Showing posts with label Jack Colvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Colvin. Show all posts

June 11, 2020

Jeremiah Johnson.

Review #1441: Jeremiah Johnson.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Jeremiah Johnson), Will Geer (Bear Claw Chris Lapp), Stefan Gierasch (Del Gue), Delle Bolton (Swan), Josh Albee (Caleb), Joaquín Martínez (Paints His Shirt Red), Allyn Ann McLerie (The Crazy Woman), Paul Benedict (Reverend Lindquist), Jack Colvin (Lieutenant Mulvey), Matt Clark (Qualen), Richard Angarola (Chief Two-Tongues Lebreaux), and Charles Tyner (Robidoux) Directed by Sydney Pollack (#084 - Tootsie)

Review: 
"Timing is a big thing with actors. You don't ever want to over-rehearse, but you don't want them under-prepared either. Part of the trick is knowing when to roll the cameras. So many times I'll see a performance peak during the rehearsal process and they never quite get it back. That's why I'd rather be rolling early."

"Storytellers broaden our minds: engage, provoke, inspire, and ultimately, connect us."

It never fails to turn to a new face for a film experience, whether for the 1970s or for versatility when it comes to directors or actors. It should only prove fitting to showcase a film involving lifelong friends in director Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford, who each experienced success in their own fields both with and without each other. This was the second of seven collaborations between Pollack and Redford (the first one being in Pollack's second feature This Property Is Condemned six years prior). Redford had his debut in the stage in 1959 while starting work on television as a guest the following year, while Pollack started studying theatre acting in 1952 with appearances in television starting in 1956. The two would meet up together in 1960 on the production of War Hunt (1962), which was the major acting film debut for both actors, and they would become life-long friends. The key to wanting to become a director came in 1961 when Pollack worked on The Young Savages as a dialogue coach, as he was encouraged by its star Burt Lancaster to try his hand at directing. He soon found television work to direct while cutting back on his acting appearances, and he received his first film to direct with The Slender Thread (1965). Redford (who would become a noted director in his own right) described him as a director with an ability to "connect the more commercial strain with the more abstract", one who could work with stars and make a film with wit that could differ from the usual commercial fare. Pollack would direct over twenty projects over the next four decades while also having a hand in producing (and occasionally acting) in them before his death in 2008, with notable films including They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969), Tootsie (1982, director/co-producer/actor), Out of Africa (1985, director/co-producer that garnered him two Academy Awards), and The Firm (1993, director/co-producer). 

The film is based on two works: Crow Killer: The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson (written by Raymond Thorp and Robert Bunker) that detailed the life of John Jeremiah Johnson and Vardis Fisher's novel Mountain Man, which was a fictional work inspired by the exploits of Johnson. He was a man who went through many professions, such as sailor, trapper, and even deputy (although obviously the film is based on just the trapper experiences). The film was adapted to the screen by Edward Anhalt (co-writer of Panic in the Streets along with other films with and without his wife Edna) and John Milius (whose most notable writing credit was The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean earlier in the year). It should only figure that Redford would be involved in a film like this (which he considers his favorite), one with a mountain man that seeks out the nature of the land (shot mostly in Utah, which Redford had bought his own ski area), a western of the wilderness with a careful pace and tremendous visual style to tell a worthwhile experience that will hopefully leave the viewer with some sort of appreciation for the loner in all of us or at least for the environment for which one can (and should) take time to view and breathe in all of its strange qualities. Redford lives up to the challenge of a role that requires a patient actor to suffer through the coldness of the land and reality with conviction and understanding. It is a role for the actor that wants to make something of themselves to make a mythic role their own with no pretentions. Geer and Gierasch make for colorful standouts among a carefully collected supporting cast that build a myth of nature and revenge with pathos and good timing. At 116 minutes (including overture and intermission), it makes for a fair sit to go through at least once, filled with wide open moments to see Redford and a landscape worth viewing for some quality entertainment as a wilderness western fitting for its era and the people who featured prominently in it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

October 25, 2017

Child's Play (1988).


Review #1003: Child's Play.

Cast: 
Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Catherine Hicks (Karen Barclay), Chris Sarandon (Detective Mike Norris), Brad Dourif (Charles Lee Ray/voice of Chucky), Dinah Manoff (Maggie Peterson), Tommy Swerdlow (Jack Santos), Jack Colvin (Dr. Ardmore), Raymond Oliver (John Bishop), and Neil Giuntoli (Eddie Caputo) Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner)

Review: 
I will admit, it took longer to finally cover one of these films than I thought it would, especially since Chucky is a character that is still appearing in films (with the seventh installment coming out just this month), and it is interesting to watch a horror film about a killer doll, though whether this is actually a scary slasher film is up to you. For me, I thought it was a decent movie, with Dourif (along with the animatronics used for Chucky) being the key highlight. Vincent does an decent job (for a child actor), and Hicks is fairly acceptable as well, but my level of entertainment were with Chucky. It's not so much that he is terrifying as it is that it's an interesting villain for a slasher film because of how clever the doll seems (my question though: would there have been any effect on Chucky if they had put batteries in the doll?). The film takes its time before letting Chucky "reveal himself", and whether that comes off as tedious or somewhat clever is up to you, although it really shouldn't be surprising to current viewers, anyway. The voodoo parts are what they are: stuff to explain the story, and I suppose they work well enough.

If I had to compare this to anything, I'd probably compare it to The Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll" (1963) which had a sentient doll, although that one was a bit more suspenseful though this is a fairly capable thriller. The film works best in its second half with Dourif being fairly entertaining and quite resourceful (for a doll, anyway). His voice just fits well (especially considering the actual voice of the doll) with this role. At 87 minutes, this is fairly decent horror fare, and if you find yourself into the concept and wanting more there are more than enough follow-up films for your taste.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

May 10, 2017

Embryo (1976).


Review #933: Embryo.

Cast:
Rock Hudson (Dr. Paul Holliston), Barbara Carrera (Victoria Spencer), Diane Ladd (Martha Douglas), Roddy McDowall (Frank Riley), Anne Schedeen (Helen Holliston), John Elerick (Gordon Holliston), Vincent Baggetta (Collier), Jack Colvin (Dr. Jim Winston), and Joyce Brothers (Herself) Directed by Ralph Nelson.

Review:
I had wanted to do this film a while back during the fall season, but I had forgotten about the movie (which is amusing, given all the reviews that occurred anyway) until now. Strangely, the movie begins with a statement from a Dr. Charles Brinkman III, stating: "The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow...Or today." I guess with words like that, one could have hope for this strange film, released by Cine Artists Pictures (who went bankrupt before being able to renew the copyright on the movie). And how is it? Well, it certainly is something you wouldn't expect (nor expect to find). The movie revolves around trying to make life (or more specifically, keeping life alive). Naturally, he starts with a dog before deciding upon doing so for a fetus with some sort of experimental thing called "placental lactogen". This goes about as well you'd expect (complete with voice-over by Hudson during the latter experiment), with all of it meant to be taken seriously. Yes, even with the fact that the decision to proceed with a human is only a few days after having "success" with a doberman. When the movie turns from a half-baked Frankenstein into an equally half-baked version of My Fair Lady (or Pygmalion) is likely when the movie lends itself rope to seal its fate. It is evident that the makers of the movie wanted to do something with horror and drama (with not-science fiction, if one goes by the opening) that would have an effect of audiences, but that never seems to succeed. At least it isn't too long (104 minutes), but that can't help in making it seem somewhat dull.

McDowell makes a "cameo" as a chess player who competes against Carrera's character, complete with an outburst after the match ends, which is somewhat amusing. Hudson is the best actor in the movie by merely having a presence that comes closest to being convincing, even with somewhat dry monologues (recorded on tape) throughout the film. Carrera doesn't really spring much personality into the role; she is watchable when trying to interact with colleagues or when trying to search for a cure to her biological problem, but that doesn't excuse a somewhat listless performance. Even when she makes a villainous turn (gasp if you aren't surprised), it doesn't help in making the movie entertaining. Ladd doesn't fare too well either, nor does Schedeen, in part because they don't have any sort of screen time to make anything significantly worth investing in. When the movie gets to its climax, there is no investment in any of these characters, and when you can't care about the stakes the film tries to set, one question is posed: Who cares? Naturally, it ends with a car chase (no joke), complete with aging makeup and a reveal that would be shocking if not merely serving to end a ridiculous movie. On the whole, this is a ridiculous movie that doesn't have as much entertainment value as it should while also not having as much credibility as it wants to strive for, failing on numerous levels for everyone.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.