Redux: Hudson Hawk.

Redux Review #307: Hudson Hawk.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Eddie "Hudson Hawk" Hawkins), Danny Aiello (Tommy "Five-Tone" Messina), Andie MacDowell (Anna Baragli), Richard E. Grant (Darwin Mayflower), Sandra Bernhard (Minerva Mayflower), Donald Burton (Alfred), Don Harvey ("Snickers"), David Caruso ("Kit Kat"), Andrew Bryniarski ("Butterfinger"), Lorraine Toussaint ("Almond Joy"), Frank Stallone (Cesar Mario), Carmine Zozzora (Antony Mario), James Coburn (George Kaplan), Doug Martin (Igg), and Steven M. Martin (Ook) Directed by Michael Lehmann.

Review: 

“It has very intellectual hip humor in it; it has very sophomoric broad slapstick comedy; it has elements of a road picture; it has more romance than any film that I have ever done; it has action; it has big stunts; it has a very dark sensibility… It’s a film that needs to be experienced more than explained…”  - Bruce Willis

A partial reading from my review on December 15, 2012: 

I almost forgot to mention the acting performances, which range from deliberately silly to deliberately over the top (possibly another word for silly), yet again resembling a Batman episode. You might think that it is a bit dumb to criticize this film for its surreal humor (I sure hope so, as for all I know it was meant to be serious, but they did this on purpose) with cartoonish slapstick. However, my reasoning is that it fails in some of those respects. It's mind-numbingly silly, it isn't entirely useful, and it (somewhat) does the crime of not being that funny.  But hey, what do I know.

Really, I could be saying the first few years of watching movies to "talk" about took a while to match my expectations of actually having fun with writing, which, well, eventually went beyond just watching whatever's on the shelf. But there must've been something curious that made my dad get this film on his shelf, because it lurked there for years and years. Most curiously, this was a movie that wasn't a hit with audiences of the time (particularly in America) despite being right in the apex of the career of Willis as a bonafide star. For all the time I remember watching Willis movies, I still have to remember that big steppingstone was winning an audition to star in Moonlighting (1985-1989) opposite Cybill Shepherd that even had him do music numbers on occasion. 

The genesis of the film came from the friendship of Willis and composer Robert Kraft, who were so interested in "The Hudson Hawk" that they even had come up with a song. Willis described it prior to release as "about greed and money in the `90s, with elements of a Bob Hope-Bing Crosby road picture. It`s a comedy with broad slapstick and moronic wit, and it has huge action beats.” Of course, for the screenplay credit, one sees the names of Steven E. de Souza and Daniel Waters (the former had co-written the first two Die Hard films while the latter had written Heathers, which had been directed by Lehmann), although there were plenty of re-writes to go around If one wants an actual detail of the production and its foibles, Richard E. Grant dedicated an entire chapter of his autobiography to it. It is pretty amusing to note to cover Oscar and Hudson Hawk in the same month, because both movies involved action stars trying to do comedy that were not well received and both movies were released a month apart from each other in 1991. And hey, what do you know, count me as a defender of Hudson Hawk, the younger version of myself was an idiot. Of course, one could take the word of one of its stars in Grant when it comes to assessing it as a "stinking pile of steaming hot donkey droppings". But the blend of cartoon sound effects and other various ideas in playing around as a "surreal comedy" is one that takes a while to really appreciate, and I'm surprised that it took me this long to really come around on it. I suppose audiences could accept a little bit of humor when it came to previous Willis works such as Die Hard as quips but they could just not go with a goofy movie that has candy bar names for secret agents to go with heists conducted by songs. Willis and Aiello clearly seem to be having some sort of fun with their back-and-forths, particularly when in song. Apparently both actors tried to get involved in the production (Willis as a producer and Aiello in trying to change the climax), which is amusing. MacDowell (cast at the last minute when Maruschka Detmers got hurt) doesn't have the easiest task and she probably does get swept away in the long run when it comes to middling chemistry with Willis and maybe one amusing scene in which she play acts as a dolphin. Besides, Bernhard acts circles around her in terms of delusional manic energy that proves that Lehmann really had an idea in mind to pair her with Grant in chaotic lunacy (regardless of how the film went, apparently Bernhard and Grant became good friends due to this film) that believes that things like history are trophies to hold in the den. It's funny that a film envisioned as an "anti-James Bond" features Coburn, star of the 60s Bond parody Our Man Flint (1966). He pops in and out for a few scenes of sell out villainy that he sells pretty well to go with a litany of goons in Harvey-Toussiant-Bryniarski (Caruso is also there, giving out note cards) that are goofy enough. In 

The 100-minute runtime is a bit fast-and-loose with its plot construction, with the climax being the flakiest (although it has one amusing idea when it comes to a fake-out that basically is "yeah, sure"). This is a film where its climax involves the last perceived enemy of our hero is blasted out of a window with a tennis ball launcher. It is funny that the movie basically flopped on the same level of Ishtar (1987) in terms of turbulent productions that precluded a litany of rough reviews. But Hudson Hawk has a far more likable duo and an actual aim in madcap stupidity, particularly since it is far more interesting than Lehmann's previous collaboration with Waters in Heathers. Of course, it was marketed as an action film rather than a show of, well, overacting. In the line of Willis movies that came and went in his career, Hudson Hawk was a curious one that maybe was a bit ripe to pick on in over-management but really is something that should be checked out for its idle curiosities in a real "thrown-on-the-wall" caper that might be worth your pleasure. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: ?

Selma.

Review #1646: Selma.

Cast: 
David Oyelowo (Martin Luther King, Jr), Tom Wilkinson (Lyndon B. Johnson), Carmen Ejogo (Coretta Scott King), André Holland (Andrew Young), Tessa Thompson (Diane Nash), Giovanni Ribisi (Lee C. White), Lorraine Toussaint (Amelia Boynton Robinson), Stephan James (John Lewis), Wendell Pierce (Hosea Williams), Common (James Bevel), Alessandro Nivola (John Doar), Lakeith Stanfield (Jimmie Lee Jackson), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Fred Gray), Dylan Baker (J. Edgar Hoover), Tim Roth (George Wallace), Oprah Winfrey (Annie Lee Cooper), Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Bayard Rustin), Niecy Nash (Richie Jean Jackson), Colman Domingo (Ralph Abernathy), Omar Dorsey (James Orange), Ledisi Young (Mahalia Jackson), and Trai Byers (James Forman) Directed by Ava DuVernay.

Review: 
"You know, the thing that I was really interested in doing with the film is making King more than a catch phrase, more than a holiday, more than a street name in a black neighborhood, more than a stamp, more than one speech. I mean, I wanted him to be a man, a living, breathing man."

It's interesting to find a new voice for film, particularly when it comes to ones that took their time to march forward with their own stories to tell. Ava DuVernay grew up in California, but during her summer vacations, she would travel down to her father's childhood home in Alabama, near the city of Selma. The experiences spent with her father, who had seen the marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, would prove a lasting influence. She studied at the University of California, Los Angeles in English literature and African-American studies, but her first career interest was in journalism. It was not long before she shifted into public relations, for which she would work in for a few years. She made her first venture into film with a 2005 short (Saturday Night Life) before making her first documentary with This Is the Life (2008) and her first theatrical effort with I Will Follow (2010). The film was written originally by Paul Webb, although DuVernay would do uncredited re-writes during production. The original director in mind was Lee Daniels, with Oyelowo (who starred in DuVernay's second film, Middle of Nowhere) having to lobby for years to be considered as star, with intentions of casting Liam Neeson and Robert De Niro as Johnson and Wallace before DuVernay came in.

At any rate, what we have here is a fairly stirring film. It runs on the energy to stir emotion about a story it wants to tell involving a march for freedom that came not from one man but from many that came from various backgrounds with their own parts to play. It is pressure that matters most here, one that shows the drive for the vote as a collective. It is the fury of being counted after years of being stepped on that viewers will likely see through the lens of the present alongside the past, where literacy tests fading away don't mean an easy aftermath. If the accuracy is to be debated, at least one can't say the film doesn't have the vision to look like a crisp period piece, right down to shooting on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Oyelowo manages to step forward and does well with strength for a tough task at hand with making King out to be more than just an icon heard on old tapes. He carries the film along with calm measured patience, one who we can see as the main face of a movement with no long doubt or thinking of him as just the entire landscape. In other words, what we have is someone with aspirations to go with flaws just like someone you would know without being relegated to biopic sticking points. Wilkinson does just as well on the other side of the film's line of focus, having his own presence of immeasurability, one that mixes with Oyelowo in the struggle for the right to have others be heard going through the game of policy. Ejogo goes well for her part in soothing measurability in time usually spent paired with Oyelowo, a pillar of strength in her own ways that fits well for the first portrayal of C. King on film (Ejogo had played the role 13 years prior in a production for HBO in Boycott, which dealt with the Montgomery bus boycott). Others stick out in their own ways, such as a persevering Holland or with James. Appearances by Stanfield and Roth stay with the viewer after they leave the screen, for varying reasons.

The strange thing that arises from the dialogue might be the fact that I did not realize that King's speeches were actually under copyright, for which that meant the script had to dance around that with re-spinning of dialogue (Dreamworks and Warner Bros at the time had been given a license for those speeches for a biopic...in 2009, and a decade has passed with no biopic). As one might expect from a historical film, there was a bit of wringing with some of its aspects in depicting certain moments, with the debate being discussed probably just as much as the lack of award nominations for the film as a whole. With a moment like Selma that still had some of the players (both in the march and less connected) still alive, this is particularly interesting, such as the statement from Andrew Young, who stated that most of the film was true while having quibbles with the portrayal of the relationship between Johnson and King. Consider the statement made by DuVernay, who felt that she is a storyteller, not a historian when it comes to a film that isn't a documentary. Honestly, sometimes a film can still be great even if it isn't 100% to the point, such as the case with Malcolm X (1992), which had its own omissions and composites within artistic license (Lee's vision of Malcolm X might as well correspond to a statement DuVernay made involving history being interpreted though the lens of one who reads or experiences it). Quibbles over the portrayal of civil rights moments is nothing new, as noted with films such as Mississippi Burning (1988), for example. But hey, does it count for the film if it speaks to things about King's life that I didn't know beforehand (such as Mahalia Jackson being called by him to sing to him)? Maybe it is an indictment of what we know and don't know from studies in school when it comes to folks like James Reeb or with Jimmie Lee Jackson. There may be many Bloody Sundays, but that doesn't mean it is easily forgotten, particularly when it is one that can be seen on your screen with your own eyes. In that sense, the film does fairly well for itself in generating tension and deep curiosity for the events of 1965 in what happened then and what has happened since then, one that organizes itself with flourish in 128 minutes of events and pace that mostly hits the mark. It isn't a perfect film, but it still manages to do well enough for itself in gripping entertainment to pull a punch where it is still needed now.

Next Time: Closing time comes for Black History Month on the movie side, for which we end with Fences.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Breaking In (1989).

Review #1492: Breaking In.

Cast:
Burt Reynolds (Ernie Mullins), Casey Siemaszko (Mike Lafeve), Lorraine Toussaint (Delphine), Sheila Kelley (Carrie / Fontaine), Albert Salmi (Johnny Scot, Poker Player), Harry Carey (Shoes, Poker Player), Maury Chaykin (Vincent Tucci, Attorney), and Stephen Tobolowsky (District Attorney) Directed by Bill Forsyth.

Review:
"There's always something you want to say. I would not want to make a film that did not say anything, I'm not interested in getting into something that's just a piece of entertainment, a James Bond or an adventure film. I don't enjoy filming that much, in fact I don't enjoy filming at all and to go through all that for the sake of money would just not interest me."
"I'm not sure if I can swagger anymore, but I can limp with the best of them."

It's easy to forget about a director when Burt Reynolds is your star in a comedy. For example, Scottish-born Bill Forsyth first got into films through an advertisement out of high school and ended up doing short documentary films for eight years, notably founding Tree Films with Charles Gormley in 1970. He wrote his scripts for That Sinking Feeling and Gregory's Girl years in advance, but attempts at getting funds did not take hold with the BFI Production Board. He forged on anyway in making the former film, doing so in 1979 on a cheap budget with actors from the Glasgow Community Theatre. Some of the actors from that film would return for his next film, Gregory's Girl (1981), which resulted in positive notices as the film he is best known for (his next film, Local Hero, also received praise), and he received a British Academy Film Award for each film (the former for screenplay and the latter for direction). This was his second and last film done in North America, with the other being Housekeeping (1987). The film was written by John Sayles (behind films such as Return of the Secaucus 7 and Eight Men Out), whose script had been laying around for a few years that Sayles did not think was something he could direct, and Forsyth updated the script. And then of course there is Burt Reynolds, the one shining reason one might pick this film out in the first place (particularly if you are sentimental towards seeing him in something that could be good). Whether the film is good or not, he remained a fascinating actor to watch be a part of the action for over five decades, with this being at the tail end of his popularity, and he took part in the film for very little money due to his interest in the character role (Forsyth had desired someone like John Mahoney for the role, but a push by Act III Communications for someone with a bit of star power eventually led him to approach Reynolds).

It's a shame that this wasn't a success with audiences on release (making less than two million dollars on a budget of over five million), because it is a decent little movie, even if it isn't exactly the most well-known film for either Forsyth or Reynolds (I happened to have come across this on the Internet and went with it on a guess, although a DVD would obviously be a better quality bet). Sometimes you just have to enjoy a shaggy dog robbery story. In a retrospective article about the film, Forsyth himself described it as "an awkward little movie. It’s not an American film and it’s not a European film; it’s ungraspable what it is." There is definately an interesting sort of tone that Forsyth takes to the material, one that doesn't really go for all of the caper cliches that come with a heist film, instead taking an approach to fleshing out two quirky people that find themselves into this certain business with their own distinct mannerisms and approach. One has probably seen the traditional old pro teaches the hotshot story before, but if one presents it with honesty, it usually works out for a decent time. There isn't anything remotely spectacular about it, but there are bits and pieces that are charming, and the main duo also helps out while also having a few little moments of heists that favor moments of dialogue over anything too explosive (which can work out for those patient for it). Siemaszko, having started appearing in films for six years with bit roles and supporting turns (such as Back to the Future) proves lively enough for the film's liking, carefree yet never lacking when on-screen with various situations of charm. Reynolds, with a hitch in his step and a quieter tone than usual, holds to the challenge quite well, still managing to capture a wise world-weary presence without needing to rely on anything hammy (the makeup on him to make him look older looks fine) that we gravitate to pretty well (of course one could gravitate to Siemaszko too, at least when it comes to brash impulse decisions) with comfort. Seeing these folks try to make a living within a strange world of compromise and duplicity makes for a careful movie, not exactly a laugh-out-loud caper, but also not too plaid for curious enjoyment. It certainly is a curious film for both Forsyth and its two stars in Reynolds and Siemaszko, and if you happen to come across it looking for something diverting, you may be fairly satisfied with what you recieve, getting a few chuckles alongside a decent time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Review #1260: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Cast: 
Zoe Margaret Colletti (Stella Nicholls), Michael Garza (Ramón Morales), Gabriel Rush (Auggie Hilderbrandt), Dean Norris (Roy Nicholls), Gil Bellows (Chief Turner), Lorraine Toussaint (Lou Lou), Austin Zajur (Chuck Steinberg), Natalie Ganzhorn (Ruth), Austin Abrams (Tommy), and Kathleen Pollard (Sarah Bellows) Directed by André Øvredal.

Review: 
Horror can certainly be affecting for its audience, whether young or old. If anyone can speak to being scared, children certainly have plenty of stories to tell, even after they grow up. This is a film adaptation of the story collection of the same name (consisting of three short books that contained 25 stories each released from 1981 to 1991) that was written by Alvin Schwartz and illustrated by Stephen Gammell. I have a vague memory of checking out one of the books as a child, with one certain story lingering through involving a hook. One notable contributor to the film is Guillermo del Toro, who helped produced and co-write the story for the film, which has a modest budget of $25 million and a group of young leads that headline a film taking elements from the books into one cohesive narrative (as opposed to an anthology film). The final result is a decent movie, having a few scares that will work for its target audience of folks looking for some scares whether they know about these familiar monsters or not. Within its main group of castmates, there certainly isn't a weak link among the kids when it needs to focus on moments besides being scared; Colletti carries the film with charm and resourcefulness that makes her well to follow along with right from the get-go. Garza does just fine with following along without becoming too much of a quiet outlier to the film's detriment. Rush and Zajur contribute to a laugh or two as the other cogs in the film's young core (which also features brief moments for Toussaint and Abrams, albeit in the first half) that play just okay. On the whole, while the film doesn't have enough characters to really make for the possibility of a substantial bodycount, at least one does find themselves having a little investment into where the film will go without just waiting for a monster to show up. Of the ones that do appear, I would say that the Jangly Man is probably the most creepy, although there isn't a weak link in the weird bunch. The 1968 setting was a bit of a surprise, but at least it does utilize it to make a few timely scenes stick out just well without just seeming pointless. The narrative that is built around these monsters (and the stories that they come from) is decent, built on safe foundations without bordering on too many cliches to make things less than compelling, where the chills don't become withheld because of weak storytelling. It does set up some bait for the possibility of further tales, and I find that to be something I can look forward to without much hesitation. Whether accompanied with loyal friends or not, this will prove worthy for a look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.