Blue Thunder.

Review #2536: Blue Thunder.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (LAPD Officer Frank Murphy), Warren Oates (LAPD Capt. Jack Braddock), Candy Clark (Kate), Daniel Stern (LAPD Officer Richard Lymangood), Malcolm McDowell (United States Army Colonel F.E. Cochrane), Paul Roebling (Icelan), David Sheiner (Fletcher), Joe Santos (Montoya), Jason Bernard (The Mayor), Robin Braxton (Councilwoman Diane McNeely), Ed Bernard (Sgt. Short James Murtaugh (Alf Hewitt), Jack Murdock (Kress), with Mario Machado (Himself), and Anthony James (Grundelius) Directed by John Badham (#088 - Short Circuit, #1293 - Dracula (1979), #1456 - Saturday Night Fever, #1610 - WarGames, #1805 - The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings)

Review: 

Okay, this one came about because it was on a movie-pack. Can you blame me? The impetus for the original script by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (an old friend of O'Bannon from film school*) apparently came from their experiences with low-flying police helicopters intruding on their surroundings in Los Angeles. The script was written in late 1978 with a deal by 1979. They envisioned a psychological thriller about the perils of a police state using surveillance such as helicopters for population control. For instance, Scheider's character was "truly mad" and ended up getting shot down. Eventually, it became what O'Bannon called "more of a fantasy cartoon". John Badham brought in Dean Riesner* to do a "couple of page one rewrite jobs" on the script (which namely saw the inclusion of Stern's character and a good deal of scenes involving Oates) but did not receive credit in favor of only O'Bannon and Jakoby (the two worked on a few more screenplays together with Lifeforce [1985] and Invaders from Mars [1986]). It was filmed in the summer of 1981 but not released until 1983. Produced by Rastar for Columbia Pictures for $22 million, the movie made almost two times its budget back with audiences. In 1984, ABC aired a television spinoff that featured James Farentino and Dana Carvey that ran for eleven episodes. On a probably unrelated note, Airwolf, a show with an "advanced prototype supersonic helicopter", premiered that same year on CBS that ran for four seasons.

You don't get too many movies going "The hardware, weaponry and surveillance systems depicted in this film are real and in use in the United States today." Admittedly, it is an offbeat kind of movie, relying on sheer adrenaline for its aerial action that provides a few delights to go along with a fairly game cast to ride the wave over a film that loves to seep into fantasy but doesn't become a big joke once you're done with its 109 minute runtime. So, what's the big thing for the film? A helicopter that basically is a flying fortress that can peer into conversations from a few miles away along with armor, guns, infrared scanners, a mode to fly silently and, well, you get the idea, it's the kind of thing that could be used to help curb discontent before the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles (1984...or 2028, you might ask). I'm not particularly sure the film is too prescient about actually saying something about the surveillance state, but at least it closes on a high note with what you probably want best: helicopter fighting and stumbling onto conspiracies without becoming a crackpot*. It helps that within the mix of air-action, composites and other various tricks (as seen here), you get a worthwhile looking experience for the time spent rather than feeling like it went for nothing.

Apparently, Scheider took the role because he wanted to make sure he couldn't be available for Jaws 3-D (1983). It isn't exactly a great role to really glom onto besides the usual "everyman" type with a few quirks (fiddling with a watch, namely), but he handles it with the usual gritted patience that you care for pretty early on without terming him as an old "wiseass". Being paired with Stern proves pretty vital for a couple of chuckles in seeing what goes on for work (at least when it isn't disrupted by say, a conspiracy or gawking at people). Or leisure time with Clark (at least this isn't a case of severe age difference between lovers, merely being, what 15 years?). McDowell may not have as much to do in say, bombastic menace, but he is capable enough to present a threat worth seeing getting to the end of the line (incidentally, McDowell has a fear of flying, so note the look on his face anytime he is in the air, although I will say that helicopters aren't exactly high on the list of favorable transport). This was the penultimate film appearance for Oates, who had passed away in April 1982 during post-production (his last film was released later with Tough Enough). He still has that edge of hard-lined humor that comes through with how he makes an impression on the viewer with a few good lines that get spread out (as a presence, his is surely missed then as now) for a delight. In general, the movie moves along with a comic book sensibility to throwing things onto the wall to see what sticks, whether that involves a test run of the helicopter to a group in a secluded place (whereupon the helicopter gets the terrorist dummy targets and also shoots a bunch of bystanders) or the climax where one gets to see a few tricks to avoid deadly heat-seeking missiles (emphasis on "heat"). As a whole, you get a bit of aerial jousting to go along with some residing charm to make for a solid enough movie to enjoy on a late night, preferably with no helicopters buzzing along in the sky.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Game 1 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals is today. Go Spurs Go, vanquish the (blue) Thunder.

*Fun fact: O'Bannon co-wrote the original story of Alien with Ronald Shusett and actually had a problem with the inclusion of Ash into the film. Are you kidding me, dude?

*Reisner was an interesting person in film. He appeared in films as a kid such as The Pilgrim and then became a writer with work on Code of the Secret Service (1939) before he was 25 years old and directed a movie that won an Honorary Academy Award with Bill and Coo (1948), a movie where birds were costumed as humans acting on one of the smallest film sets ever. Oh, and then he was a writer on a handful of television shows and co-writer of movies such as Dirty Harry (1971). He died of natural causes in 2002 at the age of 83.

*I'm not sure I've mentioned this before, but my conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy about the JFK assassination was spread by people too embhassased about failing to protect the president so they spread the most insane stuff to muddy the waters over it being just one guy shooting someone for his own reasons. The Jack Ruby factor, well, I guess he was just an idiot (look, why kill the assassin of the president? For clout?). That, and also I think they keep the theories alive because they are jealous of LBJ. See, I told you it would sound like a crackpot.  

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Review #2063: The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Cast: 

Robert Mitchum (Eddie Coyle), Peter Boyle (Dillon), Richard Jordan (Dave Foley), Steven Keats (Jackie Brown), Alex Rocco (Jimmy Scalise), Joe Santos (Artie Van), Mitchell Ryan (Waters), Helena Carroll (Sheila Coyle), Jack Kehoe (The Beard), Margaret Ladd (Andrea), and James Tolkan (The Man's Contact Man) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt, #927 - Krull, and #1197 - The Deep)

Review: 

In 1970, George V. Higgins saw his first novel in The Friends of Eddie Coyle become published. Formerly, he had served his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a deputy assistant attorney general alongside as an Assistant United State Attorney. Higgins dabbled as a novelist when not involved in private practice in law that distilled the words that he would hear from gangsters and made them the kind of thing you would hear in a great potboiler. Better writers than me can lend you some context within the scene of Boston and gangs (as presented here). It made some sense to have Peter Yates as director, as his third effort with Robbery (1967) had given him a chance to direct Bullitt (1968), a movie packed with a car chase so notable that I'm sure those who view it now will talk about with fanfare; Yates directed a variety of genres besides crime of course, but, well, we are here to talk about a film that was underappreciated by audiences in its time. This is the first of only two adaptations of a Higgins book, with the only other one being Killing Them Softly (2012). Paul Monash wrote the screenplay while serving as producer. Of the films that Yates made, he stated that the three films he was most proud of was Breaking Away (1979), The Dresser (1983), and this film.

When it comes to the grimy classics of a decade as ideal for grimy films as the 1970s were, you can't really go wrong with this one. Life is hard, but it sure is harder if you are stupid, as is reflected within the dialogue that is told with such dedicated efficiency. Before you get to films of the region such as The Town (2010) or The Departed (2006), you might want to consider this one when it comes to looking at the people that dwell in the corners of crime. This isn't merely just the big-timers or two-bit hustlers, it involves folks wrapped firmly in the middle, the kind that are referred to with irony as having friends. It rewards those who value character presences such as Boyle or Keats to serve in the lines behind the immeasurable Mitchum. One of the cast members actually was formerly involved in organized crime within the East in Rocco, who was linked loosely with the Winter Hill Gang in the Boston area that had seen him accused of being involved in an assault on a diner owner. Apparently, when Mitchum had asked to see a local gangster for research, Rocco tapped him to see Howie Winter, who was still part of the gang. Of course, Mitchum having an accent that has been looked upon favorably among select folks in the region is not a surprise given the veteran actor's immense talent that relies heavily on seeing this one man in the time he has remaining in such a weary existence that knows his strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the life put upon him. This includes moments spent with Carroll to remind oneself of just what is really at stake when it comes to playing information or not (it isn't a movie built on overt violence, basically). Only Mitchum could waltz right into a role like this with such natural skill that it seems that nobody could have done it better. He may be a hustler of guns, but he is our hustler and his dilemma matters more than anything to us, particularly since we know the game that comes in Boyle, who provides such a worthy mobster presence in subtlety on the level of a snake. Jordan is the leading authority (with pretty good results) to watch upon these distinct elements of crime that is thoroughly unglamourous. Violent or not, you know what kind of underworld you are in with this film in folks such as Keats and Rocco that obviously accomplish what is required in the shades of laying out plans in their own scope that can only go the way things go with the unending world of crime moving on with or without the best laid-out plans working right. The robbing aren't the most important part, because it is a slow boiler all about seeing what happens to Mitchum as a battle of pride, one that works out to effective drama with no sense of false note moral by its end. In that sense, it is a worthwhile crime film wrapped firmly in its Boston surroundings for a worthwhile time of grime. Bleak and unflinching, it stands worthy of its time rather than one that flinches away.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Postman.

Review #1603: The Postman.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (The Postman), Will Patton (General Bethlehem), Larenz Tate (Ford Lincoln Mercury), Olivia Williams (Abby), James Russo (Captain Idaho), Tom Petty (Bridge City Mayor), Daniel von Bargen (Pineview Sheriff Briscoe), Scott Bairstow (Luke), Giovanni Ribisi (Bandit 20), Roberta Maxwell (Irene March), Joe Santos (Colonel Getty), and Ron McLarty (Old George) Directed by Kevin Costner (#1497 - Dances with Wolves)

Review: 

"I always thought it was a really good movie! I always thought I probably started it wrong. I should have said something like “once upon a time.” Because it was just like a modern-day fairy tale — it wraps itself up with a storybook ending with the statue. You know, I thought it was a pretty funny movie set against the idea of a Superman — somebody stepping up. But in this case, it’s a very humble guy who's nothing but a liar — delivers mail and burns half of it just to stay alive. So, I like the movie."

This film had long been on my backburner for years for the key reason of my dad having it in his collection. Maybe there was just something fascinating about the films directed by Costner or in its post-apocalyptic action adventure (he never had Costner's third and as of now last work with Open Range (2003) but happened to have Waterworld, go figure). Perhaps this was seven years past due, but I can't imagine how "funny" it would have been to talk about a movie set in the future of 2013. Nay, now one can note the fact it has been over two decades since the release of a film regarded as a big flop with audiences, making one-fourth of its $80 million budget. Of course any film that had a variety of critique could also be spun to argue a small cult following for those who like to defend those from the mainstream. This was adapted from the novel of the same name by David Brin, which was initially composed of two parts with "The Postman" (1982) and "Cyclops" (1984) before subsequent publication as a novel. From what David Brin has stated about the book, he wrote it evidently to counteract post-apocalyptic books and films that he felt reveled in the idea of civilization falling...by making one about the last idealist in a fallen America, since he once described most apocalyptical media as "little-boy wish fantasies"...yea, okay. Plans to try and make a film started not long after publication, although Eric Roth's attempts at a screenplay resulted in a complete reworking of the whole plot and message. Years later, Kevin Costner expressed interest in doing the film, finding the original intent of a tale involving decency and hope without cynicism something that he could do, complete with hiring Brian Helgeland (writer of films like L.A. Confidential) for help with the screenplay (for which he and Roth are credited with). Brin knew that there would be a bit of material to be lost and meshed through with an adaptation, and he noted that some of the decisions made by them to be fine with him in the sense that they kept the soul of the main character and story, focusing more on the first third of the novel as opposed to other parts, since a glimpse at the plot talks about developments that occur in the novel involving talking computers and such. Brin felt confidence in Costner being the one to star and direct in the hope for a film that would feel like Field of Dreams (his wife, at a screening of said film, felt Costner would be right for a book adaptation) more so than Mad Max or the Costner vehicle in Waterworld (1995).

That comparison to Waterworld may prove more prescient to how once sees this film in its ultimate goal. That film was absurd and weird as an expensive B-movie, but it at least felt important to watch play out in its trappings of water without overstaying its welcome. In fact, there were a few crew members that referred to the production as "Dirt World" behind Costner's back. While Brin had his praises and reservations, at least one can be content with Brin not feeling cheated out of something that tried to honor a work rather than junking its material and disrespecting the author. He found it "flawed and uneven but ambitious rendition of my story", one that had wonderful moments and imagery despite flaws that looked better than the critics stated about despite its departures from the book. Of course the obvious similarity between critique and one of Brin's reservations becomes apparent very clearly: It is quite too long for its own good (one wonders just how much trust Warner Bros. had in not insisting further in trimming). You know, when Costner made Dances with Wolves (1990), at least one could say there was some reason for it to tower at three hours in length (a version that extends it an hour longer is a question for another day). This is not the kind of movie that needs to go on and on in its attempts at offering aw shucks hope in the vein of Frank Capra in a play against the type of story reminiscent of Mad Max. Simply put, this is a ridiculous little "fable", one that believes it is past those supposed wish fantasies with its self-aggrandizing that reeks of goo in more ways than one. It makes one appreciate the essence of making a simple movie with nuance and interest better that simply saying how much of a miracle it is to get one's mail. So, what does indeed occur in the apocalypse with hope? Oh, just folks with cars for names, couples who ask the mythic hero to help make a baby, and main characters that engage in Shakespeare with each other. Oh yeah, and Tom Petty basically playing himself. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, a reason to find this anything other than just "eh...?" - after all, there are some fair visuals and a sometimes sweeping music from James Newton Howard to go with passable acting. One can't exactly stick a great deal of venom into what is generally just a silly way to waste three hours. Costner was quite a busy man, starring in a variety of films that revolved from highlights like the aforementioned Wolves and The Bodyguard (1992) to controversial/dubious material like JFK (1991) and Wyatt Earp (1994) alongside Waterworld. Honestly, he should have cast someone else, because all I see is a Costner performance similar to the ones he did before without as much reach. He loiters from place to place like James Stewart, and it all comes out to sap enough to make an ego tree. Patton is okay, in the sense that one is watching community theater of Shakespeare and nut-job in one. Tate is here and there with blandness, because how does one move past dreams of elevating the art of mail delivery with wood. Williams supposedly has chemistry with Costner, in the sense that if you stick two people in a cabin together for a bit, you might see something there. That, or one just rolls their eyes. Oh, but it is pretty funny to see others get bits and pieces, such as von Bargen and his useful skeptic character acting or...Petty playing Petty, if only because it just makes me wish he also sang in the film to top the cheese on the cake (or better yet, find time to listen to an album of his in full). In all, I wish there was something more interesting presented here with this film, because there is clearly something that could be made interesting with hope through dystopia, but in the end it is just too much length and sappiness to really gel into something that means more than a flicker of light. If it (or the novel) resonates with you, all power to you - whatever works best in delivering some sort of entertainment or message within certain doom.

Next Time: Welp, it's Friday, and you want to see a film from the 21st century, I'm sure. Good, because you're getting Freddy Got Fingered.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Shaft's Big Score!

Review #1045: Shaft's Big Score!

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Moses Gunn (Bumpy Jonas), Drew Bundini Brown (Willy), Joseph Mascolo (Gus Mascola), Kathy Imrie (Rita), Wally Taylor (Johnny Kelly), Julius Harris (Capt. Bollin), Rosalind Miles (Arna Asby), and Joe Santos (Pascal) Directed by Gordon Parks (#610 - Shaft (1971))

Review: 
The original Shaft movie was described by me as one with an "epitome of cool", in part due to its title character, action sequences, and its music. It had a style to it that is hard to beat and even harder to replicate, although that doesn't mean the sequel isn't any good. Shaft's Big Score! is fairly entertaining fare, with a cast that does its job with flying colors and some interesting action sequences to push this over the top for the most. Admittedly, the story is a bit sketchy at times with its execution and the pacing isn't as rip-roaring, mostly because the film seems a bit muddy with its motivations (even the title seems to be a bit strange considering what occurs in the film), but it's not a terribly boring movie. Roundtree is the key standout, retaining the confident charisma from the original while also being fairly hip and fairly consistent, resembling James Bond but without the gadgets.

Gunn also returns, although he isn't given too much to do. Taylor also does a pretty fine job in an adversarial role that doesn't go too over the top. Mascolo is the main villain (with Taylor also serving as an adversary), but it takes probably a bit too much time to introduce him and thus his performance is merely just okay. The rest of the cast do their jobs fairly well. The film retains the same director from the original, Gordon Parks (who also provides the music due to Issac Hayes being unavailable) along with Ernest Tidman, writer (along with producer) who had written the book that Shaft was based off of and cinematographer Urs Furrer. The climax scene, which goes from land to sea to air, manages to stand out fairly well due to having a gritty but riveting feel that is executed pretty well. This is the kind of film that has a certain energy and click that is absorbing for a blockbuster like this. On the whole, the movie is a bit uneven at times, but it also is an entertaining kind of action flick that makes for a useful good time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.