Redux: Predator 2.

Redux #548: Predator 2.

Cast:  

Danny Glover (Lieutenant Mike Harrigan), Kevin Peter Hall (City Hunter / The Predator; Hal Rayle as voice of the Predator), Gary Busey (Special Agent Peter Keyes), Rubén Blades (Detective Danny Archuleta), María Conchita Alonso (Detective Leona Cantrell), Bill Paxton (Detective Jerry Lambert), Lilyan Chauvin (Dr. Irene Edwards), Robert Davi (Deputy Chief Phil Heinemann), Adam Baldwin (Agent Adam Garber), Kent McCord (Captain Brent Pilgrim), Steve Kahan (Sergeant Neil Reeger), Henry Kingi ("El Scorpio"), Morton Downey Jr. (Tony Pope), Calvin Lockhart (Willie "King Willie"), and Sylvia Kauders (Ruth Albright) Directed by Stephen Hopkins.

Review: 

"I always think that about everything I do. I’m my worst most vicious critic of all of these things but I think I just would have made [Predator 2] probably a little less over the top. So it’s a little uneven in tone and sometimes it feels really real. Then you have these crazy Jamaican guys in gold disco pants. I just always want a sense of authenticity about stuff and there’s some of it that just doesn’t feel authentic at all. Some of it really does get to you and I think there’s a strange veer in tones but there’s nothing I’m ashamed of or anything. I think it is just a child from the MTV running around blowing shit up at will and enjoying it with a huge amount of backup working with people who are much smarter than me and could really help me do something that I never had a chance to do before."

It's possible that action movies are just above horror movies when it comes to looking back and thinking, yes, this was pretty good the next time around. I saw the first Predator (1987) movie on DVD when I was in high school and thought it was good and then go figure, I see it a few years later and thought it was really pretty good. Predator 2, which I saw back in 2014 and I guess I just didn't like the idea of a standalone sequel at the time. What I forgot to know at the time was that Jim and John Thomas, who wrote the first movie (involving a professional hunter hunting big game, at least how they proposed it), did in fact return to write the sequel and pitched a handful of ideas to 20th Century Fox; these ideas apparently included: starting straight after the explosion from the first film, or dropping a Predator into time periods such as the Battle of the Bulge. Instead, they went for a hunter that decided upon the then future of 1997 and the "urban jungle" in Los Angeles. The studio could not get Arnold Schwarzenegger to return because of a salary dispute. At the helm to direct was Jamaican-born British director Stephen Hopkins, who had attracted a bit of attention with his first two movies Dangerous Game (1987) and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989), and he worked out revisions and storyboarded moments with them. Shot on a quick window that had principal photography start in February for a release nine months later, Hopkins (28 at the time) stated he enjoyed the experience. Released on a budget of over $20-30 million in November 1990 (yes, roughly around the same time as Dances with Wolves and Home Alone), the movie made over $50 million worldwide (in comparison, the original made nearly $100 million). Not counting the Alien vs. Predator crossovers, there were no further Predator movies until Predators in 2010.

If Hopkins went a "bit crazy" in making a movie that still ended up being still pretty grounded that he felt was more in the western/thriller genre than sci-fi horror, well, he sure made a good one. With crazy discs and spears to go along with basically a retread of what you saw before in hunting the hunter, I could understand my initial disappointment to this movie and then also realize, yes, but it still deserves plenty of credit for its entertainment value. Over the top, sure, but I suppose I appreciate intensity and craftsmanship more and more when it comes to action/horror movies as the years move on. A lack of Schwarzenegger is regrettable, although it would've been a team-up movie that had inklings of casting Patrick Swayze or possibly Steven Seagal (Hopkins theorizes that he was persuaded by James Cameron to not do it before doing Terminator 2); instead, the role eventually played by Gary Busey* was expanded upon and Glover got cast (basically making this a semi-Lethal Weapon reunion between them, Steve Kahan and Joel Silver, the latter of whom produced both movies). Glover (in pretty good shape because of the physical training) pretty much elevates the movie to what could've easily just been a middling rehash because of how entertaining he proves to be as our hero. Sure, the stubborn loose cannon ordinary Joe isn't the most original type of movies of its ilk, but he has a certain type of timing and enthusiasm that makes it all seem worth it in seeing inevitable ass-kicking in the heat; besides, whether it was1990, 1997 or 2026, it does seem pretty relevant to have a smart mouth to seeing combative folks in really warm weather. This was the penultimate film appearance for Hall, who died the following year after having contracted HIV from a blood transfusion during surgery from injuries in a car accident, and he really did make the best of this role from that suit in making for a pretty imposing figure (which through the presentation of the hunter makes for basically an oddball looking for the alpha, such as when he does a roar and attracts a lightning bolt). I love this group of oddballs that surround the action with Alonso, Blades, and Paxton (no guesses for which plays the charming relief taken before the 108-minute action is over) or the oddball support with Busey in what can only be called "mellow delusion" and musician-turned-abrasive talk show host* Downey hamming it up as much as possible (or, for whatever reason, former Adam-12 star McCord and Davi having bit roles in the usual "cop, you're being too rough" spiel). You get plenty of grimy and intense things within sequences in the city, a massacre in the subway, stuff in a slaughterhouse that probably cribs a bit from Aliens and finally some time spent with an alien ship for a showdown of who really deserves a trophy for their mettle. You know what you're getting early on and if you like where it looks to be headed, well, you'll like it just as much by the end. As a whole, it's a fun average movie that I appreciate more and more because of its sheer energy and willingness to just go where it wants in hunting on a concrete jungle more than thinking too much about its effectiveness when compared to its predecessor. Good ol' sweaty gooey fun, check 'em out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Yes, I finally decided to give a redux to a movie I saw over 10 years ago. A few more things to cover come up to end August...

*Post motorcycle accident Busey. Remember folks - always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

*It wouldn't be a proper Movie Night if I didn't share his attempts to do novelty songs around this time - Morton Downey Jr. - Sings [1989]. 

Soldier (1998).

Review #2569: Soldier (1998).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (Sergeant Todd "3465"; Jesse Littlejohn as 8-year-old Todd; Wyatt Russell as 11-year-old Todd), Jason Scott Lee (Caine 607), Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum), Connie Nielsen (Sandra), Sean Pertwee (Mace), Jared & Taylor Thorne (Nathan), Mark Bringelson (Lieutenant Rubrick), Gary Busey (Captain Church), K. K. Dodds (Lieutenant Sloan), James R. Black (Riley), Kyle Sullivan (Tommy), Corbin Bleu (Johnny), with Sara Paxton (Angie), and Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig) Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (#1670 - Mortal Kombat, #1688 - Alien vs. Predator, #2158 - Resident Evil)

Review:

Sure, let's have another movie to test my bias for select presences in movies and also movies that came out either before I was born/when I wasn't old enough to stumble onto it on a DVD shelf. It may interest you to know that the movie was written by David Peoples. He was the co-writer of Blade Runner (1982) and other films such as Unforgiven (1992) and 12 Monkeys (1995). Soldier, much like Unforgiven, had languished in development hell for years.  Evidently, at one time, Clint Eastwood was tapped to be involved with filming (you might remember that Eastwood had directed/starred in People's script Unforgiven [1992]) before it eventually fell down to Paul W. S. Anderson and Kurt Russell. While claims have been made that it was envisioned as being a side-sequel to that film, Peoples has denied this, stating that he wrote it in 1984 after having seen The Terminator and wanting to make a movie with a tough guy who actually is the hero, and yes, yes, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, 1991, but hey, Soldier came out in 1998 (at any rate, a movie that shows the combat history of someone at the "Shoulder of Orion" along with getting a "Plissken Patch" is probably just having fun with stuff). The regimen of workouts for Russell led to delays in starting production (which apparently led to Anderson using the time to do Event Horizon [1997]) that also led to planned locations being unused due to bad weather in favor of sets; reportedly, Anderson did a re-write of the film, with Peoples claiming to have not seen the film. Released in October 1998 (a month where the most noted movie released that month was Antz) on a budget of $60 million, the movie was a flop that made less than a fourth of its budget back (dollars aren't everything, of course, but consider the timescape). Anderson's next theatrical project came with Resident Evil (2002) while this happens to be the last script done by Peoples to have been made into a movie.

I'm sure you've heard of a movie with a battle of "obsolete" versus "new" before, and I'm sure you've heard of a Western or two involving a weapon finding a family beyond the bullets. Sure, the adversaries are the bare minimum, and sure the environments are pretty set-bound. You've got a training sequence (told with as little dialogue as possible) to show the trained soldiers from birth in 1996 to the future...of 2036. I guess it depends on how much you take the movie seriously in what it gives you: Is it familiar to those who've seen one too many Westerns like Shane [1953] (only instead of having that little kid whining about coming back, the soldier simply kicks ass and stays around)? Sure. Is it filled with a few too many cliches? Maybe. Do you know where it is going to go where one man seeks to take fellow soldiers to hell? Yea. Did I enjoy this? Yes, I did. So, there's Kurt Russell in a role with as little words to say as possible learning about actual society and defending it by killing as many faceless dudes as it takes to keep himself and others alive. Sore foot or no sore foot, he wasn't going to let it get in the way of a big paycheck and goddamnit, I like his moxie in a movie that is saved from outright mediocrity because he really is that damn good here. He may have been in his late forties here, but he still has the physicality and the presence to make this an interesting character to see grow from a broken weapon to a guy with the semblance of a soul that people want to be around. The adversaries are not exactly given much to do to combat that as tools of a new order of brutality, mainly because Lee doesn't get much to say (as one does from a super soldier that gets their eye gouged out early before getting back to action) and Isaacs is more of a pencil-necked blowhard, but I like their stuff anyway in confrontation with the inevitable. Nielsen and Pertwee lead the ordinary folks down on the desolate lands (which look pretty neat at times) with mixed results - "soldiers deserve soldiers" basically sums up that yea, there's some folks worth saving, but yeah, our eyes are focused on that one guy no matter what. It's a 99-minute adventure that can be fun depending on how many cliches is enough in an obvious action movie. As a whole, the action sequences (such as for the climax) mostly hold things together for a movie that either falls by the wayside for those who don't fall for its cliche charms or has just enough enjoyment to actually make you believe that the film is worth a check. As a clear fan of Russell and a person who likes their action movies of varying levels of ambition, this one is decent enough to say it might be worth your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up - Kristofferson.

*I always try to find time to find a link to an interview or something for research or for fun, so enjoy a Peoples interview - Janet and David Webb Peoples at Cinequest I will say this one quote is kinda funny from Peoples: "Hollywood encourages violence". Well, yes! Isn't that the fun of moviemaking? What's next, wanting movies to have less sex?

Point Break.

Review #2520: Point Break.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (FBI Agent Johnny Utah), Patrick Swayze (Bodhi), Gary Busey (FBI Agent Angelo Pappas), Lori Petty (Tyler Ann Endicott), John C. McGinley (FBI Director Ben Harp), James LeGros (Roach), John Philbin (Nathaniel), Bojesse Christopher (Grommet), Lee Tergesen (Rosie), Vincent Klyn (Lupton 'Warchild' Pittman), Chris Pedersen ('Bunker' Weiss), Dave Olson (Archbold), Anthony Kiedis (Tone), and Galyn Gorg (Margarita) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel, #2494 - Strange Days)

Review: 

“Thrill-seeking adrenaline addicts have always fascinated me. The idea seems to be that it’s not until you risk your humanness that you feel most human. Not until you risk all awareness do you gain awareness.”

Sure, it feels right. The original idea of the film came from Rick King, who wondered about surfers who robbed banks. King had directed Prayer of the Rollerboys (1990), which was written by W. Peter Iliff, who once was waiting tables in his late twenties before becoming a screenwriter. Iliff's original screenplay (under the working title Johnny Utah) actually had bounced around for much of the late 1980s (Ridley Scott was at one point tapped before pre-production didn't go anywhere) before eventually falling into the hands of Lawrence Gordon and his company that went with Kathryn Bigelow to direct. Bigelow, alongside her then-husband James Cameron did re-writes for a production draft (one particular moment that Cameron came up with was the main character jumping out of a plane without a parachute); in short, it wasn't a movie crafted by one person but through a variety of influences (Cameron, for whatever reason, recently expressed a bit of bitterness over not getting a writer's credit). Made on a budget of $24 million, the movie was a decent enough with audiences at the time of release and it attracted enough of a following that someone made a "reality-play" parody (which premiered in Seattle in 2003) of the film that has a new unrehearsed actor play the lead role and read lines from cue-cards (various people have attended performances such as Busey, Petty, and even Bigelow). A remake was released in 2015, which was shot/directed by Ericson Core with Édgar Ramírez and Luke Bracey playing the lead roles, and a TV adaptation has been floating around for a few months.

Well, you either live for the ride, or the waves will just splash you away. The whole "initiation into a group by a cop" thing wasn't completely mined out by this point (as evidenced by say, The Fast and the Furious [2001] a decade later), but the best thing about the movie is that it just coasts on the amount of casual energy it has with its cast and action. The folks here play the whole thing as straight as you can play it even with folks being named "Johnny Utah" going from former football players to FBI agents (in fairness, Charles Tillman actually did go from former NFL player to federal agent, so there's that) to go along with people who are all in their own varying levels of inner balance*. Reeves was the one that Bigelow defended despite studio doubts, and, yeah, he makes for a good pairing with Swayze in that type of bond that basically goes past the usual cat-and-mouse game that comes with these types of movies. You've got vulnerability and the yearning to actually do something on one side with Reeves and the eclectic confidence that comes from someone who aims to be the master of their own domain (spiritually, literally, whatever). All will drift onto the other side, so why not try to aim for the ultimate thrill when doing so? The rest of the cast* are fairly charming in their aims for a film that takes things casually, whether that means a few chuckles at the strait-laced McGinley or the odd duck straight man nature of Busey (see, he doesn't always play louts or the heavy). Call it whatever you want (one label that has been floated around is "wet Western"), call it a movie about finding a soul within riding the waves of the frontier that is the sea, the important part is that it is a pretty neat thriller at the end of the day. It packs enough heat within its 122-minute runtime that coasts in the air with skydiving, on the ground with one particular chase scene and in the water for, well, various moments to try and capture the feeling of surfing (I myself can't say stuff about water besides trips to the waterpark). It even has an ending like a Western with the culmination of one perhaps finding a soul within the waves. For a movie as stimulating in its curiosity for high-octane interest as this one is, you will probably have a good time with a film that has managed to get to 35 years with relative ease.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*There are apparently people who find a homoerotic subtext to the film in the same sense that people try to do that for Top Gun. Truth be told, I wish people had half as much time to use on Strange Days, which is the far more interesting Bigelow movie of the 1990s. Seriously, go see it.

*My balance is trying to hide my desire to be wrapped up on an island with a lady just like Lori Petty's character. What a character, especially with that hair.

Silver Bullet.

Review #2451: Silver Bullet.

Cast: 

Gary Busey (Uncle Red), Everett McGill (Reverend Lester Lowe), Corey Haim (Marty Coslaw), Megan Follows (Jane Coslaw), Terry O'Quinn (Sheriff Joe Haller), Bill Smitrovich (Andy Fairton), Robin Groves (Nan Coslaw), Leon Russom (Bob Coslaw), Lawrence Tierney (Owen Knopfler), Kent Broadhurst (Herb Kincaid), Heather Simmons (Tammy Sturmfuller), James A. Baffico (Milt Sturmfuller), James Gammon (Arnie Westrum), and Tovah Feldshuh (Narrator) Directed by Dan Attias.

Review:

It does seem prudent to cover a movie based on a Stephen King work for the holiday season. The movie is based on the horror novella Cycle of the Werewolf, which had been published in 1983 because the original intent of doing a calendar (as illustrated by Bernie Wrightston) with vignettes by King just didn't seem feasible. Making a movie apparently was a quick decision for none other than Dino De Laurentiis for Paramount distribution that was filmed in North Carolina over the span of a few months in late 1984; this was the second of two screenplays King wrote for adaptations of his work that were released in 1985, with Cat's Eye being the other one. Apparently, the design of the werewolf was contentious in production between King, who wanted it to be plain for Carlo Rambaldi (known for his award-winning work on King Kong [1976], Alien [1979], and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial [1982]) to design, and de Laurentiis, who wanted a change, apparently because it looked like a bear. Then they had debate over the performance of the stunts between the hired dance actor...and just having McGill do it. This was the first and so far, only film directed by Dan Attias, who apparently took over the film from a departing Don Coscarelli. He has continued to direct, however, doing episodes for countless TV shows ranging from Miami Vice to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Released in October of 1985 with a budget of $7 million, the movie was not a big success at the time with audiences*.

Apparently, some people took the movie as a comedy (Roger Ebert called it "either the worst movie ever made from a Stephen King story, or the funniest"), because it apparently wasn't exactly a scary yarn. But I thought it was just a neat yarn anyway, engaging in the weird bits that come around in "ordinary" life, namely that really anybody can be a jerk. The movie is narrated by the older version of a sister (this takes place in 1976 so either the narrator [37-year old Feldshuh] is telling this from a very distant future or she aged really badly) that can't help but be annoyed at her brother (the title is two-fold: the silver bullet is both the weapon of choice at the end and the name of the high-powered wheelchair/motorcycle and no I'm not joking). Eventually, the movie gets interesting because of Gary Busey showing up, particularly when he makes an actual wheelchair/motorcycle (when your movie is 95 minutes long, damn the torpedoes, bring up the chair). Of course, this is after the townspeople get themselves into a mob to try and attack the creature that ends up with them being fogged out (including one guy who thought bringing a bat from his bar was going to be the problem-solver). Apparently, Busey was allowed to ad-lib his lines at times because the filmmakers liked what they heard from a guy who, well, was being played by Gary Busey (before the accident, and, well, yea). And he pretty much saves the movie from what could've easily been a family mush-fest because of his entertaining qualities that arise in eccentric nature built on love for the family he cares about the most that could've easily just have been an oaf (besides, I think we know alcoholics in real life that are just straight losers* as opposed to the lovable one presented here). He wants to do right by his nephew and niece and damn it, he makes me smile when he tries to play skeptic to the whole wolf thing. The eccentric-turned-reluctant hero could've easily been the whole movie at the hands of Busey, if you think about it. That's not to say that Haim and Follows aren't great, because they do at least sell the troubles that arise in being a youth in a world that looks stranger and stranger as the years get older, particularly when a wolf happens to be around (to say nothing of their first idea together in what to do about the wolf: send letters that basically say "sir, we know who you are, kill yourself!" - okay maybe that was meant to be funny on purpose). You don't exactly get the most prominent supporting cast beyond a scene or two, but they prove serviceable, mostly with McGill and his pained attempts to justify just who he is (okay maybe the movie could make it a little less obvious who the wolf is, but hey). I don't see the problem with the werewolf design. It's a mythological creature that goes around tearing people apart, the bar is not exactly that high for me to think "oh, a beast". Sure, there are better-looking wolves in other movies (An American Werewolf in London), but calling it a werebear doesn't really tell the whole story, and besides, I kind of like looking at it, particularly since a good chunk of the time is spent seeing it with one eye. Admittedly, the climax does stretch itself a bit to really justify everything that happens (i.e. housebound with, well, one bullet to use), but I think it works itself out in that strangely sweet type of way that reminds you that in the ordinary things of life, you can find weird things to box you in or find ways to connect with people to confront said thing. Or something, because this was a strange movie to ultimately see play out, but I was never bored with it, so I'd call it a win. Maybe it wasn't a scary movie, but older movies got away with the same amount of stuff anyway. As a whole, it is a goofy but earnest little film to seek out for those who like strange execution in family-bound stories or wolf movies beyond the usual suspects, and a movie that has just turned four decades old seems like a good place to start.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*At least Attias was willing to be interviewed about the movie. Didn't have the time to check it out, but I'm sure it has some insight - Silver Bullet! Interview with movie Director Dan Attias #stephenking #silverbullet

*There are alcoholics out there, I imagine, that are annoying as hell when not drunk.

Under Siege.

Review #1877: Under Siege.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Chief Petty Officer Casey Ryback), Tommy Lee Jones (William Strannix), Gary Busey (Commander Peter Krill), Erika Eleniak (Jordan Tate), Colm Meaney (Daumer), Patrick O'Neal (Captain J.T. Adams), Andy Romano (Admiral Bates), Dale Dye (Captain Nick Garza), Nick Mancuso (Tom Breaker), Damian Chapa (Tackman), Tom Wood (Private Nash), Troy Evans (Granger), Dennis Lipscomb (Trenton), Bernie Casey (Commander Harris), Glenn Morshower (Ensign Taylor), and Raymond Cruz (Ramirez) Directed by Andrew Davis (#176 - The Fugitive and #187 - Holes)

Review: 

“Most people are surprised that the film is as sophisticated as it is. It appeals to people who have a point of view about nuclear weapons and the story thrusts you into an incredible situation that is not far-fetched.” - Andrew Davis

Admittedly, the sentence "A movie considered to be one of the best with Steven Seagal" is not exactly a big selling phrase in the realm of picking out action movies. This was the fifth film for an actor that in some ways looks and sounds like what would happen if a Soldier of Fortune ad came to life, one that you may remember had gone from stunt coordinator to starring in Above the Law (1988), which had been directed by Andrew Davis, who had only been known as an action director because of Code of Silence (1985). Davis would get to work with Jones again after their collaboration on The Package (1989). The writer for Under Siege was J. F. Lawton (a former member of the Coast Guard Reserve), who wrote it as a spec script named Dreadnought, which evidently was written with a big budget in mind before it got scaled down (Lawton would also serve as an executive producer, and like a number of his films, Seagal also produced the movie) to be made for roughly $35 million. Seagal actually turned the film down a couple of times, apparently because he was resistant to the character played by Eleniak, calling the character as a "bimbo", but revisions were done that pleased him, with him calling the film "an adventure, not an action movie" with human moments and humor (he has since claimed it was his idea to have the character in the film for humor, but can you really take that seriously?). At any rate, Seagal got to be director and star for On Deadly Ground (1994) in exchange for participating in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (with Romano, Mancuso and Dye returning), which takes place on a train. As for Davis, he got the job for The Fugitive (1993) because of how Harrison Ford liked what he saw from this film.

The strange thing is that the film only features Seagal sparingly if you really think about it, since he is basically present for about 40 minutes of a 103-minute film (this fact was apparently presented to Davis by a Warner Bros. executive as to why he should direct). The ship (USS Alabama, which was docked in Alabama) is basically the most important presence of the film anyways, given the scenario of the film (basically Die Hard on a battleship). It moves along full speed with execution being at the forefront in terms of action staging and (let's just say) quirky characters to carry the movie, complete with playing on an actual real-world development of US Navy surface ships having their nuclear weapons removed in 1991. To be generous to Seagal, he does well with the material given to him in part because he seems relaxed here, one who can play on the silly parts of the script (the cook who happens to be a former Navy SEAL being teamed up with a Playboy playmate) without coming off as wooden or out-of-touch. In other words: if you let him kick and try not to say too much, he does fine. Besides, with Busey and Jones on the other side of the coin, how can you go wrong? Man is it fun to see these two get to play adversary, particularly from Jones. Busey can chew on scenery like it was a solid piece of steak, let's get that out of the way, since he gets to grit his teeth in brazen intensity, complete with doing mayhem in a dress for a few moments. Jones still manages to be the key attraction, doing so with manic chaos in all the enjoyable over-the-top ways. Naturally, he gets the best ending sequence, because of course he does, as him and Seagal get to make faces in hand-to-hand combat before he gets taken down with the art of overkill: his eye gets gouged, then he gets stabbed in the head before he is pushed into an electrical radar screen (this plays right into my theory that one could cut Seagal films into a horror movie, since one other guy gets pushed into a band saw). Eleniak (an TV actress and model with one obvious showstopper scene) is okay, mainly there to add a few chuckles in the attempts at making Seagal and her look like a normal tandem despite both a considerable height difference (basically a head), which does work out for a few neat moments. Meaney may be playing just an Irish heavy but being a Star Trek alum makes one smile anyways, while O'Neal (in his final film role) makes a decent character presence/sacrificial lamb. The film makes for a solid thriller, mostly because one gets a collection of good action beats without sacrificing much in the plot stakes. For some odd reason, there are plans for a reboot of this film, which confuses me in part because how can you improve on what was? The accomplishment of the film is not so much the plot but the maneuvering of spectacle and familiar actors to the right places for fun, and that is more suited for original filmmaking rather than drawing from the well. At any rate, it is the direction of Davis in making a suitable thriller in confined space that helps to bring Under Siege into winning material even as it reaches three decades of age.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A Star is Born (1976).

Review #1454: A Star is Born.

Cast: 
Barbra Streisand (Esther Hoffman Howard), Kris Kristofferson (John Norman Howard), Gary Busey (Bobbie Ritchie), Paul Mazursky (Brian Wexler), Joanne Linville (Freddie Lowenstein), Oliver Clark (Gary Danziger), Venetta Fields (One), Clydie King (Two), Sally Kirkland (Photographer), and Marta Heflin (Quentin) Directed by Frank Pierson.

Review: 
"Filming with Barbra Streisand is an experience which may have cured me of the movies."

"For us, the picture cost $6 million and a year of our lives. For the audience it's $3.50 and an evening out. If it's a bum evening, it doesn't make me any better or worse as a person. But if you think the film is you, if it is your effort to transform your lover into a producer worthy of a superstar, if you think it is a home movie about your love and your hope and your deepest feelings, if it's your life that you laid out for the folks and they don't smile back, that's death."
I think I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting myself into when it came time to do this film. It isn't exactly the first time I've seen this kind of story done of a film before. We've moved from romantic drama to musical to musical romantic drama when it comes to A Star is Born, and the easiest thing that can be said is that it certainly is the worst of the bunch in making a consistent romance and tragedy. It seems completely perplexed at times what to do when the camera isn't incessantly focusing on Streisand (who also served as executive producer for the film) as the whole thing threatens to collapse as an ego experience. It is only the curiosity of seeing the limits of where Streisand can go in this "pop and roll" style combined with the enjoyment of seeing Kristofferson stagger with charisma and self-destruction that make things not self-destruct into oblivion for a baffling 142 minutes. This is ridiculous junk, but I'll be darned if I didn't get some sort of cackling enjoyment from seeing how far one can really go in making such a murky 70s film that seems like the ideal sellout and embarrassment for all involved. My particularly favorite memory with the film is not so much a particular scene but actually an article that director Pierson wrote for New West magazine a month before the film's release with "My Battles With Barbra and Jon", which detailed some of the conflicts that Pierson had with producer (and star) Streisand and producer Jon Peters (a hairdresser-turned-producer and Streisand's boyfriend at the tine). There are some interesting little moments involving clashes of ego, but one of my favorite baffling moments is Pierson's meeting with the two in which at one point Peters actually asked if the lead male star had to commit suicide at the end as opposed to having it be an accident instead, since it sounded like such a turnoff. By the time Pierson was approached by Warner Brothers to do the film, numerous writer and directors had been brought in and brought out of doing the film, which had originally been written by Joan Didion and John Dunne as a rock musical with a couple like James Taylor and Carly Simon in parallel careers. Oh but the troubles did not stop with just Streisand (as amusing as it might seem to lay all of the squabbles and jokes on one star/producer). Kristofferson chafed when it came to filming, since he felt that they were making a "Barbra Streisand lollipop extravaganza" rather than some sort of statement about rock music (at least he has the excuse of drinking to act for a drunk lead). Sure, one could debate the ethics of doing an article so close to a film's release, but I heartily enjoy details like this, and even without the article the film is amusing to pick and poke at for its ambitions that crash like a motorcycle on stage.

It is entirely possible that there is a movie here worth really looking into the jagged turns that fame can do to a rock star that the other two films had done for actors. Of course the main problem with that theory is that perhaps Streisand just can't entirely pull off a nervous unknown given a push into stardom. It all seems too manufactured to really stick, too absorbed in showing off without letting you really breathe an actual romance, since the two leads seem entirely focused on literally anything but the other person in front of them. To say the film is all sizzle and no steak is an understatement: the steak got so caught up in re-writes that it turned into a small nut to disintegrate on the grill. On the other hand, I did rather enjoy Kristofferson (a native of Brownsville, Texas that took upon acting to go with his singing-songwriting) and his distant demeanor in his weary entertaining performance. He may be playing a jerk, but man does it invite more conviction and more of a look than what comes out on screen. Busey, an eccentric playing an eccentric peddler of producer (and other certain things) is amusing to see in the few scenes that he is in. Mazursky, who started work as an actor (debuting in Fear and Desire in 1953) before taking on writing and eventually directing (with films such as Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice in 1969), does a careful job here in balancing out the line between producer and man trying to keep someone off the deepest end. The others are here and there, just people to fill in the background before yet another wild or silly antic between our strange stars. To put it mildly, this film stinks, but it sure is a funny one to think about. It is a testament to how overproduced and micromanaged a film can be in hands that believe they are truly making something that can match up to what was old (and classic) while serving the masses with no problem then and now, a hubris unmatched in mediocrity. I know one can see better films with Streisand or Kristofferson, but none could probably be as ridiculous to view play out like this one.


Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon.

Review #355: Lethal Weapon.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Gary Busey (Mr. Joshua), Mitchell Ryan (Peter McAllister), Tom Atkins (Michael Hunsaker), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Jackie Swanson (Amanda Hunsaker), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Damon Hines (Nick Murtaugh), and Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged)

Review
This has a lot going for it, especially with the two main characters and the villain. Gibson and Glover work especially well, as a duo for some laughs and as a double team, which is magnified by the action. Oddly enough, Gary Busey does a fine job as...a villain. Last I reviewed him he was Buddy Holly, so its a bit of a change. But it works. The rest of the cast is good as well, keeping the pace going. The film manages to have some gags that do manage to not get in the way of the action. It's a strange, but good feeling. The story is fine, and the directing is effective. After all these years and some sequels, this hangs well, managing to live on and on. I'm not getting too old for this stuff...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Buddy Holly Story.

Review #239: The Buddy Holly Story.

Cast
Gary Busey (Buddy Holly), Don Stroud (Jesse), Charles Martin Smith (Ray Bob), Conrad Janis (Ross Turner), William Jordan (Riley), Maria Richwine (Maria Elena Santiago), Amy Johnston (Cindy Lou), Dick O'Neill (Sol Gittler), Fred Travalena (Madman Mancuso), Neva Patterson (Mrs. Ella Holly), and Arch Johnson (Lawrence Holly) Directed by Steve Rash.

Review
On September 7, 1936, Charles Hardin Holley was born in Lubbock, Texas. Holly revolutionized the rock and roll genre with his music, such as "That'll Be The Day" and "Peggy Sue" With his horn rimmed glasses and charm, he understandably rose up to stardom before his tragic death in February 3, 1959. Gary Busey fits into the role with no real stumbles, giving a good feel for the film. And yet, the film does mess with some of the facts (Most don't get all of them right, but it wouldn't hurt to try) The rest of the cast is alright, with no real exceptions. The songs work out well, given that the actors did their own singing and played their own instruments live during the filming, and it shows. A decent film; while it does mess with the facts at times, it has enough Busey and singing to help keep it rolling. Happy Birthday, Buddy.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.