An Officer and a Gentleman.

Review #1867: An Officer and a Gentleman.

Cast: 

Richard Gere (Zack Mayo), Debra Winger (Paula Pokrifki), David Keith (Sid Worley), Robert Loggia (Byron Mayo), Lisa Blount (Lynette Pomeroy), Lisa Eilbacher (Casey Seeger), Louis Gossett Jr (Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley), Tony Plana (Emiliano Santos Della Serra), Harold Sylvester (Lionel Perryman), David Caruso (Topper Daniels), Victor French (Joe Pokrifki), and Grace Zabriskie (Esther Pokrifk) Directed by Taylor Hackford.

Review: 

It is hard to believe the age of some movies from time to time, probably more so when you get older and older. Released forty years ago in the summer of 1982, An Officer and a Gentleman manages to elevate material that seems destined for the old-fashioned bin into quality entertainment that makes for a useful romantic drama with solid casting and direction behind it. The movie came from director Taylor Hackford, doing his third film effort and second feature; his debut was a short called Teenage Father (1978), which won an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film. The Santa Barbara native was a graduate of the University of Southern California for pre-law and even served in the Peace Corps, and his spare time using a Super 8 camera got him into changing his interests. Douglas Day Stewart wrote the script for the film, which he based on experiences as a Naval Officer Candidate that saw both tough training and dating a factory girl when training in Rhode Island. Stewart did not get to fly nor get the girl, but he did do some time as a ship's officer before he became a writer on television, and his first film credit would come with The Blue Lagoon (1980). It is Hackford that elected to keep the ending of the film despite the objections of Gere (who thought it was overly sentimental), with the rehearsals of the scene ending up being the final persuasion for it.

Admittedly, it is the professionalism in its romantic drama settings that carry the film more than anything, showing its working-class pairings with general honesty. In an older time, a movie about Aviation Officer Candidates (AOCs) might have been ripe for the war effort, but this is a movie that actually wants to show growth with its lead performances and romance as something that isn't just point A to point B. Gere (fresh from his star role in American Gigolo (1980), which like this film was originally offered to John Travolta, who turned each down) makes for a quality hustler to watch grow, one wrapped in jaded pride. It is the vulnerability seen in one scene with Gossett Jr about who he would be without the training required that proves the most poignant. Of course, him and Winger make a quality pairing together, since they each have to show just why they aren't just only good for romantic scenes, which namely involves dueling prides from messed-up people with daddy issues. You aren't quite sure what will happen next with them, but they resonate well with each other that it becomes a moot point. It should be noted that Gossett Jr wasn't actually the original choice in mind for the Sergeant role, as R. Lee Ermey (a Marine drill instructor before becoming an actor) was originally cast, but Hackford decided to cast Gossett Jr instead while having Ermey serve as a technical advisor (alongside Buck Welscher, a drill instructor for AOCs). Gossett Jr proves exactly right for the role, hard driving but always on point for what is needed in emphasis. Any scene he is in, he commands it with no sense of hammy overtones (naturally, Gossett ended up with an Academy Award for his performance). Keith and Blount make up the other side of the romance angle in terms of superficiality that works best for the former in doomed charm. The others in the cast are generally interesting to see in bits and pieces, such as the spry Plana or Eilbacher, or with Sylvester and Caruso, while Loggia is only utilized for the opening sequence with Gere to show just how far the difference is between father and son. The second half does end quite well for itself, although it certainly has to strain itself a bit just to make it worth without folding into complete predictability, and I think the first half generally worked better in deliberate pacing, but it still works. For a 124-minute movie, it does utilize its time wisely in building the main and supporting characters necessary to make the final result all the more worth getting there. In the end, it carries itself to a general triumph of stirring romance and military drama that is worth the curious look all these years later.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rachel Getting Married.

Review #1548: Rachel Getting Married.

Cast: 
Anne Hathaway (Kym Buchman), Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Buchman), Bill Irwin (Paul Buchman), Debra Winger (Abby Buchman), Tunde Adebimpe (Sidney Williams), Mather Zickel (Kieran), Anna Deavere Smith (Carol), Anisa George (Emma), and Beau Sia (Wedding Czar) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004) and #1498 - The Silence of the Lambs)

Review: 
"Well, the big challenge and in a way the only challenge that I really felt was the same old challenge, you know, to try to make a good movie, to wind up the movie that worked and kind of delivered on the potential that I perceived in the script to be emotionally strong and also be funny and shed light on different stuff maybe if we got really lucky."

Jonathan Demme liked to take his time with doing films his way. He had a bona fide classic with The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and followed it with the groundbreaking legal drama involving AIDS with Philadelphia (1993)  while also maintaining work in documentary filmmaking and producing films while noting his attempts to shift away from "big moviemaking" that gave him joy and stress equally in size. However, he was approached by his friend Sidney Lumet to read a script his daughter Jenny had written, and he liked the idea of doing an "independent-spirited, low-budget film." Taking the task at hand as star is Anne Hathaway, who rose to breakthrough status with films such as The Princess Diaries (2001), Brokeback Mountain (2005), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006), who is accompanied by DeWitt (star of the short-lived Standoff show and small other roles), Irwin (known for his work as a clown alongside stage and screen work), and Winger (previously featured in another family drama with Terms of Endearment (1983), which also dealt with thorny characters and tragedy).

We are talking about a film that is deliberately shot in a style described by Demme and his cinematographer as "the most beautiful home movie ever made" while including a mix of improvised dialogue and live music, after all. Technically speaking, you could say this is a wedding film for the books, because there is a sense of familiarity and interest in how much surroundings one gets to feel with something like this. On the other hand, it also could prove quite tedious as perhaps the most elaborate attempt at trying to elevate home movies and snipe fights beyond staying right where they belonged: at home or with someone who cares. It probably reflects the nature of the characters we are watching, which is meant to be portrayed as real and complicated folks - which basically comes across as trying to pedal away from being thought of as drawing from the melodrama cliché book. Or maybe it really does pull favor for those who seek its drama with thorns-on-the-side people without clear solutions. If that works into something you favor, all power to you. Besides, I doubt a film where the characters have problems and then get some of them solved is exactly a new thing either. But for me, I find it to be a case of acting over substance, where painful expression is just elusive attempts at leading the audience on by another name, a bitter expression of people fortunate enough in privilege that could very well have come out of a soap opera that happens to look different than the others because it just happens to be in your face in terms of edge and in its camera. One might as well watch group therapy play out instead.

It is the performances that keep it on some sort of path, mostly with Hathaway. She captures a vital figure of vulnerability mixed with spiked edge with a portrait of addiction as one marked with guilt and attempts at moving through the steps to build something away from vices. She cultivates interest with a role meant to be a fair challenge for an actress without succumbing to cloying antics to make it count well. DeWitt does fine in a portrait of lingering nerves and resentment that makes an interesting back-and-forth with Hathaway that makes palpable interest more so than the actual wedding taking place. Irwin and Winger are fine, although neither really are given more than brief moments to really grab drama upon for something that desperately needs more to really drive its alienation - the confrontation between Hathaway and Winger is a nice dramatic scene to chew interest upon, but the film around that needs more cohesion in actual point beyond casual venom that just reminds me of Faces (1968). I like the basic idea of confronting one's demons and also being confronted about one's own antics, with Hathaway generally keeping the film on its toes in scrappiness that could have either been its own film more so than the wedding aspects that make a 114 minute film decent rather than complete. On the whole, it is a competent film with some useful moments in frankness that almost is swept away in the margins by a fragmented story but is rescued by a dynamic Hathaway carrying along an ensemble towards being just fine to sit through, winces and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Terms of Endearment.

Review #1470: Terms of Endearment.

Cast:
Shirley MacLaine (Aurora Greenway), Debra Winger (Emma Greenway-Horton), Jack Nicholson (Garrett Breedlove), Danny DeVito (Vernon Dalhart), Jeff Daniels (Flap Horton), John Lithgow (Sam Burns), Lisa Hart Carroll (Patsy Clark), Huckleberry Fox (Ted "Teddy" Horton), and Troy Bishop (Tom "Tommy" Horton) Directed by James L. Brooks.

Review: 
"While you're doing it, it is sort of a lonely kind of feeing, even though you are surrounded by so many people giving beyond the call. That's generally true of movies, there's a sense of urgency, people risking their tail, people woking past exhaustion. That's what moviemaking is."

Some films just have all the right pieces go into the right places, one where talented people can be led by talented directors to make a talented comedy-drama, which is proven tremendously so with this film. At the helm at director was James L. Brooks, who would serve as producer and adapted the screenplay from the 1975 novel of the same name by Larry McMurty (who you may recognize as the writer of novels such as Horseman, Pass By and The Last Picture Show), which was the first of two novels involving the character of Aurora (with The Evening Star turned into a film of its own thirteen years later). It was the first film for the 43-year old Brooks, who had forged a long road from a rough childhood to work at CBS as a host-turned-copywriter to work in television writing. through the help of Allan Burns. It was in 1969 that he helped create his first television series - the groundbreaking Room 222, one of the first shows with a black lead character (played by Lloyd Haynes). The following year proved just as beneficial, since Brooks and Burns were brought on by Grant Tinker to help develop a show for Tinker's wife, which resulted in the enormous hit The Mary Tyler Moore Show and subsequent spinoff classics in Rhoda and Lou Grant, and he soon added film to his lineup with writing and co-producing in Starting Over (1978). The chance to do a film of his own came not long after, although it would take a few years to develop into full. The original actress intended for the main role of Aurora was Jennifer Jones, since she and her husband had the rights to the book and had sent the book to Brooks as a vehicle for her. However, while he liked the book, he wanted to do on his terms without it being a vehicle for a certain actress, which led to him getting Paramount to get involved and do the film themselves. MacLaine was picked because Brooks felt that she was the only one who saw it as a comedy, while Sissy Spacek soon left for Winger to enter. The third key piece to the film is Nicholson, who came into the film because of the rejection of another actor for a role that was written into the film independent of the book: Burt Reynolds (an actor I love to see in films that unfortunately honored his commitment to Stroker Ace). Sure, others did decline the role before Nicholson signed on (including Paul Newman), but I think we both know how much a tremendous presence Nicholson proved to be, who wanted to play a middle-aged character without the requisite crisis that came with it for those type of character while taking inspiration from an astronaut friend and a relative of his.

It is evident pretty quickly how the film operates as a comedy-drama: a curious movie with a balnce of laughs and tears that earns most of its moments on screen in coming to terms about what family means as things continually change for both parent and child. We care to see these characters because we believe in these folks and their struggle - whether it involves fussy squabbles or squabbles of the heart. It is smart enough to maintain its 132 minute pace with meaningful foundation and sentiment without becoming a manipulated parody of itself, since there is so much great chemistry between its main trio that never seems sacrificed for any sort of cheap joke or sob-story moment (alongside the fact that I don't take manipulation arguments seriously for films like this that are too competent to be labeled as such). MacLaine and Winger might've had a strange time filming together, but they sure make for a great mother-daughter team on screen. MacLaine bursts with a great understanding of what is needed from the material, hovering over things with pathos and attention to all that matters in chemistry with her on-screen daughter and her on-screen lover with Nicholson, which serves well for inquisitive excitement. Winger proves just as well in delivering a captivating performance filled with smart independent charm and timing for interaction with the situations that require it, evolving with the times in how she is with others like Daniels (a good immature performance for someone in their second film role). If the film just had those two, that would probably be enough, but having Nicholson in the mix pushes it into the stratosphere with his presence, because he is such a force of nature even when having just a portion of time to really spring your attention for his interesting appetite for life. Others, like DeVito, Daniels, and Lithgow prove well in filling in the counterparts to the main duo when it comes to trying to define some sort of "love". On the whole, the film moves from place to place that makes the time go by carefully while getting to its wrenching climax with focus.

For the fourth time in the history of the Academy Awards, a director would win an award for their directorial debut (Delbert Mann, Jerome Robbins, and Robert Redford), and Brooks gained a further distinction as one of a select group of folks (twelve as of 2020) to win three Oscars for one film, since the film also won for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. It is evident to see why the film attracted so much attention, because it is a tremendously well-made film that tugs at the heart with wit and tragedy that make for a prime film to watch of its era for its stars and direction.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Legal Eagles.

Review #1278: Legal Eagles.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Tom Logan), Debra Winger (Laura Kelly), Daryl Hannah (Chelsea Deardon), Brian Dennehy (Cavanaugh/Joe Brock), Terence Stamp (Victor Taft), Steven Hill (Bower), Christine Baranski (Carol Freeman), Roscoe Lee Browne (Judge Dawkins), David Clennon (Blanchard), John McMartin (Forrester), Robert Curtis Brown (Roger), Grant Heslov (Usher), Sara Botsford (Barbara), and Jennifer Dundas (Jennifer Logan) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, and #487 - Twins)

Review: 
It doesn't take too much time to think that this film could seem interesting. The original idea was to make a buddy film involving Bill Murray and Dustin Hoffman, but when those plans fell apart, Redford expressed interest in doing a romantic comedy, which inspired changes to a dynamic reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy films. The screenplay and story were done by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr, with Reitman contributing to the latter. In a sense, this film is a romance. Of course it also happens to have a sense of comedy, thriller, and courtroom drama packed into its two hour duration, which turns out to be a most unwieldy combination. It certainly seems too packed in to really make the impact it wants to make, which results in a thoroughly average film. It complicates itself too much without really getting a feel for the simple things that can make a film tick: just having fun. One instead sees something that is bound to certain excesses (namely its budget of $40 million) and not working as great whenever it tries shifting gears between rom-com and thriller. There either seems to be too many characters or not enough that actually seems worthy enough to invest in. At least the performances are fine to watch, with Redford and Winder coming out the best, since they at least seem like they are having some sort of chemistry together, whether when trapped in buddy scenarios like an exploding warehouse or some other odd scenario, like Redford and his character that likes to tap dance when unable to sleep (gee, where do you think they'll go with that quirk). Hannah and her performance artist-turned-accused robber/murderer does okay, giving off a laugh or two, but she seems stretched pretty thin in actually making her presence really count, odd but harmless. When she actually does try to romance Redford and his character, I'm just twiddling my thumbs more than anything. Dennehy does just fine, snide yet worth seeing. The other members of the cast don't have as much to really do, seemingly there just to fill time and plot, which is a shame. How does one make a buddy movie with lawyers seem so awkward? One cannot help but wonder if this film needed more or less re-working to really hit its mark (it most certainly needed a trimming down). Actually, there exists an alternate version in which Hannah's character is found to be guilty of one of the murders. I guess that could've proved interesting, though I wonder if that version had more focus. The film just comes and goes, whether in the courtroom or somewhere else. At least one might get some sort of enjoyment over spectacle for the film, what with a climax involving a burning building and all, but its setup doesn't really leave much to give investment over. Their fates never seem to be hanging too much in the balance, and guessing who the real culprit is gets to be pretty easy when the others start dying off. It just seems like a movie too safe to either be really funny or usefully dramatic, trying to get its hand in many genre jars and getting only crumbs in return. It's a bland movie, but at least one could probably come out of it without groaning too much for two hours. I can't call it a winner, but it could probably work as a lark if faced with nothing else to do.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.