still holds today). The sequel retains the main duo alongside a selection of cast members from the original alongside a sprinkling of cameo appearances (both musical and not), with Myers writing the film again with Bonnie and Terry Turner. However, the road to making a script for a sequel proved quite tough, in that the original idea by Myers wouldn't end up being used, which involved inspiration taken directly from Passport to Pimlico (1949), where the main duo would end up making their own country. Weeks before production was to start, this inspiration was pointed out by studio executives (who did not have enough time to negotiate the rights to the script and were thus incensed, with one threatening Myers personally) and they made Myers write an entirely new script. Conflicts between Myers and Penelope Spheeris over editing in the first film led to consideration of a new director in Stephen Surjik, who was known for his direction of segments for The Kids in the Hall (1990-1993). 

The film was not quite a hit like the original, but it was a marginal hit with audiences as the last hurrah for these characters. When it comes to comedies, it is a mediocre follow-up that will nevertheless please those who seek another ride of goofy charm with hit-and-miss pace. Those who weren't really fans of the original won't exactly be swayed here, because sometimes it really does feel like a bit of a rehash from before - truly, it is the take-or-leave-it film for the comedy season. Myers and Carvey prove up to the task of creating some amusing moments, whether spent with themselves or playing against others; in the case of Myers, it namely involves a vision of Jim Morrison as some sort of spiritual journey (inspired by Myers and his own journey that he took upon the death of his father) that leads to a few interesting moments to those who don't see the Morrison bits as just a bit. Actually, the "fight" (involving dubbing) between Myers and Hong is kind of funny, too. For Carvey, the moments spent with Basinger playing a femme fatale prove quite involving (along with seeming tacked there to give him something to do besides linger with the look-alike played by Olivia d'Abo). The segment showing Myers and Carvey talk about "The Leprechaun" is a decent highlight to look at for a minute, in the sense that it is probably better done than the actual film made fun of. It is nice to see Carrere, even if her part seems like a re-hash from before (in other words, trying to do music in the face of slimy producers), but the highlight is the re-creation of a particular sequence from The Graduate (1967) near the ending. Walken does well with straight-laced slime that nevertheless can grab a chuckle (or be used for better work involving straight-laced humor). Pollak is used for a bit involving eyes that goes over fine, but it is Brown that takes up the supporting reins in pairing with Myers/Carvey, which he does in a take off the eccentric character he played in Withnail and I (1987). There are various cameo appearances throughout the film, ranging from Rip Taylor to Aerosmith to Charlton Heston, with some proving better than others (Charlton Heston over Jay Leno? Shock, shock, shock. Actually, I take it back, TV sentimental favorite Ed O'Neill's brief moment as the oddball Glen is the better one). In other words, 95 minutes is just enough to handle a few decent moments and a mostly-original run-through for a follow-up film that will fit just fine for what one desires to see in entertainment without being too disappointed. In other words, one can party on just fine with this film without hurling too much back at the screen.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Deer Hunter.

Review #1458: The Deer Hunter.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (SSG Michael "Mike" Vronsky), Christopher Walken (Cpl. Nikanor "Nick" Chevotarevich), John Savage (Cpl. Steven Pushkov), John Cazale (Stan), Meryl Streep (Linda), George Dzundza (John Welsh), Pierre Segui (Julien Grinda), Shirley Stoler (Steven's mother), Chuck Aspegren (Peter "Axel" Axelrod), and Rutanya Alda (Angela Ludhjduravic-Pushkov) Directed by Michael Cimino.

Review: 
"I don't make movies intellectually, I don't make movies to make a point, I make movies to tell stories about people."

War can lead to plenty of actions, and films revolving around (or about) the war is one of them. Vietnam was no different, although it certainly reflected differently than other film revolving about war, whether involving the war or coming home from it, and there certainly are differences from films such as The Green Berets (1968) when compared to this, Go Tell the Spartans, or Coming Home (all 1978) or later ones like Apocalypse Now (1979) and Platoon (1986). It should only figure that a film like this would come from an unknown in Michael Cimino, who was certainly an eccentric when it came to a rise to stardom that was as quick as his fall in a varied career of seven films. He was a graduate of Michigan State University in graphic arts in 1959 along with subsequent study at Yale for art that was followed by work in advertising and commercials during the 1960s (with a stint in the Army reserves for six months). He decided to take on screenwriting in 1971, with his first script being Silent Running (1972) with Deric Washburn and Steven Bochco. He helped write Magnum Force (1973) with John Milius before writing Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), which was liked enough by Clint Eastwood to have Cimino make his feature directorial debut. He would ultimately win two Academy Awards for his involvement with this film, which he also co-produced and co-wrote (winning for direction and for Best Picture), but his next film Heaven's Gate (1980) turned out to be such a tremendous failure (with far more budgetary overruns than this and numerous edits that has a complicated legacy) that led to a curtailed career.

It isn't too surprising that the film went through plenty of turmoil in production. The budget rose from eight to fourteen million dollars in budget, and Cimino's perfectionism seems to really come out during its wedding sequence (which makes one really feel like they are stuck in a wedding), with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond once describing him as being "difficult to deal with...very stubborn...He wanted it the way he wanted it." There are four different writers credited for the film: Deric Washburn wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Cimino (also co-producer), Louis Garfinkle, and Quinn K. Redeker (the original idea was done by the latter two about Russian roulette in Las Vegas) There is certainly an allegorical feel to this film, albeit not without its own controversy about where it tries to go with its depiction of war (the Russian roulette sequences with POWs is most prominent in that discussion). The basic nature of this film is a portrait of three steelworkers having their lives changed after fighting in the Vietnam War, and it is De Niro and Walken who help to steady a film wracked with plenty of show and say about itself and the nature of change that goes in a man when seeing war, which makes for a curiously decent (if not tremendously flawed) experience for 184 minutes, a mixing of commonplace and agony. De Niro (who had apparently prepped for the role by hanging around with steelworkers in bars and visited their homes as one of them) proves quite compelling with strength that we see come out during the film even as it gets darker and darker. Walken proves just as devastating, rolling along with the agony of war and chance that makes for a soulfully fascinating watch whenever he is present, whether involving roulette or writhing in bed, and the sequence between him and De Niro at the end with roulette (the second time, with the first being just as tense) being the best part of the film in seeing the degree of madness one can do in the company of others. Savage makes the last piece of the veteran trio count just fine, an involving performance that goes along with the others that accompany some interesting moments with Cazale (in his final role before his death) and Aspegren (an actual foreman at a steelworks) that share clear contrast of bonding from the first to the last half of the film. Streep rounds out the cast with grace for a role that could've faded in the background with a less talented actress but here is done with care.

On the whole, the one feeling I had with this film was a sense that I should have liked it more than I did. I acknowledge that the film works fairly well as a tragic look on the nature of friends changed by their experience in war, but its attempts at building a detailed story that borders on excess for a ultimate three hour length nearly overwhelms the whole experience into chaos. The Vietnam sequences are the best part of the film, in part because I really seem to remember them better (because one needs authenticity, it was actually filmed with rats and mosquitoes) than the events that transpired before them, although the parts after coming back from the war do work in cultivating heartbreaking curiosity. Whether there is enough or too much setup to make this story truly work, the film does turn out to be worth a watch in the achievements that it does do in its acting and some of its riveting somber moments, which make up for its tests of patience that have made it a masterpiece in some eyes and tedious in others, and I find myself firmly in the middle. I didn't love what I saw, but I sure didn't hate it either.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Catch Me If You Can.

Review #1305: Catch Me If You Can.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Abagnale Jr.), Tom Hanks (Carl Hanratty), Christopher Walken (Frank Abagnale Sr.), Nathalie Baye (Paula Abagnale), Amy Adams (Brenda Strong), Martin Sheen (Roger Strong), James Brolin (Jack Barnes), and Nancy Lenehan (Carol Strong) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, and #1068 - Ready Player One)

Review: 
We all have a collection of lies in our lives, with some having more fabrications than others. We tell it to ourselves, our children, our loved ones, our friends and even random strangers if necessary. They can range from white lies to the outrageous. In this case, this is a film inspired by the real life story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a case of con-man forger turned consultant that wrote about his exploits as a teenager in 1980 with Stan Redding. Attempts to produce an adaptation had persisted for years with several directors attached before Spielberg (who had co-founded of Dreamworks Pictures and initially signed on as producer) ultimately became the one to direct. In any case, Catch Me If You Can is a wonderful crook tale headlined by a wonderful tandem performance from DiCaprio and Hanks that rolls for 141 minutes in consistent stylish entertainment. It takes the expected route to fact and fiction blending, but let it be said that the exploits of Abagnale are still a bit fuzzy even after several decades. Granted, there are significant differences, which range from minor stuff like a consolidated time-line to changing the name of the pursuing FBI agent to his family life (i.e. no siblings). It is a compromise kind of film, where the scenes with DiCaprio and Walken after he runs away from home are warm while being a product of movie-magic, which can be forgiven for a clever film like this one.

DiCaprio drives things along with such suave nature, a charming wunderkind of fabrication that never seems inauthentic to watch, where he doesn't seem too old to be playing a teenager-turned-criminal. Hanks is just as entertaining as the other side of the coin, where he doesn't become privy to the old traditions of the FBI pursuer of gritted teeth or Lt. Gerald style obsession - one trying to do their job without much of a family life (very much like the person pursued) but with a sense of commitment one would see from a composite (loosely based on real FBI Agent Joseph Shea). Walken plays things smooth, where one likes to see him talk to his on-screen son with caring warmth, and Baye does just as fine to portray this on-screen family before things go awry, a picture of a family that you might think was just fine. Illusions aren't limited to cons, you might say. Adams does pretty well with a lively performance to round out the edges of the caper filings. On the whole, the film does best in its look at the pursuit through technical lenses, such as the cinematography by Janusz Kamiński and a jazzy score from John Williams that each give the film plenty of surrounding atmosphere to go around. The film works best when seeing how DiCaprio and Hanks are when in their surrounding environments, or when they speak to each other (it should be noted that the real life Abagnale and Shea did have a long-standing friendship as well) that help the film be more than procedure. You aren't rooting for our lead to be caught, but instead are captivated by what goes on next with someone who goes from plucky kid to pilot passenger. We live in such a different world now compared to the late 1960s that the film presents, but that doesn't mean the con of assuming a different identity is a thing of the past - some just happen to be better than others. This is a case of someone who did it with embellishment, with a film that seems as appropriate for entertainment that is easy to expect from Spielberg but always interesting to see in how it actually plays out.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sleepy Hollow.

Review #1295: Sleepy Hollow.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Ichabod Crane), Christina Ricci (Katrina Van Tassel), Miranda Richardson (Lady Mary Van Tassel and The Crone Witch), Michael Gambon (Baltus Van Tassel), Casper Van Dien (Brom Van Brunt), Jeffrey Jones (Reverend Steenwyck), Christopher Lee (The Burgomaster), Richard Griffiths (Magistrate Samuel Philipse), Ian McDiarmid (Dr. Thomas Lancaster), Michael Gough (Notary James Hardenbrook), Marc Pickering (Young Masbath), and Christopher Walken and Ray Park (The Headless Horseman) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), and #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure)

Review: 
Sometimes you really need something eccentric when it comes to horror and old folktales. It should only prove fitting that Tim Burton served as director for a film like this, which started out originally intended to be directed by Kevin Yagher (known primarily for his special efforts work such as the Crypt Keeper for Tales from the Crypt) from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) that would be a low-budget slasher based off the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving. There had been a few adaptations of the story done before, such as The Headless Horseman (1922) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949, narrated by Bing Crosby), but this is certainly the most lavish attempt involving the story. The film takes plenty of liberties with the original story, ranging from the occupation of its main character to its climax, while having plenty of heads rolling around in a film that has plenty of style and a bit of humor that blend fairly well as its own thing. It pulls off a few frights together (particularly when combined with all the present fog), holding ground for most of its 105 minute run-time, with stand-out makeup and a fairly dynamic drive that feels reminiscent of Hammer horror films. The vibrant blood shots certainly help in that department, with well-executed gore and an interesting monster to boot. Depp seeps right into his part with tight conviction that would fit just fine in the traditional horror films of yesteryear without being lost in having a good time with such a squeamish yet compelling role. Ricci proves fine for a storybook type of role while having a bit of chemistry with Depp. Richardson proves to have a wicked time, playing two parts that come together just right. There certainly is an interesting cadre of supporting actors, ranging from Gambon and some fair theatrics to Hammer veterans Lee and Gough (who each get a scene each that plays out fine), and there really isn't a bad performer in the bunch to deter from the tense atmosphere the film wants to pull off. Walken may not say an actual word when it comes to the Horseman, but he sure has the chops to make it compelling to watch each and every snarl. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is exquisite, where the color only serves to help make its fantasy/horror trappings stand out more than the usual expectation, particularly when the Headless Horseman lurks around (the music from Danny Elfman is helpful as well with that intent). The climax does tend to feel a bit convenient when it comes to having to close off its telling of the legend (namely when its big bad tells someone the nature of their scheme that involves the horseman as well), but at least it can fall back on spectacle (exploding windmills? Why not?) to make it all seem worth it without having to beat you over the head with ridiculousness. On the whole, this proves to be an alluring experience, inviting you in with an interesting atmosphere and some capable acting that makes a different mark on a classic folklore without becoming lost in clichés or being anything other than a nice fright for the horror folks.

Next Review: The Evil Dead.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Last Man Standing (1996).

Review #1091: Last Man Standing.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John Smith), Bruce Dern (Sheriff Ed Galt), William Sanderson (Joe Monday), Christopher Walken (Hickey), David Patrick Kelly (Doyle), Karina Lombard (Felina), Ned Eisenberg (Fredo Strozzi), Michael Imperioli (Giorgio Carmonte), R. D. Call (Jack McCool), Alexandra Powers (Lucy Kolinski), Ken Jenkins (Capt. Tom Pickett), and Ted Markland (Deputy Bob) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs)

Review: 
The film is a remake of Yojimbo (1961), directed by Akira Kurosawa, with the screenplay done by Ryūzō Kikushima and Kurosawa. It featured Toshiro Mifune as a rōnin (a samurai with no master) that arrived in a town with competing crime lords vying for supremacy that was set in 1860 in Japan. An unofficial and unlicensed remake followed in 1964 with Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, but Last Man Standing is an official remake that gives Kukushima and Kurosawa credit for the story, with Hill providing the screenplay. With all of that information, how does this movie manage to be a dreary failure? It certainly is consistent with its tone of dry entertainment, in that it has its share of brutal action sequences and a look from Lloyd Ahern II that will certainly test the eyes of how many times the color orange dominates the screens - for better or worse. Even comparing its style to the film noirs that it seems to emulate goes against the movie's favor, since it isn't as alluring as those. It isn't so much that this is a boring thing to watch, it's just that it is a disappointing thing to see play out, with one-note characters and an execution that likes to throw its situations all over the place but not have them be readily interesting. Willis delivers a performance that seems to match the film in that it shifts between mild grinning and stale wanderer type. He may seem best when doing action sequences, but he doesn't seem to feel too comfortable in making this character seem less than stale. Dern is fairly decent, although he doesn't have too much time on screen. It is nice to see Walken when he's on screen, but there is something about the character (whether due to him or the writing) that doesn't really make him as menacing as you'd probably expect, which makes the final showdown seem less interesting than it probably should've been. The other cast members come and go with their performances, for better or worse. That's not to say that the movie would've been better if it had comedy bits, but there is certainly something lacking in terms of excitement, where one can't really revel in its attempts at trying to be compelling. In its 101 minute run-time, this isn't a terribly long slog to go through, but even as a bad film it isn't fun to pick at, more of a thing to just look at and ponder in its mundane nature.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Annie Hall.

Review #1005: Annie Hall.

Cast: 
Woody Allen (Alvy "Max" Singer), Diane Keaton (Annie Hall), Tony Roberts (Rob), Carol Kane (Allison Portchnik), Paul Simon (Tony Lacey), Janet Margolin (Robin), Shelley Duvall (Pam), Christopher Walken (Duane Hall), Colleen Dewhurst (Mrs. Hall), and Donald Symington (Mr. Hall) Directed by Woody Allen.

Review: 
Let's get this out of the way, the film was the winner of four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Director (Woody Allen), Actress (Keaton) and Original Screenplay (Allen and Marshall Brickman) Whether one finds the film to be deserving of its accolades or not, it's evident to see the amount of love the film received (and still receives) from audiences. For me, the turnout was almost exactly what I thought it would be: it was a good movie, but I didn't exactly find it to be anything too greatly special. I can at least appreciate it during its amusing moments. I will state that it does have some interesting techniques (such as split-screen), and it definitely is a film worth watching at least once, whether one is a fan of Allen or not (I fall into the category of "un-experienced"). The highlight of the movie turns out to be Keaton and her performance, mainly because of how charming and effective she proves herself to be, like when she sings, and she has interesting chemistry with Allen at times, which can be amusing.

It's a bit hard for me to say my thoughts on Allen's performance in the film, seeing how he also wrote and directed the film as well. On the one hand, the film is capably directed and fairly constructed. On the other hand, his character (full of neurosis and eccentric quirks) can prove grating at times, particularly if you don't have patience. I just couldn't get into (or care) about this character and his characteristics, but at least I can say that the basic story about love and memory is interesting enough that he doesn't completely make this insufferable. Others may find him or the film easier to relate to, but I can't really embrace what the film goes for, like how a Texan can't simply just be a fan of things from New York (or vice versa). This is likely a film that would work best on a second (or third) watch, but I can't really bring myself to do that as much as I probably would do for other films. That's not to say that it is unwatchable, it's just not something I think I'll find myself wanting to look over again and again (though if you do find yourself doing that, I don't blame you). Roberts is fairly interesting, and the rest of the cast (including one scene appearances from Duvall and Walken) serve their purpose well, with one notable cameo from Marshall McLuhan being somewhat amusing. By the time the film ends, there is some sort of satisfaction in having seen how the film plays itself out through its 93 minute run-time and how it works pretty well as a romantic comedy that isn't too boring or too sappy. Simply put, this is a film that I expected to be just fine, and I got what I wanted, for the most part. Take the film for what it is, and you'll probably get something out of it.

If you didn't already know, my Houston Astros won the World Series a few days ago. As a native Texan, it is a joy to say those words at long last. This was a great (if not stressful) World Series that had two great teams that pushed the boundaries of sanity in terms of fun. In the end, it was all worth it, and I finally get to see the World Series title come to Texas.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Brainstorm (1983).

Review #718: Brainstorm.

Cast
Christopher Walken (Michael Brace), Natalie Wood (Karen Brace), Louise Fletcher (Lillian Reynolds), Cliff Robertson (Alex Terson), Alan Fudge (Robert Jenkins), Joe Dorsey (Hal Abramson), Jason Lively (Chris Brace), Jordan Christopher (Gordy Forbes), and Donald Hotton (Landan Marks) Directed by Douglas Trumbull.

Review
Brainstorm deserves credit for its effects, which are still impressive, regardless of how old the movie is. Which is good, considering the rest of the movie isn't as impressive. Granted, the movie does have a creative premise: A research team creates a helmet that lets someone record their experience (such as racing a car, riding a horse - physically and mentally I might add) onto the device to be experienced later. Oh, and there's some evil management who want to make it militarized. I liked the movie more when it showed the helmet and what it does than the plot involving the company because it felt enjoyable and it felt less forced. The characters are fine, but this is one of those movies where the effects overtake the acting...which has been done before with other science fiction films, but it proves to be a distraction when the effects aren't chugging themselves out. I feel like the movie wants to just be about the helmet and one's experience with it instead of "nyah, we want the helmet for mind control!" Walken and Wood are at least enjoyable, though I wish Fletcher was given more time on screen. Robertson is just okay. Admittedly, the movie had a troubled production, in fact this movie was released nearly two years after Natalie Wood's death in November 1981, on a production break. After MGM tried to lock Trumbull out, the movie was finally let back into production, albeit with limited release and publicity, which ensued the movie's box office failure, and Trumbull has never directed a movie since. The movie was originally going to utilize Trumbull's Showscan process, which uses a quicker frame per second rate...but the cost of retrofitting theaters was too much for the studio. The movie does utilize a different ratio for the virtual reality scenes as opposed to the normal scenes (which is smaller), which is nice. It could be indicative of the future....someday. But until that day comes, it's an okay movie that had some troubled history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Blast from the Past.

Review #445: Blast from the Past.

Cast
Brendan Fraser (Adam Webber), Alicia Silverstone (Eve Vrustikoff), Christopher Walken (Calvin Webber), Sissy Spacek (Helen Webber), Dave Foley (Troy), Joey Slotnick (Melker), Dale Raoul (Mom), Rex Linn (Dave), Cynthia Mace (Betty), and Harry S. Murphy (Bob) Directed by Hugh Wilson.

Review
You know, there are some films that aren't really good on attaining its purpose, but still have a cute charm, a sweet, but not too sweet feel, basically a guilty pleasure. The premise of this film is a bit inventive (Though what kind of person makes a shelter that you can't even get out for 35 years?), and while it may not live up fully to its potential, I suppose it could've done worse. Brendan Fraser is not too terrible in the main role, awkward, but not too bad. Alicia Silverstone (Who I last saw in Batman & Robin, which automatically means she went a step up from that film) is somewhat better, though to be fair Christopher Walken in some ways steals the show, maybe it's his charisma, or that duck joke, I don't know. The film has a few laughs, and it sometimes tries to be ambitious, and while it starts out slow, it does at least finish well, and it's not too bad, a bit average. Is it awkward? Sometimes. Is it okay? Sure. But is it forgettable? Not all the time. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Anderson Tapes.

Review #404: The Anderson Tapes.

Cast
Sean Connery (Duke Anderson), Dyan Cannon (Ingrid Everleigh), Martin Balsam (Tommy Haskins), Ralph Meeker (Captain Delaney), Alan King (Pat Angelo), Christopher Walken (The Kid), Val Avery (Socks Parelli), Stan Gottlieb (Pop Myer), Garrett Morris (Police Sergeant), Paul Benjamin (Jimmy), Anthony Holland (Psychologist), Richard B. Shull (Werner), Conrad Bain (Dr. Rubicoff), and Margaret Hamilton (Miss Kaler) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men and #036 - Network)

Review
There have been seven reviews on Movie Night in which Sean Connery starred in the film, consisting of the six James Bond films he did from 1962-1971 (#150, #278, #298, #335, #354, #279) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (#170), so reviewing a film different from those is a welcome addition, especially when directed by Sidney Lumet, who hasn't gotten too much attention from me, though I loved 12 Angry Men. The Anderson Tapes manages to a decent thriller, and it does have its level of suspense, along with music by Quincy Jones, which is allright. Connery himself does a good job, as he manages to break out of the James Bond typecasting, doing something new, and it works. A fun fact in this film is that Christopher Walken makes his acting debut in this film and Margaret Hamilton makes her last acting appearance. The wire tapping and camera thing may seem a bit dated, but this film still works even in this day and age, and the thrill aspect of the film is toned enough to have an effect today. A fairly decent thriller with some more than decent actors and fine directing.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A View to a Kill.

Review #296: A View to a Kill.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Walken (Max Zorin), Tanya Roberts (Stacey Sutton), Grace Jones (May Day), Patrick Macnee (Godfrey Tibbett), Patrick Bauchau (Scarpine), David Yip (Chuck Lee), Willoughby Gray (Carl Mortner), Fiona Fullerton (Pola Ivanova), Manning Redwood (Bob Conley), Alison Doody (Jenny Flex), Robert Brown (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights and #290 - Licence to Kill)

Review
A View to a Kill was the 7th and final Bond film for Roger Moore, who had been Bond for 12 years, the longest tenure of them all. But is this any good? Well, if this is meant to be Moore's last one, it definitely shows. This is one of those films where it has some good things, but is then bogged by flaws among flaws. I'll start with the villains first for example. Grace Jones is good, giving the aura of delightful villainy, reminding me (slightly) of Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me. But I find a slight problem with this, and it is not her that's the problem, it's the simple act of turning her good. Why does the (secondary) villain have to turn good? Is it meant to be symbolic? My answer would probably the same one the writer thought: Why not? But oh well. And then there's Christopher Walken. First off, I find him very good in some parts, and yet baffling in others. He does give off the look of a deranged yet smart villain and yet sometimes it looks like he's going to burst out in laughter. He's a fun villain, even if he doesn't get much of a fight with Bond. Tanya Roberts (the leading lady) is...okay. Though she does have some range of attempting to act, the dialogue sometimes just ranges to only "James!" "Save me!" I know it sounds off of me to say it, but it is better for the leading lady to do more then just scream, though at least Roberts is better then Britt Eckland (Mary Goodnight) in The Man with the Golden Gun. And then there's Roger Moore, in his swansong. I'll let this quote that he said of him in the film sum it up: "I was only about four hundred years too old for the part." Actually, he is good enough here, not horrible, but not as good as he was in The Spy Who Loved Me. The action is alright, with some good locations used, but the film is hampered by a mediocre first half. While the film has some good points, it is hampered severely at times, and it under uses the actors. And yet? I find it to be not the worst Bond film. Granted, it's not good, but it isn't the worst. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Antz.

Review #254: Antz.

Cast
Woody Allen (Z), Sharon Stone (Princess Bala), Gene Hackman (Mandible), Sylvester Stallone (Weaver), Jennifer Lopez (Azteca), Christopher Walken (Cutter), and Anne Bancroft (Queen) Directed by Eric Darnell (#154 - Madagascar 2 and #165 - Madagascar) and Tim Johnson.

Review
You might be (or not) thinking that this is a rip off of A Bug's Life. Is it? Well...No. Pretty much the opposite. The film is more risque (in some respects) than Bug's Life, some of it being funny, some not as much. The animation is decent for 1998 standards. This was the first DreamWorks Animation film, released before The Prince of Egypt. The acting is reasonable good, even from Woody Allen (Who I seem to not like for some certain reason) The film is a typical length of 83 minutes, which is reasonable. In the end, the film has some good moments in DreamWorks Animation's first foray into film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.