The Last Movie.

Review #2413: The Last Movie.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Kansas), Stella Garcia (Maria), Don Gordon (Neville Robey), Julie Adams (Mrs. Anderson), Peter Fonda (The Young Sheriff), Sylvia Miles (The Script Clerk), Samuel Fuller (Sam), Dean Stockwell (Billy the Kid), Russ Tamblyn (Charlie Bowdre), Tomas Milian (The Priest), Toni Basil (Rose), Severn Darden (The Mayor), Roy Engel (Harry Anderson), Henry Jaglom (The Minister's Son), Warren Finnerty (The Banker), Michelle Phillips (The Banker's Daughter), Kris Kristofferson (The Minstrel Wrangler), Michael Anderson Jr (The Mayor's Son), and Rod Cameron (Pat Garrett) Directed by Dennis Hopper (#1430 - Easy Rider).

Review: 

“I'm trying to say our lives are fragmented. That some people care and some people don't care and some don't know how to care."

Hey, remember Easy Rider (1969)? That was the movie where Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda worked together on the counterculture movie to end all counterculture movies. The veracity of who wrote what with that movie (as also worked on by Terry Southern) is debatable, but what you saw with that movie was one directed by Hopper and starring him and Fonda that, well, yes, it was a hit. Hopper and Fonda would go into their own paths after the success of the movie because studios thought that they could replicate movies like that (cheap and "cool") for themselves. Paradoxically, the idea for what became The Last Movie came a number of years prior to Easy Rider, as Hopper, in the midst of finishing The Sons of Katie Elder (1965), came up with an idea during the wrap party under the influence of what else but pot that saw him come up with an idea about "making movies and the effect it has on people, and what they do when a movie company leaves town." Enter Stewart Stern. Hopper enlisted the services of the screenwriter (having done such scripts as Rebel Without a Cause [1955]), with each partaking in certain practices (namely blowing smoke down the snorkel of a scuba mask) that resulted in a script that would have a "far out" ending involving the culmination of a stuntman staying in a Latin American town and seeing the people react to a film company having shot a Western there. Long story short, the idea would go through several hands considered for producers and stars (Phil Spector was once thought to be involved as a producer alongside Jason Robards to star). The success of Easy Rider would make one think that the company led by Bert Schneider would back The Last Movie, but that was not to be. Instead, Universal Pictures dropped right in and even gave him final cut privileges as long as he did it on a tight budget. There are various roads that all seem to intersect with the making of the film, which started in Peru in 1970 and went through a road of drugs and other various substances behind the scenes (as captured in The American Dreamer, a documentary that followed Hopper around that at one point showed him carry a gun around), although the shoot itself was apparently not that chaotic. Funny thing about that script: Hopper basically junked it in favor of improvisation, not even bothering to shoot the ending (as noted by Stern, because Hopper asked him to come to New Mexico when he was editing it down). It eventually culminated in a disjointed print in 1971 (apparently, Alejandro Jodorowsky, director of films such as El Topo, had a hand in the editing process). The end result, after such strange sorrow, was a movie that barely made it into theaters and was essentially dropped by Universal with the energy of a wayward child being dumped onto a military school. Hopper (who took the movie on lecture tours as late as 1978) did not direct another movie until Out of the Blue (1980). The movie was not available on DVD for many years and a restoration of the movie only happened in 2018.*

Universal apparently had the belief that if you gave a couple of young directors a budget of $1 million, you would get something worthwhile. The result was the following: Douglas Trumbull made Silent Running, Monte Hellman made Two-Lane Blacktop, George Lucas made American Graffiti, Peter Fonda's The Hired Hand and the aforementioned Last Movie as made by Hopper. Honestly, the only way to view the movie is to just see it. You can't really get a great description of the movie that isn't just describing things that happen (such as "scene missing" or credits that pop up out of the blue). It wasn't exactly a critic favorite (Roger Ebert called it a "wasteland of cinematic wreckage"). It isn't even a movie you could watch for the acting, unless you want to see people improvise on the level just above dinner theater or to see the weird wacky weary world of one Dennis Hopper. It probably won't do many favors to those who thought Zabriskie Point (1970) was obtuse to watch. But it is quite the trip for 108 minutes to realize that reality and ritual can in fact collide for what you might call a new type of heaven or hell. One probably fades in and out about the same level as this movie does, complete with having an uncertain road close right from under one's skin. The whole movie could be called as one that gets under your skin: arrogant, free-wheeling, beautiful to look at (as shot by the famed László Kovács), rambling, pick any adjective you want. But there is something about it that is hard to resist when it comes to just calling it a mess. Hopper is a fascinating presence to be around even in the moments that might resemble a drifter on a stormy night. You'll see people come and go (yes, the director Samuel Fuller appears at one point alongside the film debut of the immeasurable Kristofferson) and that I suppose is just how it feels in our own lives to have people love and betray us in where they come and go (a chunk of this might sound like syrupy hokum, but life is bullshit enough before one goes around not saying what they think, don't you think?). Real or imagined, we live the life we make for ourselves and sometimes that can be a slice of heaven or a piece straight from hell. We see violence on TV and film and sometimes we just believe that it is something to slip by us with no muddling into our own lives but it does fester in us because that is just how things are as one of the supposed creatures of a certain power. It is a bit funny to see Universal foot the bill for such a weird movie. In truth, it took me a while to ponder what the hell I watched with this movie and the end result is that I found it to be a curious movie that exists in the realm of near-unrankability: you either will like it or you won't like it, but at least Hopper made something he could be proud of cultivating.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*By sheer coincidence, that was the same year that The Other Side of the Wind (the movie where Hopper appeared in that was shot in the 1970s) came out.

O.C. and Stiggs.

Review #2243: O.C. and Stiggs.

Cast: 

Daniel H. Jenkins (O.C.), Neill Barry (Mark Stiggs), Paul Dooley (Randall Schwab), Jane Curtin (Elinore Schwab), Jon Cryer (Randall Schwab, Jr), Laura Urstein (Lenore Schwab), Victor Ho (Frankie Tang), Ray Walston (Gramps), Donald May (Jack Stiggs), Carla Borelli (Stella Stiggs), Stephanie Elfrink (Missie Stiggs), Amanda Hull (Debbie Stiggs), James Gilsenan (Barney Beaugereaux), Tina Louise (Florence Beaugereaux), Cynthia Nixon (Michelle), Greg Wangler (Jefferson Washington), with Dennis Hopper (Sponson), Martin Mull (Pat Coletti), Melvin van Peebles (Wino Bob), Tiffany Helm (Charlotte), Dana Andersen (Robin), and Bob Uecker (himself) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville, #1433 - M*A*S*H, #1890 - The Delinquents, #2061 - Health)

Review: 

"[O.C. and Stiggs] was about how two teenage boys spend their summer, and it was also about cultural anarchy. Teenage exploitation films were all the rage at the time… I agreed to do it because I hated teenage movies so much. I thought I could do it as a satire of a teenage movie. But of course, it was sold as a teenage movie. It was a suspect project from the beginning."

It is strange, I'm not actually that much of an expert on the filmmaking of Robert Altman and yet here we are with something a bit on the odd side for a filmmaker with such a long and winding road over the span of multiple decades. This strange time would come around particularly after the double-edged sword of 1980's Health and Popeye, neither, where the former barely had a release and the latter wasn't as successful with audiences or critics as one hoped. Afterwards, he did a handful of plays and TV productions to go with smaller-scale films, such as Come Back to the 5 & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982) and Streamers (1983). But O.C. and Stiggs would be an attempt to get back in Hollywood. ...which went a certain type of way. For context, O.C. and Stiggs were originally characters in stories written for National Lampoon magazine by Ted Mann and Tod Carroll, most notably with the 1982 story ""The Utterly Monstrous Mind-Roasting Summer of O.C. and Stiggs". One of the producers of this film was Peter Newman (who had been the production executive of the Jimmy Dean play that Altman had made into a film), who was interested in what he saw of the Stiggs stories. Newman had made an agreement to help produce the film, which would have had Mike Nichols eventually make the film after he finished his other commitments...and then one day Newman, in a conversation with Altman, found someone willing to do the film right then and there, complete with fast tracking for MGM because of their desperation for a teen-movie hit. It was shot in Arizona for MGM away from executives and screenwriters in 1983 that saw a party atmosphere (gambling, smoking pot, here is an informative article about that). While Mann and Carroll were given credit for the story, Carroll elected to take his name off the screenplay (which was credited to Mann and Donald Cantrell) for a film that Mann wasn't particularly big on anyway, calling it "of little interest and believe that the chatter of an ordinary street corner schizo is of equal weight and consequence." MGM hated the film in screenings done for the film in 1984 before limited screenings were eventually one in 1987. Of course, by 1987, Altman was already on the next thing, receiving some notice with Secret Honor (1984) to go along with subsequent notice with his TV production Tanner '88 alongside Vincent & Theo (1990) before his "comeback" with The Player (1992).

Sure, one could see the truth that Carroll and Mann had tried to seek out in their characters in "middle-class America" in a coming of age. Of course, I had a feeling that somehow, this film would remind me of Health (1980) in that "oh it seems kinda funny, but you just know only five people would like it in theaters". To see O.C. and Stiggs is to see a movie wrapped with plenty of seething amusement for the time and place it exists in. Imagine a film set in suburban Arizona of all godforsaken places and think that this would be a normal teen movie, although you do get a song courtesy of King Sunny Adé and His African Beats. Screw it, I kind of enjoyed this movie, which just manages to hit the sweet-spot when it comes to chaotic hellraisers. The few people that actually saw the movie upon release basically took the movie seriously without thinking of all the caricatures that are present in a world of self-absorbed weirdos (just get a look at the bomb shelter near the end). These folks really believe they are living the American Dream (consider one quote involving "Arkansas is one of the United States. All America is the same" coming from one of the parental figures to go alongside the other one that, well, is a bigot) that happens to have smug self-satisfied avengers for leads. It is a contorted and twisted film that happens to have a bevy of riches for its supporting cast (speaking of people in little-seen Altman films, Paul Dooley...) to support our two leads. It may seem mean, but the madcap bitterness is the point, and I think you could really interpret Mann's statement about the film as being bitter at being outclassed by a director who made a prank film at the expense of both writers and studio executives. Jenkins and Barry (each first-timer film stars) may not have ended up being a duo that had multiple films to engage in madcap stuff together, but I think they do pretty well together here. They smirk and engage with the world as if they were a trickster God, which actually seems pretty in line with what teenagers really seem to be to the ones around them: silly jerks with every-changing fashion sense (others probably had at least one person they treated like crap as a friend growing up anyway). The object of their bullying is Dooley, who is delightfully smarmy and amusing in the ways one would expect from a portrayal of a 1980s conservative in his suburban element, one that sees past the strangeness of his family in the known alcoholic to all but herself with Curtain and the stunted weirdo in Cryer to go along with a son-in-law who has the most decisive moment to finally speak after so many casual snipes at his Asian heritage. It is probably apt of something that Hopper appeared in this film the same year that he did a daredevil stunt in front of college students involving a chair and sticks of dynamite. Altman having Hopper doing a riff on the role he did in Apocalypse Now (1979) is crispy in its amusement, actually, one who gets to casually say lines such as calling guns a "disease" with worthwhile conviction, particularly when he gets to go loose for the climax. One sees plenty of presences of once and future presences in film/TV (such as a young bemused Nixon to go with a typically "on" Mull to go with a goofy codger in Walston), which probably takes the cake when one sees Bob Uecker ramble to essentially nobody for his cameo sequence. The 109-minute experience gives plenty of anarchy to see among the odd suburbanites (take one look at the places) that lands more often than not in Altman's practical joke among those looking for a typical teenage comedy in the 1980s without some sort of abject shot at society as one knows it.  I found this movie by the stupidest of ways, googling random films to maybe transfer over to USB (after finding a copy on the Internet) for later use (this goes along with "amusing" perspectives on obscure stuff). I can't say the film is for everyone, but if one manages to find this film (Internet or otherwise), I recommend seeing the film in all of its zany idiocy as an Altman movie wrapped in the underbelly of artificiality for delightful hit-or-miss entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Time enough at last with Nothing But Trouble.

The Trip (1967).

Review #2030: The Trip.

Cast: 

Peter Fonda (Paul Groves), Susan Strasberg (Sally Groves), Bruce Dern (John), Dennis Hopper (Max), Salli Sachse (Glenn), Barboura Morris (Flo), Judy Lang (Nadine), Luana Anders (Waitress), and Dick Miller (Cash) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, and #1918 - House of Usher)

Review: 

"I wanted the picture not to be a pro-LSD picture and not to be an anti-LSD picture because my trip was very good, I had no bad effects in my trip at all. It was wonderful. Yet I felt I really shouldn’t be accused of proselytizing for LSD, and at the same time I knew people had had bad trips, so I was trying to be neutral, and I had to ask people what had happened on their bad trips, and incorporate some of what they had experienced into it to make it neutral."

Admittedly, when I think of Roger Corman, the words "counterculture trilogy" don't exactly come to mind. Research by others involving films involving so-called "hippies" has labeled The Trip as the second of his films involving the counterculture, with Gas-s-s-s (1970) being thought of as the last of the three and The Wild Angels (1966) being the first. Whatever Corman intended, one thing is clear when it comes to The Trip: it was meant to be quite an interesting experience in line with what Corman usually tried to do with American International Pictures. Hell, he certainly tried to do his own research to get things moving, which first involved reading the work of Timothy Leary, a noted psychologist, author, and advocate for psychedelic drugs which in this case involved lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), although others would also know Leary for phrases that he came up with, such as "turn on, tune in, drop out". This drug, if you didn't know, was first synthetized in 1938 by Albert Hofmann. I would like to mention that Hofmann (after accidentally finding out the effect of LSD with ingestion years later) argued for LSD as a possible tool for psychiatry within the right place of awareness and safety rather than used for entertainment. So yes, he had plenty to think about the counterculture and their use of something he called "medicine for the soul". As for Corman, he eventually came to the conclusion that reading and asking folks about it was not enough, he had to try LSD for himself. After all of that, Corman, having a good trip, decided to make a film relying on experiments with cinematography and visual elements to carry a film that isn't really about much besides a drug trip. Of course, I can't forget that the film was also written by Jack Nicholson, which came about after Corman had Charles B. Griffith (his writer on previous material) write a couple of drafts, one of which was done as a musical; Nicholson apparently wanted to play a role in the film, but Corman wanted to reuse Dern from the aforementioned Angels film (which he and Fonda both starred in). The film was released less than a month after Corman's one big-budget venture with The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, but The Trip (made on a budget 1/4th the size of the other one) was a major hit for AIP. If you didn't connect the dots already, Fonda and Hopper would star together in a future film involving the road and the counterculture (with Nicholson and Anders in tow) in Easy Rider (1969).

Evidently, the way to go with this film is to turn off one's mind, relax, and float downstream. Regardless of how one feels about the attempt of neutrality, there is something quite, uh, offbeat about how the film goes about in wandering for 82 minutes. Strangely though, I find it far more interesting of the counterculture films that Corman did as compared to Wild Angels or with Gas-s-s-s, probably because the raucous biker experience of "freedom" of the former and the latter's attempt at "post-apocalyptic dark comedy" seem quite hollow compared to the simple goals presented here. It certainly won't be as ridiculous to watch as say, Reefer Madness. Those who find it tedious will have as much justification to say so as the folks who label it as pure cinematic exercise. It all depends on how much patience on has with lingering sequences of a man going through a really weird time that includes fantasy sequences, folks accidentally breaking into people's houses, and musical backdrops involving jazz or organ and horns for a score. With that in mind, Fonda actually does a pretty good job here, a dazed performance that is totally inviting and right for the scenario presented that doesn't seem ripe for exploitation. You get bits and pieces of who he is around and during the trip, and it namely involves vulnerability that one would think about when it comes to one's awareness being tuned into weird putty. Hopper and Dern play the guides on the would-be road of awakening, which is mostly amusing in bits and pieces. The women in the film in Strasberg and Sachse come and go in a rate that suggests discussion over just what they actually mean to Fonda beyond what they look on the surface, but remember that LSD was indeed meant more than just tripping out, so take that in mind. A handful of psychedelic/counterculture films would come and go in the coming months, whether that involved Something Weird (1967), or say, Head (1968), or Skidoo (1968), you get the idea, but The Trip should prove just fine for the curious at heart that like entertaining looks at the experience of doing a trip with useful imagery that is both what you think and don't think would happen if you were the one put in the lead scenario here. And for that, Corman clearly was in his element here in a decent experience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Review #1909: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Review: 

"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.

The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate. 

If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role. 

As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

EDtv.

Review #1848: EDtv.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Edward "Ed" Pekurny), Jenna Elfman (Shari), Woody Harrelson (Raymond "Ray" Pekurny), Ellen DeGeneres (Cynthia Reed), Martin Landau (Al), Sally Kirkland (Jeanette Pekurny), Elizabeth Hurley (Jill), Rob Reiner (Mr. Whitaker), Dennis Hopper (Henry 'Hank' Pekurny), Viveka Davis (Marcia Pekurny), Christian Kane (P.A.), Adam Goldberg (John), Wendle Josepher (Rita), Merrin Dungey (Ms. Seaver), Ian Gomez (McIlvaine), and Clint Howard (Ken) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story, #1509 - Apollo 13)

Review: 

If you remember, The Truman Show (1998) was a movie that happened to feature a man with his life unknowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. EDtv, released on year later, is a movie that happens to feature a man with his life knowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. One can be called a "satirical comedy" and the other can fall into the "psychological comedy-drama satire". Well, that isn't particularly fair to this feature, which is actually a remake of the 1994 Quebecois film Louis 19, King of the Airwaves [Louis 19, le roi des ondes]. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (who had written the scripts for a handful of Ron Howard movies likes Splash (1984)) wrote the screenplay for this film. Of course, one really shouldn't reference better material in its own film, with this film referencing An American Family (the hit reality TV show of 1973) in its early minutes when talking about its "innovations"...that show happened to inspire its own spoof with Real Life (1979), a comedy movie involving a documentary filmmaker trying to live with an American family for a year. The funny thing is that EDtv came out nine months after The Truman Show as a big-budget production that runs at 123 minutes (longer than you-know-who), and yet it was a considerable failure with audiences at the time. Maybe it was just more interesting to see Jim Carrey try to tap into comedy-drama rather than Matthew McConaughey (fresh from overrated material like Dazed and Confused (1993) to A Time to Kill (1996)), or maybe it was something else. But I think you know the answer isn't just that EDtv is inferior to The Truman Show, because dueling movies with similar concepts can work out for both sides. Besides, this was made in the era of shows like The Real World, what could possibly go wrong? 

Unfortunately, the movie only barely scratches the surface when it comes to any sort of "bite", because it point-blank does not know what the hell it wants to be, fledging between romcom and satire in ways that only an indecisive polar bear could love. I'm not saying that the movie needed to have the bite of Network (1976) when it comes to human nature, but one is basically watching a slightly amped version of The Jerry Springer Show. Of course, even Springer got to "take advantage" with his own movie that happened to have been released around that time with Ringmaster (1998), so perhaps calling EDtv the sitcom-infused love child of Springer and other offshoots is a bit on the mark. Maybe it isn't as much of a fantasy as the earlier 1998 movie, but it sure isn't any more in touch with reality, because its main motivation is never entirely convincing: if you were asked to be on television and have your life broadcast 24/7, you probably would have to be a crazy person to really go with this, and the movie just doesn't hold its own in terms of believability beyond what you would see in a paper-thin sitcom, which seems catered to being a movie made by committee of producers rather than a movie made from any semblance of believability. In other words: when you become a person on camera, you will lose far more of yourself than you prove to gain, and only the best translates well to television (best of course is subjective, since there are countless examples of people being famous on television for the sake of famous). 

The cast is here and there, which is not something you really want to say about a movie that likely has its myriad of cameo appearances happen because of some sort of insecurity (most apparent with its moments with Jay Leno, a presence odious enough to insult rather than allow him to make jokes for you). It especially doesn't help when the movie likes to show brief moments with "the average American viewer" from time to time, since it only adds on to the dry factor in all of its unnecessary nature (while homing in on the made-by-committee point). My real problem is that there are just too many characters present here, spiraling out of control for two hours when one could trim a few minutes and lose nothing. McConaughey is technically decent in the film in that he never borders on insufferable when it comes to being "man on television 24/7", because the script does want a presence of warmth within the initial spark of naivety that overrides any sense of wanting a looser script (i.e. either a performance of a loser or someone less likable). In short: he is fine despite the limitations presented. Elfman is wrapped in the least funny part of the film: the rom-com parts, which doesn't help matters when one is trapped like a fishbowl in ways that probably make Dharma & Greg seem completely tolerable, since the chemistry with McConaughey is marginal at best. Hell, even Hurley and her "hired gun" performance is slightly more interesting, even if it ends abruptly. Harrelson is slightly entertaining, but again, the movie needs desperation from its people rather than goofy middlemen (Landau and Kirkland play to form handily, but that isn't saying much). DeGeneres spends half of her time watching the screen of the lead character and the other half coming up with "zingers" that make for a forgettable performance, as if being the originator of 24/7 reality TV isn't exciting enough to make into biting humor besides the use of Reiner, which is as predictable as a meathead insult. Perhaps it is amusing fate that Hopper is in this movie, as he was actually originally cast in The Truman Show before being replaced by the filmmakers for Ed Harris. He just doesn't get much to do for his two scenes, which is surely disappointing for an actor of his stature - granted, the scene where he tries to reminisce about an old memory with his son only to misremember it on live TV.

There is potential for a movie worth watching in the desperation of someone who thinks that the best hustle in life is to go out on television and show their whole lives to the world, but the movie only thinks of it in the most basic of ways that has the effect of a whimper. It might be a cheap thing to say that the movie was steamrolled by a movie with a better director, writer and overall cast, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody, will ever find reason to give abject praise to EDtv, a mediocre movie in every sense of the word, without having to strain hard to not compare it to The Truman Show. 

Overall, I give it 6 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.

Hoosiers.

Review #1481: Hoosiers.

Cast: 
Gene Hackman (Norman Dale), Barbara Hershey (Myra Fleener), Dennis Hopper (Shooter Flatch), Sheb Wooley (Cletus Summers), Maris Valainis (Jimmy Chitwood), David Neidorf (Everett Flatch), Brad Long (Buddy Walker), Steve Hollar (Rade Butcher), Brad Boyle (Whit Butcher), Wade Schenck (Ollie McLellan), Kent Poole (Merle Webb), Scott Summers (Strap Purl), Fern Persons (Opal Fleener), and Chelcie Ross (George Walker) Directed by David Anspaugh.

Review: 
"I took the film at a time that I was desperate for money. I took it for all the wrong reasons, and it turned out to be one of those films that stick around. I was from that area of the country and knew of that event, strangely enough. We filmed fifty miles from where I was brought up. So it was a bizarre feeling. I never expected the film to have the kind of legs it's had."

"For so long studios were afraid of making sports movies because they thought they would only appeal to men. But Hoosiers isn't about basketball...They're about bigger things--family, community, and second chances."

To put it mildly, Indiana loves basketball. If one looks hard enough, you can find plenty of interesting things about Hoosier hysteria for the game, which extends to a film often thought of as one of the best sports movies ever. Writer-producer Angelo Pizzo and director David Anspaugh had first met when attending Indiana University, and each eventually found their way into doing what they liked: to be involved in films, and this was the feature debut for both of them. I think you know the story of Hoosiers, even if you haven't actually seen it. How many of us have grown up in a small town that focused their attention all on one certain part of the high school sports team? I myself can say I've been to countless basketball and football games, and you can certainly see plenty of faces old and new cheering on with pride. Granted, the game and season will end in the same manner, but it is the journey that counts most, right? The film may be very predictable for some, but who can resist a film where the little guy has a shot of winning? There is precedent for this within Indiana sports, with one small inspiration for this film being the 1954 Milan High School Indians, who with an enrollment of 161 students managed to go all the way in the state tournament (which had over 700 schools competing in one tournament), winning it all in the same place that would be used for this film's final: Hinkle Fieldhouse.

One thing that can't be lost in all of this is Gene Hackman. Whether in a supporting role or as star, he certainly knew how to bring a vital energy to the roles he played on screen, which could prove pretty versatile and fairly effective in the right hands. He was cast in this film because of scheduling problems with Jack Nicholson, one of two castings by chance that are interesting to note (the other being Dennis Hopper being cast when Harry Dean Stanton declined).  Although it might seem obvious to note the film's success, Hackman really did believe it wasn't going to be a hit on release, and Anspaugh had some tough times on filming with Hackman. One wouldn't really see any problems here, since Hackman is tremendous here, a show of professionalism and intuition that plays really well to a film that invites one in to no-nonsense warmth. Hershey follows along for the ride with fairness that matches up with Hackman without too many bumps, although the romance between the two seems a bit dubious - an alternative version of the film (which apparently ran at 168 minutes) had more scenes with the two together, although I can't imagine a longer version doing better than the 115 minute version we have here. Hopper, in the midst of a career resurgence with this and Blue Velvet (1986), nearly steals the show. A former addict playing an alcoholic, he proves adept at giving this role the gravitas and care it needs to come alive with warmth that permeates interest whenever on screen. The others prove just fine in giving the small-town spirit the film requires, following along certain traits you could see in your town or in other sports films, whether involving the small athletic wonder, the devout athlete, or the opinionated townsfolk (headed by a distinct Ross). The basketball sequences prove fine in emulating classic 1950s basketball in the midst of fairly effective small town sequences destined to warm the heart of those living in the heartland desiring exactly this kind of film. It overcomes any lingering sense of hokey hooey with enough authenticity to make an interesting piece in the sports film library with a presentable charm and a well-rounded core to go with it all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Apocalypse Now.

Review #1460: Apocalypse Now.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Colonel Walter E. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Captain Benjamin L. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore), Frederic Forrest (Jay 'Chef' Hicks), Sam Bottoms (Lance B. Johnson), Laurence Fishburne (Tyrone 'Clean' Miller), Albert Hall (Chief Phillips), Harrison Ford (Colonel Lucas), Dennis Hopper (Photojournalist), G.D. Spradlin (General R. Corman), Jerry Ziesmer (Jerry, Civilian), and Scott Glenn (Lieutenant Richard M. Colby) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13 and #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 
"We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane"

The 1970s were a tremendous decade for Francis Ford Coppola, so it only makes sense to cover the last film of that era, one characterized by the highs and lows of the "New Hollywood" movement.
He had a hand in six films for the decade: Patton (1970, co-wrote the screenplay), The Godfather (1972, director and co-writer), The Conversation (1974, as writer, producer, and director), The Great Gatsby (1974, screenplay), and The Godfather Part II (1974, co-writer, director, producer), and this film. Coppola was born in Detroit but raised in Queens, New York as the son of music composer Carmine Coppola (who would work with his son on a couple of his films). He graduated from both Hofstra University and the UCLA Film School (the former in theater arts and the latter in film), with one notable influence on Coppola being Dorothy Arzner, a former film director who was on the staff at the time. Coppola's career in film started in 1962 with three films: The Bellboy and the Playgirls, Tonight for Sure, and Battle Beyond the Sun (the first and latter were English edits), with his next feature being the cult classic Dementia 13 (1963). He spent the next few years doing a few scripts and further directorial efforts (such as the hit You're a Big Boy Now) before the aforementioned luck in the 1970s, where he won a total of five Academy Awards on fourteen nominations.

This was inspired by Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, written in 1899 under the inspiration of his travels on a river steamer sailing up the Congo River (both focus on a character named Kurtz). The screenplay was written by John Milius and Coppola, with narration by Michael Herr (a war correspondent most known for his book Dispatches that detailed his experiences in Vietnam). The initial director in mind to do the film was George Lucas. He worked for years with Milius to develop the project while busy with other scripts, and he had wanted to do it after THX 1138 (1971) with the intent to shoot in both California and South Vietnam on a modest budget of $2 million with 16mm cameras and real soldiers, although this did not come to pass. Coppola was eventually drawn to the script and initially aimed to produce the film before eventually pressing on to do it himself, which he had described as a "comedy and a terrifying psychological horror story". It would take years to ultimately plan and shoot the film, since it was originally set to be a four month shoot in the Philippines for release in 1977. There were of course a few obstacles that made this impossible. The original choice for the Willard character was Harvey Keitel (since others like Steve McQueen did not want to leave America for a significant amount of time), but Coppola soon found that Keitel was not quite right for the role, which led to Sheen being brought in. Describing the amount of production quirks almost sounds like a routine of dark humor. A typhoon wrecked a majority of the sets not long after production started. Sheen had a heart attack that took him off filming for a month (with his brother Joe filling in as a double and voice over at times). Brando showed up to the set severely overweight and hadn't read the script or the book. The film premiered in May 1979 at the Cannes Film Festival while not fully finished at three hours (where Coppola famously stated that his film was not about Vietnam but rather was Vietnam). Nowadays there are multiple editions to possibly view, such as the original 153 minute version, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, which re-inserted deleted footage that runs at 196 minutes), and Apocalypse Now Final Cut (2017, which was trimmed to 183 minutes).

For a film that runs at a significant length and with such production quirks, it is amazing how well the film works as a look upon the dark parts of a man's soul when it comes to the horrors of war with such tenacity and depth to make for one of the most seminal films of its era and for epic war films as a whole. It is an experience like no other in ways that other films could only dream to do in terms of haunting timelessness, because it is something that can linger in our mind now more than ever. For a man who had his quarrels with Coppola and takes his time to show up in full detail, Brando generates a tremendous performance of stature, a poet warrior's voice from the dark that is intently fascinating to view in those moments for the clear-minded-but-darkened-soul that doesn't have to say much (Coppola edited down a rambling monologue by Brando to only a few minutes) to generate awe. Sheen follows along with great ambiguity, a passive presence that we have absolutely no trouble in following along with in a path of weariness as a changed man of war, right from the very first scene where he punches a mirror with his bare hand. Duvall makes for quite a fanatical presence in such a quick amount of time, a man that we can smell the napalm with in clear detail. The others in the cast prove worthy to travel along with, including a young Fishburne and a dazed Bottoms to go with the eccentrically on-point Hopper and bit highlights for Spradlin and Ziesmer. This is not a film that tests one's patience as much as it is one that probes into your patience, filled with a tremendous look by Vittorio Storaro in cinematography that makes a devastating classic worth checking out as a portrait of what can drive a man to certain actions in war under the guise of morality that leaves its audience fully stunned and ultimately satisfied for having watched it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Easy Rider.

Review #1430: Easy Rider.

Cast: 
Peter Fonda (Wyatt), Dennis Hopper (Billy), Jack Nicholson (George Hanson), featuring Phil Spector (Connection), Warren Finnerty (Rancher), Luke Askew (Stranger on highway), Luana Anders (Lisa), Sabrina Scharf (Sarah), Robert Walker Jr (Jack), Hayward Robillard (Cat Man), Arnold Hess Jr (Deputy), Toni Basil (Mary), Karen Black (Karen), with David C. Billodeau and Johnny David (Pickup Truck drivers) Directed by Dennis Hopper.

Review: 
"I am just a middle-class farm boy from Dodge City and my grandparents were wheat farmers. I thought painting, acting, directing and photography was all part of being an artist. I have made my money that way. And I have had some fun. It's not been a bad life." - Dennis Hopper

If one ever needed a time capsule of 1969 that would encapsulate a journey filled with wanderers that look for America and find something beyond their wildest dreams, I would say Easy Rider is that kind of fitting movie. It is a road film like no other, one that represented a high point of the New Hollywood era that would be characterized by films with directors that were given the tools to try and express something different from the studio-dominated directed films of the past. Every few decades have their share of directors that come through the ranks to forge their place with iconic films or presences, and this applies just as much for stars as well. Fonda was already a counterculture icon to some for films such as The Wild Angels (1966) and this picture, and he found inspiration from seeing a still of himself in the former film to make a sort of modern Western with bikers travelling across the country. Hopper, who had made a name for himself as a method actor with a combative personality on film and television (which led to him turning to photography) was called by Fonda to see about trying to make that idea into a film. Hopper and Fonda wrote the film with novelist and Dr. Strangelove co-writer Terry Southern, while Hopper directed, and Fonda produced it. One shouldn't forget Nicholson in all of this, as he had collaborated with Hopper and Fonda previously with his written script for Roger Corman's LSD film The Trip. The credit for who did what when it came to writing is a bit murky, since one can see a good deal of improvisation among a thin story and attempts by Hopper and Fonda to downplay Southern's role in the film. Instead of a music score, the soundtrack is comprised of songs from noted artists and bands such as The Byrds, Steppenwolf, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience, with the licensing for the songs costing around a million dollars (which was larger than the filming budget of over $300,000).

This is a film with its own kind of freedom to move around with its main duo on its own terms that is wild at heart with a power that still has an appeal after all these years, for better or worse. 1969 and 2020 are two completely different years in terms of communication and other various things, but it isn't too hard to still see a commonality in one's search for their own kind of freedom and the problems that can come from it, where the clash of cultures never really did end with the 1960s - it has merely amplified in the prevailing years. What does it really mean to be free?  Through their travels, Hopper and Fonda find themselves in the presence of farmers, hippies, rough locals, and one strange trip in Mardi Gras that make quite an interesting portrait of the times in all of its hopes, dreams, and ultimately anguish, complete with them and Nicholson getting high on marijuana on camera. Fonda makes for a solid performance, not needing to say too much until the trip sequence that gives him room to show a tortured spirit within the guise of freedom (notably, Hopper convinced a reluctant Fonda to talk to the statue as if it was his mother, who had died when he was 10). Hopper makes a subdued but worthwhile misfit to accompany Fonda and make a film with frenzied interest both in the film and outside it. He reportedly had proposed doing a four hour cut that had extended sequences along with extensive use of flash-forward that would insert scenes from later parts of the film into a current scene. Nicholson, who had toiled in low budget roles for over a decade, does a tremendous job with the time he is given as an outsider with spirit and conviction in whatever he does and says on screen, whether that means hitching a ride with a football helmet or talking a theory about aliens among us. In the end, the swift and sudden climax makes for a thoughtful conclusion to a film that travels to being itself with no sense of trying to be something it isn't, appealing to an audience that had seen plenty of events and furor in the sixties that linger in our consciousness now without seeming played out or something to poke at. One gets a feel for the road without being overwhelmed by it all. The jump cuts alongside the carefree camera movements and natural lighting make for an experience worth 95 minutes. As one probably already knows, this was a tremendous hit for Columbia Pictures (at one point, an executive apparently stated that while he didn't know what it meant, it would "make a fuck of a lot of money."), and others would follow in its wake with their own kind of free-spirited and free-willing technique that makes for a worthwhile legacy for a film that is an interesting worthwhile time. It isn't perfect by any means, but it is certainly deserving of a place in the mentions of the films of the 1960s as a sign of the times for present and future in more ways than one.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Review #1395: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Cast:
Burt Lancaster (Marshal Wyatt Earp), Kirk Douglas (Doc Holliday), Rhonda Fleming (Laura Denbow), Jo Van Fleet (Kate Fisher), John Ireland (Johnny Ringo), Lyle Bettger (Ike Clanton), Frank Faylen (Sheriff Cotton Wilson), Earl Holliman (Deputy Sheriff Charlie Bassett), Ted de Corsia (Shanghai Pierce), Dennis Hopper (Billy Clanton), Whit Bissell (John Clum), George Mathews (John Shanssey), John Hudson (Virgil Earp), DeForest Kelley (Morgan Earp), Martin Milner (James 'Jimmy' Earp), Lee Van Cleef (Ed Bailey), and Jack Elam (Tom McLowery) Directed by John Sturges (#427 - The Magnificent Seven)

Review: 
"Take one for spontaneity."

Everyone needs an entertaining picture. John Sturges could do an entertaining picture when given the chance to do so. He had started in the film business with RKO through a connection to his brother in their Art department, gradually rising from bluebrints to editor in a period of seven years. He subsequently served in World War II under the US Army Air Corps (where he did direction on training films and documentaries with William Wyler such as Thunderbolt) before returning to Hollywood with Columbia Pictures, who gave him his shot at directing with The Man Who Dared (1946), the first of a bunch of b-movies for them, with The Walking Hills (1949) being his first Western. A move to MGM in 1949 led to films with a bit more prominence, where he continued to make dramas, noirs, and Westerns. His most significant film through the studio before he turned independent was Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). Ultimately, Sturges (who favored just one take to get a scene done) would direct over 40 films in a 30-year career before his death in 1992 at 82 years old.

Making a film about the Old West can be an interesting time when there is some historical precedent to it, which has been the case for numerous Westerns about the legend of Tombstone, although most of those films probably didn't have a ballad to them. Of course one isn't going to particularly learn all there is to know about a famed gunfight in a movie like this (particularly an event that in reality lasted less than a minute and had just three people killed), where even an acclaimed Western on the subject like My Darling Clementine (1946) had tinges of inaccuracy (which also featured Ireland), with the formerly considered factual novel Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal having risen the late Earp into a famed Old West icon. While this film is not as particularly good on the subject as say Tombstone (1993), this is a solid Western for its era, building itself with quiet ambition and a capable duo in Lancaster and Douglas for a useful climax. Lancaster, the circus performer-turned-war veteran-turned actor (along with occasional producer) resonates with calm authority, which goes well when acting alongside Douglas, as they worked together on several films together. Douglas (another fellow war veteran turned actor, albeit with a rough childhood) commands attention each time he is on screen, a forceful presence even when coughing as the film goes on that showcases plenty of discipline that he was known for. They click the most together, with scenes of the Earp family together being second and everything else being okay at best. Fleming (who had "Queen of Technicolor" as a nickname by others) does okay, but a film with a fictional character to make a romance (Earp married three times, each common-law) doesn't prove to have much structure anyway since she doesn't have as much screen-time anyway, while Van Fleet delivers a few weary wicked moments. Ireland and the other adversaries do fine with stoking tension, which includes a young Dennis Hopper in just his fourth film role. On the whole, while the film can sometimes seem a bit too pedestrian at 122 minutes, there is a fine quality to follow along with its two leads and the conflict which work to serve an action-stuffed climax just the same. It isn't a great Western by any means, but it will serve its purpose of entertainment just the same with its own particular grip of a legend of the Old West for its time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

True Grit (1969).

Review #1314: True Grit.

Cast: 
John Wayne (Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn), Kim Darby (Mattie Ross), Glen Campbell (La Boeuf), Jeremy Slate (Emmett Quincy), Robert Duvall (Lucky Ned Pepper), Dennis Hopper (Moon), Alfred Ryder (Goudy), Strother Martin (Col. G. Stonehill), Jeff Corey (Tom Chaney), Ron Soble (Captain Boots Finch), John Fiedler (Lawyer Daggett), and James Westerfield (Judge Parker) Directed by Henry Hathaway.

Review: 
It seems perfectly appropriate to close a year out with a Western (or start one, if you're into that sort of tradition) - particularly one released in a year as intreging as 1969. That year was a time where the genre experienced variations of telling a tale of the Old West through various lens such as The Wild Bunch with its touch of violence or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and its touch of humor. This is a film that very well could have been made in a previous decade - after all, its director was known primarily for quite a few Westerns in his time (mostly with Gary Cooper as star), with producer Hal B. Wallis having served as producer on films such as Casablanca (1942) or Westerns like The Sons of Katie Elder (released four years earlier, which had both Hathaway and Wayne). However, this was an adaptation of the 1968 novel of the same name from Charles Portis, adapted to the screen by Marguerite Roberts. Wayne had read the novel and soon expressed a desire to star in the main role, while later calling the screenplay the best one he ever read. The other parts of the main trio came a bit more shakily, with considerations for Mattie ranging from Mia Farrow to Sally Field before Darby wound up with the role, while Elvis Presley was the original one in mind for the role eventually taken up by Campbell (complete with singing the title song to open the film). Hathaway did not find himself having a great relationship with either of them along with Duvall, but he certainly leads them to worthy performances, not tripping up the momentum in part because the film knows when to be an adventure and when to have a bit of charm as well. It may be a tale of revenge, but it's still one with tradition involved. Wayne moves with careful confidence, a man wracked by who he is and what he means to someone who needs a person like him to hunt - plenty of grit and plenty of charm beneath that gauze eye-patch. Darby shines with persistence, a fine person to play off the main presence without being lost in the background. Campbell seems a bit stiff when on screen, but at least he doesn't slow the momentum too much. Duvall makes for a fair adversary alongside Hopper and Corey (who gets to make a crack while doing a stare-down) makes for a compelling showdown person for the climax. It uses its 128 minutes to great effect, driving a riveting climax with action and class, earning its wonderful last shot (Wayne jumping a fence with a horse) with conviction and triumph. It is a film with a spirit of adventure that brims itself high and mighty without needing to be wrapped in too much sentiment or bluntness. It falls into the conventions of the genre, without trouble, a well made venture for those who seek it out looking for something worthwhile.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Speed (1994).

Review #1115: Speed.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (Officer Jack Traven), Dennis Hopper (Howard Payne), Sandra Bullock (Annie Porter), Joe Morton (Lt. "Mac" McMahon), Jeff Daniels (Officer Harry Temple), Alan Ruck (Doug Stephens), Carlos Carrasco (Ortiz), Glenn Plummer (Jaguar owner), and Richard Lineback (Sgt. Norwood) Directed by Jan de Bont (#812 - Twister)

Review: 
At long last, Speed. I never intended for the Upcoming Features to have the film listed for so long (roughly a year or so), but it took a while to find time to do this one. Hope you enjoy.

Speed is an accomplishment in its execution of action and energetic nature that has numerous assets to achieving its goal as a popcorn thriller. This was the directorial debut of de Bont, a Dutch cinematographer who was responsible for numerous films such as Die Hard (1988), The Hunt for Red October (1990) and Basic Instinct (1992). Graham Yost, who had written for television shows such as Hey Dude prior to this movie, was inspired by his father Elwy telling him about Runaway Train (1985), which was about a train speeding out a control that had been based on an idea by Akira Kurosawa. Yost's original script was set entirely on the bus, with the sequence involving the bus looping around being at the parking lot of Dodgers Stadium instead of an aiport. Josh Whedon was brought in to do (un-credited) work prior to main production beginning, with Yost stating that most of the dialogue was written by Whedon, adding "We were very much in sync, it's just that I didn't write the dialogue as well as he did." In any case, having the film not having all of its time on the bus, such as the elevator sequence or parts involving the police (such as Daniels) outside the bus do make the action come off well in not being overwhelming nor sluggish in its 116 minute run-time.

The main three of Reeves, Hopper, and Bullock all manage to stand out well, doing great in their own ways. Reeves proves to be a capable lead hero, having an edge of vulnerability alongside an air of resourceful nature that makes him interesting to watch, whether when jumping a bus or trying to adapt to the situation of the plot. Hopper makes for an entertaining villain, having the right sense of timing with his lines that carry weight with the motivations written without resorting to being generically evil or chewing too much of the scenery, having a sardonic charm to him. Bullock holds her own well, proving to be a capable one to pair off with the action and Reeves, for which they have a fair amount of chemistry with each other. The others also do fine in their time on screen, such as Daniels, Morton, or Ruck, who both pull off their respective mannerisms and motivations well. The bus members don't have too much particular time to really shine, but they are believable people who don't come off as too annoying or too painfully generic.

The movie is a thrill ride from start to finish, having a consistency to what it wants to execute on screen that rewards the eyes without assaulting it. It isn't the kind of movie that wants to challenge the viewer too heavily, but it sure will give them something to behold in terms of what could and what does happen without being insulting to their intelligence or pushing things too far, having its share of fun moments. Arguably the most notable moment of the film is the bus jump scene. California Interstates 105 and 110 were used for a majority of the freeway sequences in the film, and while de Bont was scouting the area he noticed that there were missing sections and was inspired to add the sequence. Not to spoil too much about the stunt itself (or the feasibility of doing said stunt), but the sequence as a whole is breathtaking to watch, having a certain excitement that never falls prey to feeling too unbelievable. On the whole, the film works on a level of consistency that can be appreciated and aspire to after over two decades. It is the kind of movie you can appreciate on a technical level, where it even received Academy Awards for Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing. There is enough suspense to make for an incredible time for viewers, especially ones with action in mind.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Waterworld.

Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.