Redux: Hudson Hawk.

Redux Review #307: Hudson Hawk.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Eddie "Hudson Hawk" Hawkins), Danny Aiello (Tommy "Five-Tone" Messina), Andie MacDowell (Anna Baragli), Richard E. Grant (Darwin Mayflower), Sandra Bernhard (Minerva Mayflower), Donald Burton (Alfred), Don Harvey ("Snickers"), David Caruso ("Kit Kat"), Andrew Bryniarski ("Butterfinger"), Lorraine Toussaint ("Almond Joy"), Frank Stallone (Cesar Mario), Carmine Zozzora (Antony Mario), James Coburn (George Kaplan), Doug Martin (Igg), and Steven M. Martin (Ook) Directed by Michael Lehmann.

Review: 

“It has very intellectual hip humor in it; it has very sophomoric broad slapstick comedy; it has elements of a road picture; it has more romance than any film that I have ever done; it has action; it has big stunts; it has a very dark sensibility… It’s a film that needs to be experienced more than explained…”  - Bruce Willis

A partial reading from my review on December 15, 2012: 

I almost forgot to mention the acting performances, which range from deliberately silly to deliberately over the top (possibly another word for silly), yet again resembling a Batman episode. You might think that it is a bit dumb to criticize this film for its surreal humor (I sure hope so, as for all I know it was meant to be serious, but they did this on purpose) with cartoonish slapstick. However, my reasoning is that it fails in some of those respects. It's mind-numbingly silly, it isn't entirely useful, and it (somewhat) does the crime of not being that funny.  But hey, what do I know.

Really, I could be saying the first few years of watching movies to "talk" about took a while to match my expectations of actually having fun with writing, which, well, eventually went beyond just watching whatever's on the shelf. But there must've been something curious that made my dad get this film on his shelf, because it lurked there for years and years. Most curiously, this was a movie that wasn't a hit with audiences of the time (particularly in America) despite being right in the apex of the career of Willis as a bonafide star. For all the time I remember watching Willis movies, I still have to remember that big steppingstone was winning an audition to star in Moonlighting (1985-1989) opposite Cybill Shepherd that even had him do music numbers on occasion. 

The genesis of the film came from the friendship of Willis and composer Robert Kraft, who were so interested in "The Hudson Hawk" that they even had come up with a song. Willis described it prior to release as "about greed and money in the `90s, with elements of a Bob Hope-Bing Crosby road picture. It`s a comedy with broad slapstick and moronic wit, and it has huge action beats.” Of course, for the screenplay credit, one sees the names of Steven E. de Souza and Daniel Waters (the former had co-written the first two Die Hard films while the latter had written Heathers, which had been directed by Lehmann), although there were plenty of re-writes to go around If one wants an actual detail of the production and its foibles, Richard E. Grant dedicated an entire chapter of his autobiography to it. It is pretty amusing to note to cover Oscar and Hudson Hawk in the same month, because both movies involved action stars trying to do comedy that were not well received and both movies were released a month apart from each other in 1991. And hey, what do you know, count me as a defender of Hudson Hawk, the younger version of myself was an idiot. Of course, one could take the word of one of its stars in Grant when it comes to assessing it as a "stinking pile of steaming hot donkey droppings". But the blend of cartoon sound effects and other various ideas in playing around as a "surreal comedy" is one that takes a while to really appreciate, and I'm surprised that it took me this long to really come around on it. I suppose audiences could accept a little bit of humor when it came to previous Willis works such as Die Hard as quips but they could just not go with a goofy movie that has candy bar names for secret agents to go with heists conducted by songs. Willis and Aiello clearly seem to be having some sort of fun with their back-and-forths, particularly when in song. Apparently both actors tried to get involved in the production (Willis as a producer and Aiello in trying to change the climax), which is amusing. MacDowell (cast at the last minute when Maruschka Detmers got hurt) doesn't have the easiest task and she probably does get swept away in the long run when it comes to middling chemistry with Willis and maybe one amusing scene in which she play acts as a dolphin. Besides, Bernhard acts circles around her in terms of delusional manic energy that proves that Lehmann really had an idea in mind to pair her with Grant in chaotic lunacy (regardless of how the film went, apparently Bernhard and Grant became good friends due to this film) that believes that things like history are trophies to hold in the den. It's funny that a film envisioned as an "anti-James Bond" features Coburn, star of the 60s Bond parody Our Man Flint (1966). He pops in and out for a few scenes of sell out villainy that he sells pretty well to go with a litany of goons in Harvey-Toussiant-Bryniarski (Caruso is also there, giving out note cards) that are goofy enough. In 

The 100-minute runtime is a bit fast-and-loose with its plot construction, with the climax being the flakiest (although it has one amusing idea when it comes to a fake-out that basically is "yeah, sure"). This is a film where its climax involves the last perceived enemy of our hero is blasted out of a window with a tennis ball launcher. It is funny that the movie basically flopped on the same level of Ishtar (1987) in terms of turbulent productions that precluded a litany of rough reviews. But Hudson Hawk has a far more likable duo and an actual aim in madcap stupidity, particularly since it is far more interesting than Lehmann's previous collaboration with Waters in Heathers. Of course, it was marketed as an action film rather than a show of, well, overacting. In the line of Willis movies that came and went in his career, Hudson Hawk was a curious one that maybe was a bit ripe to pick on in over-management but really is something that should be checked out for its idle curiosities in a real "thrown-on-the-wall" caper that might be worth your pleasure. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: ?

Harlem Nights.

Review #1639: Harlem Nights.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Vernest "Quick" Brown), Richard Pryor (Sugar Ray), Redd Foxx (Bennie Wilson), Danny Aiello (Phil Cantone), Michael Lerner (Bugsy Calhoune), Della Reese (Madame Vera Walker), Berlinda Tolbert (Annie), Stan Shaw (Jack Jenkins), Jasmine Guy (Dominique La Rue), Vic Polizos (Richie Vento), Lela Rochon (Sunshine), David Marciano (Tony), Arsenio Hall (Reggie), and Thomas Mikal Ford (Tommy Smalls) Written and Directed by Eddie Murphy.

Review: 

It goes without saying that Eddie Murphy was a prime comedic star for the 1980s. It sure is something that one can be the headline presence in nine feature films in that era and have only one of them be an outright stinker (Best Defense, although the jury will be out on The Golden Child, another one that Murphy detested, until I actually get around to it...). He had various influences growing up that ranged from Richard Pryor to Bruce Lee, but it is the former that he most aspired to be most like. After all, Murphy thought he was going to be famous from a young age, but it was listening to one of Pryor's albums that made him think about doing comedy. And...you know the rest, but there is one thing to state about this film: it is the only time he has directed his own film, for which he also served as executive producer. The film ultimately turned out to be a mixed result. On the one hand, Murphy and the others did enjoy themselves quite a bit, to which Murphy described it as a blur that was amazing for coming together - at least in recent times, since he also called it part of his bizarre periods that catered to what he thought would please everybody while plagued with adulation, where the funny stuff seemed to be more offstage than in the film. One apparent inspiration was the real life conflict between gangsters involving Harlem, as Dutch Schultz and Bumpy Johnson had a conflict in the mid 1930s. Strangely enough, Johnson had been used as the inspiration for a variety of films with gangster characters, such as Shaft (1971) and The Cotton Club (1984). 

It can certainly be said that this is a weird vanity project, one that has a labor of love for wanting to work with inspirations that result in a wild up-and-down film. It was a mild success with its $30 million budget, but it also received mostly derisive attention for its time that has only slightly molded down into the box of "cult classic" from others. In other words: a mixed bag, one that can either be the equivalent of a good time spent for amusement, or one that can be thought of as too familiar or vulgar to work in either action or comedy. For me, I thought it was just fine - cliché period piece or not, there was still something for me to enjoy, even though it obviously isn't the best way to make one's own vanity piece (believe me, The Postman (1997), vanity piece or not, was far more embarrassing to go through). If a regular film student had done this basic premise, we would probably think of it as average fluff, but Murphy being the driving force basically magnifies everything to 10. Of course, the obscenities don't help, but am I really going to be the one to cry about swear words in a film? Class and bawdiness are the yin-and-yang of any time period, really (at least the ones that people want to live in instead of their own). Truthfully, the film works best when trying to not strain for a joke, where it allows itself to enjoy the crisp look that one will either tolerate as something they've seen before or wish they were watching another film about switcheroos (once one does The Sting (1973), can one really ever go back?). In that sense, while Murphy likely should have had someone else direct or had a script polishing, he does a fair job in balancing himself out, being semi-funny with a few quips in a generally warm-headed performance that anyone would be fine with in having mentors around while blowing folks away. On the other side of lead actors, this one was near the close of Pryor's career. He had suffered a variety of health problems (having been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1986, for which he said got worse in 1990) alongside doing a selection of wide-ranging comedy work (which ranged from Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling to Superman III), and this was his third-to-last starring role. He had his own reservations about his performance, one that he toned down from script-to-screen that seemed (to him) to be bothered by his MS diagnosis, and he felt that he never connected with Murphy and his "mean" comedy. Honestly, it is a fine performance, one that obviously is trying to play that line of weariness in being a mentor and also an adept player to what is needed - it results in a few amusing moments.  This was the last film role for Foxx, who incidentally would star alongside Reese in a Murphy-produced television show with The Royal Family (1991), which ended up being Foxx's last project prior to his death at the age of 68. He still seems to have the spark needed in wiry background amusement, and one can see a useful duo between him and Reese. Not to be forgotten for their own contributions in being a name for themselves before filming is Reese, who was known for her jazz and gospel singing for three decades alongside vast work in television. The film suits her well for a variety of amusing moments of bombast, with the sequences between her and Murphy (one of which involving a fight in an alley) proving a worthy highlight. Aiello and Lerner each make useful adversaries (cliché, but still), riding the line of imposing threat in each line of focus (whether as a beleaguered boss or a jealous cop in a hovel) that fits the standard needed. Others make appearances here and there that in theory could lead somewhere (such as a subdued Guy), but it ends up with Hall being the most interesting one to see in a short role, playing the crying game of mayhem pretty well. As a whole, 116 minutes of run-time is either too long for a film of this caliber or curious enough to want to see it all the way through. It is nobody's idea of a great crime comedy, but Harlem Nights could be worth your while if you find the sum of its parts enough to satisfy your curiosity. 

Next Time: The first film on my mind for this project - Boyz n the Hood.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Moonstruck.

Review #1484: Moonstruck.

Cast:
Cher (Loretta Castorini), Nicolas Cage (Ronny Cammareri), Olympia Dukakis (Rose Castorini), Vincent Gardenia (Cosmo Castorini), Danny Aiello (Johnny Cammareri), Julie Bovasso (Rita Cappomaggi), Louis Guss (Raymond Cappomaggi), John Mahoney (Perry), Feodor Chaliapin Jr. (Grandpa Castorini), and Anita Gillette (Mona) Directed by Norman Jewison (#127 - Rollerball, #273 - The Cincinnati Kid, #544 - In the Heat of the Night, and #691 - The Thomas Crown Affair)

Review:
"Directing, in many ways, is manipulation because you're dealing with a lot of egos. You have to manipulate people into thinking it was their idea, to get them to do what you see as being the best, to edit them without their knowing they're being edited."

Norman Jewison is one of Canada's most notable directors, made evident by the fact that he made a honest career of mostly successful films for four decades. He rose his way up from work in television in both Canada (with the CBC) and the United States (on NBC) before being inspired to branch into film, with his first few films being comedies for Universal Pictures, such as Forty Pounds of Trouble (1962) with Tony Curtis, or Send Me No Flowers (1964) with Doris Day. His first true breakthrough came with The Cincinnati Kid (1965), the first of his numerous challenging dramas, described by him as his "ugly duckling" film, which occurred after he was brought in for the fired Sam Peckinpah. Numerous highlights would follow in the next couple of years, such as the Cold War comedy The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966), In the Heat of the Night (1967, winner of Best Picture), the musical Fiddler on the Roof (1971), and the period drama A Soldier's Story (1984). The year after the release of this film, he founded the Canadian Film Centre, dedicated to helping Canadian professionals further work in advanced school training from film to digital media. Jewison was nominated for seven Academy Awards in his career (four for Best Picture, three for Best Director), and while he did not win any of them, he was awarded the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award in 1999 for his body work as a creative producer, with his final work being The Statement (2003).

Sometimes there just comes a romance or comedy that hits you right where it matters most, and this is one of those films. Honest but sweet with a tremendous cast and direction, Moonstruck is a film that was surely destined to be a favorite that would make audience brim with warmth and mean every moment of it. There is just something in that script by playwright John Patrick Shanley that Jewison saw as fitting for these actors and these settings that are prime for entertainment of the heart. It is exactly the kind of family film for folks who enjoy dedicated material without overt sentimentalism but instead fair honesty. One might know where it could go with its romance, but it doesn't stop the fun. In a busy year for Cher, it should figure that her third role of that year was the one that received the most acclaim. She does a pretty good job with this role, inviting one in with modesty and good timing that resonates well whenever with Cage or with others, pulling off a compelling performance without artifice. Equally as compelling in energy and spirit is Cage in an early breakthrough role for the actor (having started his career just five years prior under his birth name of Coppola), one that reaches our attention and our passion without having to really do much (his whole bit with the story of how he lost his hand is a good example of that). Dukakis proves just as comforting in amusement in a solidly charming turn with a handful of lines to go with a well-rounded performance. Gardenia also proves just as endearing in his own way of humor. Aiello, even without much time on screen, is enjoyable in generating amusement for a well-meaning dope, while Chaliapin Jr nearly steals the show with reserved amusement. Film and stage actor (alongside acting coach) Bovasso proves a worthy supporting presence, both in charm alongside in helping Cher and Dukakis in doing Brooklyn accents. By the time the film rallies everybody to the kitchen table for its last turn under the sun, it already has proven a worthy time about detailing what it means to be struck in love, or at least the complications that can arise from what the heart and mind wants most. It brings itself together with charm without sacrificing any moment for a cheap gag or a cheap pull at the heart, which makes for a resounding winner to seek out as one of Jewison's best.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Do the Right Thing.

Review #1255: Do the Right Thing.

Cast: 
Spike Lee (Mookie), Danny Aiello (Sal), Ossie Davis (Da Mayor), Ruby Dee (Mother Sister), Giancarlo Esposito (Buggin' Out), Bill Nunn (Radio Raheem), John Turturro (Pino), Richard Edson (Vito), Roger Guenveur Smith (Smiley), Rosie Perez (Tina), Joie Lee (Jade), Steve White (Ahmad), Martin Lawrence (Cee), Leonard L. Thomas (Punchy), Christa Rivers (Ella), Robin Harris (Sweet Dick Willie), Paul Benjamin (ML), Frankie Faison (Coconut Sid), Samuel L. Jackson (Mister Señor Love Daddy) Produced, Written and Directed by Spike Lee.

Review: 
When it comes to great movies, there is generally a sense early on its duration where you know this is going to be more than just a good experience of entertainment. For me, the turning point was probably a short sequence involving Aiello and Turturro's characters involving the latter wanting the former to close down his pizzeria and do something else with his life as opposed to serving the neighborhood any longer than has been the case for 25 years. You have had a look into these people's lives over the course of the film up to now (all of which over the course of one day, naturally), so seeing how a conversation can have some certain preconceived notions seem to bubble even further than what has already happened on screen. One lives on his pride for the people that grew up on his pizza while the other feels nothing but loathing resentment, where being accosted by a guy selling pictures on the street means being rude and loud to their face. This is such a vibrant film, one that grasps for what it wants to say about intercity life and the people that accompany it with their respective type of personalities and preconceptions. For what its worth, the film is still relevant three decades after its release now more than ever, seeming in step in terms of its execution of direction from Lee to bring these characters to life alongside a story that clicks without a hitch from start to finish. Aiello is the best of a group with plenty of useful castmates to go around, showing plenty of surly ruggedness one could expect for such an interesting character however one interprets him and his actions. Davis shines just as well, having a mix of humor and dignity with his key role whenever necessary, whether when on screen talking about doing the right thing or something else. Turturro and Edson certainly play the brotherly sided coin with a fair edge, where their differences stand clear alongside brotherly ties without having a safe closure. Nunn plays the key in making his time count, compelling with a boom box as company.

Whether the character is involved with an amusing moment or something more serious, each actor do their part to make it stick with conviction, whether it is the corner-men of Harris-Benjamin-Faison and their cracks through the day or the time spent at the pizzeria and the people working (and mostly talking) on food for the neighborhood, with the two hour run-time slipping by without much struggle. When the film shifts itself from a mix of comedy and drama to a sudden turning point, it hits with a devastating punch - whether one knows anything about what happens in the film or not before viewing, it makes a key point on the nature of prejudice and what makes for the right thing when the moment needs it. In addition to all of this is wonderful cinematographry from Earnest Dickerson, who does well with making the look of the film seem readily consistent to take place over a day with good lighting (in general, it is quite an achievement to make a film in a few weeks on location) and also good music from Bill Lee. It keeps the pedals rolling without betraying its efforts for its conclusion, keeping a roaring spirit that progresses beyond the final reel. On the whole, this is a thoughtful and entertaining film that pulls quite a punch with forming an interesting world come alive and show the layers beneath the quirks, for which one can still learn from now. It is worth a viewing, preferably with a crowd.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

2 Days in the Valley.

Review #1212: 2 Days in the Valley.

Cast: 
Danny Aiello (Dosmo Pizzo), Greg Cruttwell (Allan Hopper), Jeff Daniels (Alvin Strayer), Teri Hatcher (Becky Foxx), Glenne Headly (Susan Parish), Peter Horton (Roy Foxx), Marsha Mason (Audrey Hopper), Paul Mazursky (Teddy Peppers), James Spader (Lee Woods), Eric Stoltz (Wes Taylor), Charlize Theron (Helga Svelgen), and Keith Carradine (Detective Creighton) Directed by John Herzfeld.

Review: 
Sometimes you just need a crime movie about people who share in common the fact that they are just a bunch of weirdos - whether you have seen this type of movie before or not. They aren't exactly winners, but they have some sort of "unrealized potential" (as described by writer/director Herzfeld) - and it all comes together to make an okay film. Herzfeld's previous experience with direction of films was primarily television specials and movies (such as his two works with ABC Afterschool Special in 1980 and 1981), with one theatrical release with Two of a Kind in 1983. Admittedly, the cast listing is likely to prove more interesting, since you have a movie that can say it has scenes with key highlight stars such as Aiello, Headly, Mazursky, Spader, Stoltz, and Theron making for a feature that probably should have been better. It won't serve as anyone's favorite film to watch for anyone's marathon, but at least there is enough here in terms of charm and occasional action to make it a fair use of 105 minutes. It sure tries to move itself swiftly with tricks and twists, some of which that work and others that mostly feel like a tap on the door rather than a big blast. It is at least sometimes present with a sense of dark humor that rolls alongside a plot connecting its dots together across people in the San Fernando Valley, which goes well enough. Its the interactions that can come from it that make this roll through the bumps, such as Aiello and Headly, or Mazursky (a director who can't go through ending it all in a cemetery because his yapping dog is with him) with Mason. Easily, the one who I revel in watching is Spader, who walks right through playing a slimy creep like this without struggle, whether acting with Aiello and a clock or with Theron. Aiello is also pretty fun to be with, wry and useful to be around with, such as when having to interact with these other nuts (including the one he thought would work fine as his other hitman partner). The time spent with Daniels and Stoltz isn't too particularly long, but it is fine to see how they act within the lines of the cop angle of the film - one with cynicism, one with ambition. Hatcher falls as the weak point, not being as interesting to follow with, minus one fight with Theron that actually is pretty amusing to see go down. Cruttwell is somewhat amusing, but he doesn't really have much to do for the second half. The best that can be said for the film is that it doesn't overstay its welcome, bookending itself with some charm and decent entertainment (with a worthy enough climax) - it isn't perfect, but there is something here worth curiosity, due to its assembled cast and where they go from there. It is a movie that finds itself on a road going 76 on a 70 limit, having a bit of movement without going off the rails or all the way still.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.