City Heat.

Review #2567: City Heat.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Lieutenant Speer), Burt Reynolds (Mike Murphy), Jane Alexander (Addy), Madeline Kahn (Caroline Howley), Rip Torn (Primo Pitt), Beau Starr (Pitt Lookout), Irene Cara (Ginny Lee), Richard Roundtree (Diehl Swift), Tony Lo Bianco (Leon Coll), William Sanderson (Lonnie Ash), Nicholas Worth (Troy Roker), Robert Davi (Nino), Art LaFleur ("Bruiser"), Arthur Malet (Doc Loomis), and Jack Nance (Aram Strossell) Directed by Richard Benjamin (#1024 - My Favorite Year)

Review: 

I have to admit, the key impetus to actually watching this movie was the fact that it was on a DVD pack, specifically a Clint Eastwood set (paired with Pink Cadillac, of all things). Sure, Eastwood is a curious presence, why not try a comedy? I didn't have enough time to see it back in 2024, but it sure seems time to actually watch what all the fuss is about. Blake Edwards penned the original story (once called "Kansas City Jazz") in the 1970s and it eventually found its way to Warner Bros. wanting to have Edwards direct Reynolds and Eastwood together (previously, Edwards directed Reynolds with The Man Who Loved Women [1983]) Somehow, Eastwood had disagreements over the script and his character and Edwards was soon replaced with Richard Benjamin; this was the second of two movies directed by Benjamin to come out in 1984 after Racing with the Moon. According to Reynolds, Eastwood was fine with Benjamin replacing Edwards while saying the dismissal "hurt [Eastwood] badly". Reynolds claimed that he knew the film was going down the tubes ten days into shooting because he saw his role as such: "playing Jack Lemmon in this strange film where people were getting blown away...The public wanted Boom Town or to see us in a contemporary film. They didn't want Dirty Harry vs. the Wimp." As a result of an accident (reported as either a metal chair to the face or falling from a chair and hitting his jaw), this was not a happy experience for Reynolds. As a result, Joseph C. Stinson was credited as a co-writer of the screenplay with "Samuel O. Brown" (get it? S...O...B.?). Expected to be a big hit with a budget of $25 million and released on the same week as Beverly Hills Cop and 2010 in December 1984, the movie made roughly $38 million as a considerable disappointment. Benjamin kept on as a director with films of extremely varied quality such as The Money Pit (1986), Mermaids (1990), and Marci X (2003).

This might be the most obvious case of seeing a movie and watching it die in real time. Sometimes it looks nice and sometimes it comes off as a comedy and sometimes it has some violence worth being in a buddy action movie...but it never comes off as a complete package. For such a "buddy movie", it just seems more like two short films that got cobbled together, with Reynolds seemingly having the more thankless job of trying to carry a film in doing silly lines and getting beat up a bit while Eastwood basically goes "nope" and "yep". Even being a sendup of the gangster movie isn't that fun because the movie just dawdles for 97 minutes with a blithering plot and little else to go which goes as such: two gangs want this briefcase of records but the guy who stole it ends up dead and a game of "where's the briefcase?" tangles up a cop and cop-turned-private eye into an alliance to not only avenge the dead man & his injured girl but also to rescue both of their would-be lovers (as you do) that ends up in both gangs getting plenty of bullets and fire in them. For such a star-studded cast, it's amazing to make a movie that just feels so small. Sometimes I chuckled, sometimes I rolled my eyes: it's the ultimate 6/10 movie, arguably.

The fact that the movie almost gets to a quality finish line is more of a testament to Reynolds than Eastwood, arguably. I've had a soft spot for Reynolds for a number of years because of the varying heights that came with such a fascinating movie star that I knew was going to make for a curious experience when watching a stinker such as, say, this movie or Stroker Ace (released in 1983 that has been cited as the starting point of his downturn as a star). He may have been approaching middle age with shaky ground in terms of public appearance of his charm (his next movie ended up being the misfire Stick [1985]), but I liked what I saw of him here in the same way that one admires the hokum of someone trying to retain the appearance of legitimacy and virility. This is basically important to at least giving the movie a shot (grinning in the face of mediocrity, an American tradition?), because Eastwood and his routine that comes off as dry with the bare minimum in trying to make a pair that might accidentally make you appreciate The Rookie (1990) in the future of mismatched duos. Eastwood looks like he wants to be anywhere else than here and being a "can take this corny crap in stride" is not a compliment. It also extends to Alexander and Kahn, who are each given thankless tasks to pair off the two male leads that goes nowhere in actual charm (Kahn basically vanishes for a good chunk of the film too, making it even harder, but at least she is paired with Reynolds in...trying to do something). Roundtree and Cara are needlessly given little to actually do (besides being hit by a car), and Alexander being on the bottom edge of the totem pole of "what do they actually do?" is less helpful when you wonder why Torn or Davi are just...there. Whether because of Benjamin or studio arrogance of going "Eastwood and Reynolds, what could go wrong for printing money?" or something else, they never come off as much of a team together. As a whole, City Heat came and went with audiences and hasn't exactly rocketed in reputation four decades later. Flawed as it may be, you could find something curious here. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: A mystery...

*Truthfully, Reynolds was already on my mind for this month with, say, Rent-a-Cop or Striptease. 

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

A Gunfight.

Review #1716: A Gunfight. 

Cast: 

Kirk Douglas (Will Tenneray), Johnny Cash (Abe Cross), Jane Alexander (Nora Tenneray), Karen Black (Jenny Sims), Keith Carradine (Young Gunfighter), Dana Elcar (Marv), Raf Vallone (Francisco Alvarez), Eric Douglas (Bud Tenneray), Robert J. Wilke (Marshal Tom Cater), and Paul Lambert (Ed Fleury) Directed by Lamont Johnson. 

Review: 

Sure, there are two interesting things to note about this movie. For one, this was funded by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, of which most live in the state of New Mexico that have a significant portion of their income come from oil and gas wells. It was documented at the time as one of the first movies entirely funded by Native Americans, and it is perhaps ironic since it is a Western without any Native Americans. Of course, the other thing is that it features legendary singer Johnny Cash in an acting role. It was actually his third appearance in a motion picture, having starred in Five Minutes to Live (1961) and being featured as himself in The Road to Nashville (1967); of course, there was also the The Johnny Cash Show (1969-71), which had an episode featuring him with Douglas (who at the time of filming was approaching 55). This movie was released 50 years ago today, one that was made for $2 million while distributed to limited audiences by Paramount Pictures (at least, that is what one assumes, since there aren't that many contemporary reviews for it and you likely had never heard of it until today).

So yes, here we are with a movie that certainly tries to be offbeat and interesting in the differences from the usual expectations of a Western...in that the gunfighters seek the opportunity to make money to fight, as opposed to some sort of simmering difference between them, and they even arrange to duke it out in an arena fit for bull-fighting (get it?). 88 minutes take up time for what is meant to be an interesting look upon the dark side of folks with a lust to see people kill for sport. Of course, it also thinks it is clever by having more than just a swift finish at the arena with an imagined sequence at the end, so here we are. Boy, what a mediocre movie. The movie was written by Harold Jack Bloom (also a co-producer), best known for his work in television alongside his work on The Naked Spur (1953) and You Only Live Twice (1967). For his part, Johnson was also pretty familiar with Westerns from his TV work on stuff such as Have Gun - Will Travel along with a plethora of TV movie work that was fairly noted by audiences. Honestly, if you want a movie that shows the price of a killer trying to live with himself after a killing, you might as well just stick with Shane (1953). A Gunfight manages to be as generic as the title, one that is even bereft of the quality of oddness that could be possible with a Western meant to draw on weirdos wanting to see people kill each other. I have seen and heard more interesting moments come from people trying to justify a bizarre sports opinion than anything that comes from this movie, really. Ideally, one could do with just Cash and Douglas. A character study movie with just them might have worked if it was a more limited cast, since each are decent here. Cash never seems to be outmatched, collected in his weary pauses that looks for a different time than the one he is set upon - i.e. this isn't a star vehicle or a gimmick. Douglas simmers just as well like an opportunist ready for the big moment with confidence (granted, it is hard to top stuff with Douglas when Lonely Are the Brave (1962) exists). It takes quite a bit of time to see them meet, and it is probably an odd sign that there is nothing more interesting at any point before or after than when they meet and talk to each other (this includes the gunfight), since they play off each other with neat banter that at the very least makes this look like something more than just "uh huh, next." Well, that's not quite true, because Carradine is technically a curious and brash presence to see for like five minutes. Everyone else though is pretty much exactly what you might see coming, from the doting presences of the people close to the lead performers to the side folks, et cetera, et cetera. You might get more insight into the curiosity of folks wanting to see blood drawn at a horror convention. Honestly, by the time it lumbers to the fight, the interest is fairly mild as to just which choice the movie goes with...and yes, the fight is swiftly accomplished before being followed by imagination. I suppose it is meant to show the perspective of how neither gunfighter really wins despite being alive - uh huh, sure. You might as well just have them shoot to kill simultaneously if you want to pull a cheap message, particularly since I really care more about the idea of bringing interesting presences together rather than the usual Western stuff (i.e. a movie with presences doesn't mean one wants something with ego). Sure, the genre was still going okay in the 1970s, but this was the year of different types of Westerns like Billy Jack and McCabe & Mrs. Miller to grab the attention of audiences, and A Gunfight just doesn't have the confidence required to really make a meaningful statement that counts. Despite having Cash and Douglas, it proves to be just too average everywhere else and thus flops out in the overall end game - it might be a curiosity, but folks will find a movie with the bare minimum of filling rather than a show to look for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.