Blue Chips.

Review #2365: Blue Chips.

Cast: 

Nick Nolte (Coach Pete Bell), Mary McDonnell (Jenny Bell), J. T. Walsh ("Happy" Kuykendahl), Ed O'Neill (Ed Axelby), Alfre Woodard (Lavada McRae), Bob Cousy (Vic Roker), Larry Bird (himself), Matt Nover (Ricky Roe), Shaquille O'Neal (Neon Boudeaux), Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway (Butch McRae), Anthony C. Hall (Tony), Marques Johnson (Mel), Robert Wuhl (Marty), Cylk Cozart ("Slick"), with Jim Beaver (Ricky's Dad), and Louis Gossett Jr. (Father Dawkins) Directed by William Friedkin (#037 - The Exorcist, #1438 - The French Connection, #1477 - To Live and Die in L.A., #2085 - Sorcerer)

Review: 

 “It wasn’t going to be the way coaches have been played in the past—you know, usually as the wise father figure. This guy was a deeply troubled man. That’s how I looked at Bobby, and that’s how I looked at this character. He had this overwhelming desire to win at any cost.”

There is a certain curiosity that comes to this film, really. This was the second of three movies that William Friedkin would direct in the 1990s, which you might remember included such works as The Guardian (1990) and Jade (1995). Oh, but this was a movie produced and written by none other than Ron Shelton, who you might remember was behind the scripts/directing of films such as Bull Durham [1988]* and White Man Can't Jump [1992] (fun fact: one scene in the original script of Blue Chips proved an inspiration for Jump). Apparently, the project had been in development hell since 1981, although it should be mentioned that Tates Locke claimed that the movie actually took inspiration from his 1982 book Caught in the Net (as co-written with Bob Ibach) that had detailed the offenses of Locke as a head coach at Clemson in the late 1970s (ironically, Bob Knight actually was set to write the introduction to the book but rejected it because he took the book as saying "that everybody cheats", which he disagreed with)**. Shelton couldn't direct the movie due to his involvement with Cobb (1994), but Friedkin's love for basketball got him interested in the project (he even got to direct his basketball idol in Bob Cousy). The movie was not a big success with audiences at the time (he was once quoted as saying that he couldn't overcome the difficulty of capturing "the excitement of a real game, with its own unpredictable dramatic structure and suspense"), but time has probably rewarded those who consider that college sports has only recently moved into the "NIL era" in which, well, now college athletes can control and profit from their name, image, and likeness. Timely or not, consider that one of the coaches appearing in the national championship game this year involved a coach in Kelvin Sampson who once endured a show-cause order that meant he couldn't coach in college for five years for a select group of violations committed under his watch.

The game of college basketball has never been particularly squeaky clean, anyway. Amateur athletes in the NCAA had interesting definitions when you consider the guy (Walter Byers) who created the term "student-athlete" also once called a team as doing “ghetto run-and-shoot basketball” (Jerry Tarkanian, coach of said team and justifiably hated Byers, happens to appear in this film)***. Scandals evolved from point shaving to slush funds. Blue Chips (1994) could not foresee the absurdity that arose with scandals involving universities and athletes, in which one school was accused of procuring a madam for athletes (which led to Rick Pitino being fired) and a murder that led to an actual scandal. So here we are with a movie about a man that rips himself apart in a decidedly non-heroic movie. But the movie is honest about where certain people in higher places are in terms of values: in the toilet. Cynicism runs free because the pursuit of the almighty victory (and dollar) has never been more blatant and, well, celebrated. Nolte actually shadowed Bobby Knight and went to practices and games. He pulls off a tremendous performance, riding the line of perceived morals with commitment that isn't just an impersonation or bluster for the sake of it. It happens to be a part with amusement in cynicism, as evidenced by how he says he happens to be a religious type that changes from recruitment to recruitment. By the time he gets to the last game, the juxtaposition of him versus Knight might as well be looking at a mirror (incidentally, Knight is only caught in barely audible dialogue, he apparently was mic'd up but said too many profanities). Walsh is the other highlight, managing to evoke great adversarial power that handles people as if they were commodities (with the exception of the climax, of course). The rest are fine, whether that is an ordinary but committed McDonnell, the delightfully cynical (if not underused) O'Neill or adequate work from actual athletes trying to do both basketball and acting - O'Neal is not in it that much, but he is quite engaging while Cousy plays the "wool over the eyes" just fine. The movie can't exactly capture all the fun and tension from seeing an actual basketball game, but it does leave one with a rush with what they see (particularly for those who recognize cameos such as Dick Vitale). The 108 minute runtime manages to make an effort in seeing the extent one could actually lose (or lie to) themselves in trying to win at all costs. As a whole, it is a committed Friedkin movie in charm and execution that is at least honest enough to prove a watch for the energy drawn out by Nolte in a morality tale that still has a resourceful bite to it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Happy Monday and Go Cougars. If you want to hear more about college basketball movies, try Glory Road (2006).

*See, by having these little notes in the bottom, I save space in the actual review by not referring to Bull Durham as overrated. 

**By that point in time, Bobby Knight had already done such lovely things as hitting a head coach in the back of the head (Joe B. Hall) and choked and punched a sports information director. Never let anyone tell you about the glories of Bobby Knight without saying how much of a miserable human being he was.

***Tarkanian sued the NCAA a few times, fun fact. 

Sneakers (1992).

Review #1886: Sneakers.

Cast: 

Robert Redford (Martin Bishop / Martin Brice), Ben Kingsley (Cosmo), Sidney Poitier (Donald Crease), David Strathairn (Irwin 'Whistler' Emery), Dan Aykroyd (Darren 'Mother' Roskow), River Phoenix (Carl Arbogast), Mary McDonnell (Liz Ogilvy), Stephen Tobolowsky (Werner Brandes), Timothy Busfield (Dick Gordon), Eddie Jones (Buddy Wallace), George Hearn (Gregor "Greg" Ivanovich), Donal Logue (Dr. Gunter Janek), Lee Garlington (Dr. Elena Rhyzkov), and James Earl Jones (NSA Agent Bernard Abbott) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson (#488 - Field of Dreams)

Review: 

Ensemble movies need their appreciation too, if you think about it. Do you remember WarGames (1983)? In the process of writing the script for that film, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes discovered the existence of "sneakers", which refers to hackers that well, sneak into a computer system somewhere (in this case, the hackers here are hired by banks to break in and test the security system). A number of drafts eventually attracted the attention of Phil Alden Robinson, and he ended up spending nine years trying to get the film going. Getting the attention of Robert Redford (cast in a role originally intended with a star in their mid-40s as written by people in their 40s) helped the process and eventually led to a film with a cadre of actors that went from veteran stars to younger names such as River Phoenix (this was the penultimate movie released before his death the following year) while squeezing James Earl Jones in for one scene. Lasker and Parkes also produced the film, which was their fourth venture together (one of them was Awakenings (1990)). Clearly, the movie is really more of a take on the caper movies of yesteryear with its distinct characters in its ensemble, although the message about a world run by "little ones and zeroes" probably still seems quite true after three decades. You probably remember Robinson as the director of Field of Dreams (1989), his second effort; Sneakers is his third feature effort, and his next feature film ended up being Freedom Song eight years later.

Admittedly, it is a nice little movie when it comes to seeing familiar faces in an attempt at a techno-thriller/heist movie. Oh sure, it is a movie that does extoll a little bit about the quirks of a new age where having control of the information might be more important than having the fastest gun. Sneakers does so with a grasp of a number of cliches you have probably seen in countless heist movies with how you can describe the supporting characters in two-word phrases or how the climax is operated (besides the literal slow-motion sequence), right down to needing to acquire a box. In that sense, it can either prove as a comfort movie with plenty of enjoyment from an age like the 1990s or just an average ensemble, and I think it works out more often than not to make a quiet winner. Redford does well with what is needed in general charm, a uniter of misfits with what you've seen a few times from him (perhaps playing a bit of The Sting but without looking like a copy). Poitier, in his penultimate appearance in a feature film, still has the knack for steely timing to contrast the semi-whimsical others, mostly against Aykroyd (amusingly, when approached for the film, he actually was more interested in playing the Cosmo role before being told that Kingsley was signed for it). Kingsley doesn't have as much to really do as the adversary, but in a movie with just a fraction of action and more about the general chase, this works out okay in general familiarity (better him than a ham or a nonentity, perhaps). Strathairn lends a few chuckles to go along with a wiry Phoenix that make the most of those little moments to shuffle the plot. McDonnell makes a quality deadpan middleperson, one who does share a few interesting moments with Redford alongside some chuckles with Tobolowsky, who seems to be having a ball with his moments on screen. 126 minutes is admittedly a big ask for thrillers to enjoy, but I think it does pull enough out of the bag of enjoyment to work at the expectation required from its cast and crew. It's a movie about a couple of scraps who just want to untangle themselves from a weirdo conspiracy involving uncertainties that is dealt with in wry patience that makes a solid little three-decade gem. If fun-loving ensembles trying to play caper is up your alley, go right ahead with this one, where the game of concerns of privacy still holds true now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dances with Wolves.

Review #1497: Dances with Wolves.

Cast:
Kevin Costner (Lt. John J. Dunbar/Dances with Wolves), Mary McDonnell (Stands with a Fist), Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Rodney A. Grant (Wind In His Hair), Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Chief Ten Bears), Tantoo Cardinal (Black Shawl), Jimmy Herman (Stone Calf), Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse (Smiles A Lot), Michael Spears (Otter), Jason R. Lone Hill (Worm), Charles Rocket (Lt. Elgin), Robert Pastorelli (Timmons), Tony Pierce (Spivey), and Larry Joshua (Bauer) Directed by Kevin Costner.

Review:
"Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments."

There have been plenty of great Westerns, both epic and not-quite-as-epic in scope over the past few decades, with a significant amount dealing in some way with Native Americans. When the time is right, it can come from any source, whether that means from an actor trying his hand at directing or somewhere else. Costner has stated that a screening of How the West Was Won (1962) helped formed his childhood, but he became interested in acting before he graduated from college. Costner had met screenwriter Michael Blake while starring in the film Stacy's Knights (1983), which was directed by Jim Wilson. Costner encouraged Blake to turn a spec script of his into a novel, and Dances with Wolves was published in 1988 after a few rejections from publishers. Costner (an established star with films such as Silverado and The Untouchables) soon lobbied for the screen rights after its publication (with Blake writing the screenplay and Costner co-producing with Wilson), although he would have to do it apart from the major studios, which did not find the long script and significant subtitling (as well as being a Western) to their liking, with a key difference being in the portrayal of the Sioux rather than the Commanche tribe. The film is noted for its usage of the Lakota language in several scenes, one of a certain group of features to utilize Native dialogue.

Of course, some movies are born to be epics and then some just don't quite turn out the way one expects. Part of me was interested in how the Western would turn out in another decade removed from it being the norm in conventional filmmaking, while the other side hoped it would not drag at three hours while wondering if it really deserved to rank highly for its era (or even its particular year). In the end, it turned out to be a bit of both, a film firmly in the "good, not great" department that is nice at times to sit through but ultimately not quite enough in strong centering depth to really pull all of its punches successfully. Credit must given to Costner however for his drive to make a film in South Dakota with a fine selection of actors of indigenous origin with plenty to look upon in the landscape and subtitles that do in some way drive a useful story. After all, he does deliver a fairly sensitive performance that draws upon curiosity and care (along with an occasional voiceover), so him operating a camera alongside being in front of it works out fine. McDonnell proves okay in following along in both worlds in care and frenzy, and Greene carries along with solemn interest that carries his part of the film handily with stature. John Barry does well with his musical score in setting a sweeping tone of emotion. The sequences involving a buffalo hunt and the battles are handled well as the highlights for the film as a whole.

I can see its ambition in bonding when it comes to trying to break the mold of the traditional Western, but it seems to nearly choke itself in sentiment that somehow seems lacking a certain kind of quality needed to really drive home a poignant epic. It has a decent heart behind it, but it is really a great Western? I can think of at least five Westerns that reach higher levels of interest and depth before this (Stagecoach, The Searchers, Shane, Hud, Once Upon a Time in the West), and none of them garnered as much high awards praise like this did three decades ago. It has the production value and some of the right notes behind it, but it just seems a bit flatfooted in driving its conflict and message of identity to full realization, where it seems like a slightly more sophisticated version of Broken Arrow (1950). There exists a four hour Special Edition of the film, which Wilson supervised to expand upon the relationship between Costner and McDonnell in addition to more parts with the wolf and the tribe. I did have the choice to pick either the regular or Special Edition, but I didn't really feel interested in having to spend even longer amounts of time (equivalent to Gettysburg (1993), basically) that could make me feel like I really am watching grass grow in the Dakotas. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie with its cast and ambition, but it ultimately is a test of how much one desires of a three-hour Western with an imperfect core and execution to make a curious effort of the modern Western.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.