Redux: Last Action Hero.

Redux #576: Last Action Hero.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (Detective Jack Slater / Arnold Schwarzenegger), Austin O'Brien (Danny Madigan), Charles Dance (Mr. Benedict), Robert Prosky (Nick), Tom Noonan (the Ripper / Tom Noonan), Frank McRae (Lieutenant Dekker), Anthony Quinn (Tony Vivaldi), Bridgette Wilson (Whitney Slater / Meredith Caprice), F. Murray Abraham (John Practice), Mercedes Ruehl (Irene Madigan), Art Carney (Frank Slater), Professor Toru Tanaka ("Tough Asian Man"), Ryan Todd (Andrew Slater), Jeffrey Braer (Skeezy), and Bobbie Brown (Video Babe) Directed by John McTiernan (#014 - Die Hard, #018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #080 - The Hunt for Red October, #325 - Predator)

Review: 

"Initially, it was a wonderful Cinderella story with a nine-year-old boy. We had a pretty good script by Bill Goldman, charming. And this ludicrous hype machine got hold of it, and it got buried under bullshit. It was so overwhelmed with baggage. And then it was whipped out unedited, practically assembled right out of the camera. It was in the theater five or six weeks after I finished shooting. It was kamikaze, stupid, no good reason for it. And then to open the week after Jurassic Park—God! To get to the depth of bad judgment involved in that, you'd need a snorkel."

It is sometimes fun to go back to the (perceived) hits and misfires of the old favorites, particularly when it comes to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Honestly, the fact that he was enough of an action star to warrant curiosity all these years later is a curious one, at least when you consider that he was originally a bodybuilder that listed Steve Reeves as among his idols. There was a long road between being dubbed in his debut with Hercules in New York (1970) to the bodybuilding documentary Pumping Iron (1977) to Conan the Barbarian (1982) to being in movies that were boldly proclaimed to be the "big ticket of '93". Of course, Last Action Hero started and ended in completely different fashion from what anyone expected, but hey. Zak Penn and Adam Leff had met when taking a film appreciation course at Wesleyan University; later on, with a shared love of action movies and their cliches, they did a draft with "Extremely Violent" that basically was a flip of The Purple Rose of Cairo [1985] (in which a movie-star idol walks of the screen and joins the real world from time to time). Through a bit of puffery, they attracted an agent with Chris Moore and it eventually bore fruit where Columbia Pictures bought it, albeit so they could then get their own folks (credited folks and uncredited script doctors such as William Goldman) to do re-writes. For example, the Hamlet moment came from Penn & Leff, while the glass-eyed Mr. Bendict character was a Goldman idea, and the caper of disposing of a dynamite-stuffed gangster corpse (inspired by a book) came from Black and Arnott (in general, the original draft didn't even have the golden ticket). The result was Penn and Leff were given credit for the story while Shane Black and David Arnott (who basically thought of it as having the chance to do the "Wizard of Oz of action movies") were given credit for the screenplay. Filming was hectic enough that the studio basically released the movie as it was (i.e. ignoring test screening reactions) in order to beat the timed-release date of June 18, 1993 (one week after Jurassic Park) with a budget of $85 million, the movie made less than double of its budget back.

To be honest, this is basically a "Hudson Hawk" moment for me where I realize, you know, this is funny action worth appreciating. Eighteen-year-old me thought it was better as an action movie that wasn't as funny as it could be. Looking back, I think I just appreciate the cozy world that comes with a litany of action cliches and just going with the frenzied attention. It really is a cynical riff on The Wizard of Oz that makes me appreciate when I see on the screen and chuckle along with it. Incidentally, Penn and Leff actually did write it with Schwarzenegger in mind because of his "self-mocking personality" and being the biggest & exciting of the overblown action guys (evidently, you can read a draft here). Sure, they envisioned it as a divide between a smart real kid and a one-dimensional celluloid character rather than the wisecracking present in the latter, and sure, a lesson in not projecting himself into action movies is kind of lost in the moviemaking by committee. But goddamn it, I did enjoy seeing the pairing of Schwarzenegger and O'Brien in the long run. I once thought O'Brien "easily disposable if he wasn't our main character", which certainly seems to sell him short. O'Brien actually had made his film debut with The Lawnmower Man (1993) after apparently being impressive in a TV commercial. There is something to how the two work with each other that does have enough charm to help get the movie over most of the bumps in the 131-minute journey. Schwarzenegger just happens to be the type of guy who can make an action sequence look all the more entertaining with that certain cadence and it does work in his favor to have a little bit of fun in the freewheeling film world. It's messy and decidedly a guilty pleasure type of movie that clearly gave McTiernan problems that he at least stages with a few entertaining action sequences. Dance makes for a fun enough adversary in slowly eating the scenery in menace that seems to be having fun, and that goes doubly for the blustery McRae (not exactly as much for Prosky or Carney, but at least the latter has the excuse of playing the "poor tragic second cousin"). The best gag might be our hero reading a few cards that count down to one because, wait for it, there's a bomb. The litany of cameos and in jokes are basically hit and miss (I suppose Planet Hollywood was a big deal at one point, but a cartoon cat? A reference to Amadeus [1984]?) and being compared to Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) probably did it no favors, but I enjoyed what I saw to make an argument that the movie is sorely underrated. Life isn't just what you see in a movie because at the end, it's what you make of it: it can be adventurous, it can be full of itself, it can be charming, whatever. You just have to actually show up for it. In that sense, Last Action Hero might just be up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day, because I owe you one

One more in the chamber, a non-redux this time: The Shadow

Big.

Review #2524: Big. 

Cast: 

Tom Hanks (Adult Josh Baskin; David Moscow as Joshua "Josh" Baskin), Elizabeth Perkins (Susan Lawrence), Robert Loggia (Mr. MacMillan), John Heard (Paul Davenport), Jared Rushton (William "Billy" Francis Kopecki), Jon Lovitz (Scott Brennen), Mercedes Ruehl (Mrs. Baskin), Harvey Miller (David), Debra Jo Rupp (Miss Patterson), and Josh Clark (Mr. Baskin) Directed by Penny Marshall (#1500 - A League of their Own)

Review: 

“I guess I just hide behind things, whether it’s my whining or my sense of humor. Every once in a while I’m decisive--for about a minute. For me, acting was easier, because the gun goes off and you have to go for it. With directing, I know people on movie sets want leadership, but I don’t exude that captain-of-the-ship image. I’d get on the phone with (“Big” producer) Jim Brooks and apologize all the time and say, ‘I’m no good at this. I think if he didn’t know me as well as he did, he would’ve been scared that I was running the movie.”

I had this movie on my shelf for a few years because even with a good reputation, sometimes you just kick something down the road until the time finally comes to actually talk about it, so here is a review about a movie that basically is hard not to like. To start with, Penny Marshall started as a director with the encouragement of her brother Garry while starring on the sitcom Laverne & Shirley, which saw her direct a couple of episodes. She was tapped to make her feature film debut with Peggy Sue Got Married before creative differences* saw her drop out, but she soon got hired to direct Jumpin' Jack Flash [1986] (a movie that was supposed to have Howard Zieff as director) that she basically summarized as the equivalent of "cramming four years of college into one semester." This was the first screenplay for both Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg; he had worked as a fisherman and dabbled in speechwriting she had worked for Amblin Entertainment. Various people were thought of to do the film that ranged from Steven Spielberg with Harrison Ford to eventually finding its way with Marshall, who approached various others and nearly had Robert De Niro tapped to play the title role before it fell through, which opened the door for Hanks. Released in the wake (read: a whole year) of a few films that happened to deal with age-changing with Like Father Like Son (1987), 18 Again! (1988), and Vice Versa (1988), Big was the biggest hit of the bunch, garnering Academy Award nominations for Ross, Spielberg, and Hanks; the success of the film even led to a Broadway musical adaptation. Two versions of the movie exist: the original cut was 104 minutes while you can see on home media an "extended edition" that runs at 130 minutes that basically lends more time to the young and adult characters (for more information, see here).

For a movie that basically is a fairy tale about figuring out the real joys of being a person beyond being "grown up". All childhoods come to an end, but it doesn't mean the joy (whether it involves the company of others or, well, aspirations for bigger things) has to fade away. One of the more important things that Marshall had to focus on was making sure that Hanks "had to be 12, not play at being 12." The movie basically rides on the fact that Hanks has to aim for innocence that isn't just doing a bit for the sake of doing it, particularly since you're spending time first with Moscow and Rushton before getting to the Zoltar machine (without needing too much time spent on what is, well, a wish gone right). Hanks was already pretty well-established a comedy guy (most notably with Bosom Buddies and Splash), but there is something so effective here in how vulnerable he proves himself to be here in the experience of someone who realizes there is more to life than the crushing grind of "things" that also happens to be quite funny. It works just as well for Perkins in the realization that comes in seeing a bit of warmth in the cold place of what people think of adulthood and in business (or in trying to climb up the ladder, if one wants to mechanical about would-be romances). Heard and Loggia each provide a few amusing moments in the contrast between office politics that basically do sound vacant and odd from the perspective of a kid (alternatively, there's a scene where Heard is trying to win really hard at paddleball that basically shows just how childish one can be even in front of people that also is pretty funny). You get a movie with gags about realizing the odds and ends of life through the wide-eyed curiosity of Hanks that also has time to actually have commitment to its charm and light fantasy. Much like a Walking Piano, Big is a worthwhile curiosity that can be played over and over again to find new keys to appreciate from all involved.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*as seen in this article. She was also thought of for Joy of Sex, apparently.

Hustlers

Review #1661: Hustlers.

Cast:

Constance Wu (Destiny), Jennifer Lopez (Ramona Vega), Julia Stiles (Elizabeth), Keke Palmer (Mercedes), Lili Reinhart (Annabelle), Lizzo (Liz), Cardi B (Diamond), Mercedes Ruehl (Mama), Wai Ching Ho (Destiny's grandmother), Madeline Brewer (Dawn), Trace Lysette (Tracey), Mette Towley (Justice), Frank Whaley (Reese), Paul Nielsen (Detective Hunter), Brandon Keener (Alpha), and Steven Boyer (Doug) Written and Directed by Lorene Scafaria.

Review:

"There’s a responsibility to the truth and what really happened, and it’s not a black and white story, after all.”

Time is an important thing to think about when it comes to a film and its story. After all, it has only been two years since the release of this film, but one wonders how much it will be remembered, much less the person behind it with Lorene Scafaria, fresh off her third feature film (well, two years is still fresh, in this decade...). The New Jersey native was interested in writing from a young age; in fourth grade, for example, she would find interest in "inventing" a book to write a report on in order to win free pizza for those who read the most books (with ensuing reports) - by high school, she would become interested in acting and writing her own plays (inspired by playwrights such as David Mamet) and fiction, for which she would write her first play at 17. She studied for a year at Lafayette College (where she briefly honed time to be involved with plays) before tuition troubles led her to transfer to Montclair State University, for which she studied in English that focused on playwriting and fiction. Prior to entering directing, she had been involved with acting alongside writing for theater productions before entering film with a screenplay adaptation in Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008), and Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) was her feature debut. The film is inspired by the article "The Hustlers at Scores", which was written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 based on true events that had an interview from Roselyn Keo (the operator of the business end of targeting wealthy clients) that led to jail-time for two workers and probation for others involving substances and stolen money, which involved conspiracy, grand larceny, assault and forgery (incidentally, one of the ringleaders ended up writing a book about their experiences). Not long after its publication, the rights to make the film were acquired by Gloria Sanchez Productions (with Jessica Elbaum, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay serving as producers, alongside others that joined later like Lopez). Scafaria was attracted by the article in the "fascinating friendship story at its core", complete with the perspective of the article writer involved alongside the subject at hand. When Scafaria had finished the script in 2017, she was not exactly the first one in mind to direct the feature, with producers initially seeking out directors that were familiar with the type of genre the script fell into, which included asking Martin Scorsese (who declined) and thoughts about Adam McKay (who served as one of the producers of the film) - it took a sizzle reel created by Scafaria alongside editor Kayla Emter to help convince the producers to have Scafaria be the director.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that it took some time to attract attention from studios to get the film made, as they could see the commercial value but had un-comfortability with the subject matter (as if one needs to make sure that the marks have to also all be worthy of being so, despite the fact that the film is playing by the beats of an article), in addition to the judgement shared of the profession at hand (not reporting the terrible things that have happened to them is a different story), and the article itself started out by describing those folks as "(mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men" - basically, it is a film of supply and demand. The film has its touches that might make one think of a modern-day Robin Hood tale or (indirectly) Goodfellas (1990). With films like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and The Big Short (2015), perhaps one really does in an age of scammer-infused curiosity for entertainment. Consider the perspective of Kao, who in an interview about her life after ending the hustle, stated "I think a lot of women are rooting for me even though I was wrong.” (conversely, two of the women involved with the scheme want nothing to do with the limelight while the other sued the filmmakers for defamation - she lost, naturally). Oh sure, the music also probably plays a small part in the interest, since Scafaria intended it to help tell the story that would range from Janet Jackson to Bob Seger (naturally, the musical inclinations will differ for some, since I dig "Night Moves" more than anything). In the end, what matters most is what you get out of the experience) when it comes to a story with a perspective that is not usually told often - in that sense, it makes for a fine movie. It never quite reaches any major heights beyond a few clever moments within the crime angle and occasional charm, but there is an undeniable allure to the performances that come out within the main quartet that make for a dazzling curiosity with its look upon a world that might have people as mercenary as the folks on Wall Street that they ended up dealing with. Wu, best known for her starring roles in Fresh Off the Boat (2015–2020) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), manages to hold pretty well to drawing one in as the focus without being lost in the lights and the other noted names behind her, having a carefully controlled sense of confidence that leads the story along with care. Lopez is of course the other side of the leading coin, and she delivers quite well on a captivating performance, one that dazzles in ruthless charm that strings the viewer with interest from the very first scene she is in (a dance scene, perhaps fittingly), and it is clear to see why she was Scafaria's first choice for the role, since she walks right through it with ease in amorality. Honestly, my quibble doesn't exist with Stiles but rather just my disagreement with the need for the journalist to be included as part of the story in the first place - it's an okay performance, mostly just there for little moments with Wu probing about the events that happened, but it just never really clicks to anything other than one just nodding their head (while trying to not drone the inevitable "X didn't do that in its crime story" statement in my head). Palmer and Reinhart finish the main group just fine, while cameos from folks such as Lizzo and Ruehl serve the film in atmosphere well enough. At any rate, it was interesting to have the article on hand (for research) to see what ended up being used anyway, for which there are quite a handful of excerpts that are shown for the film that prove fairly accurate, such as the man who liked one of the girls because of pretty penmanship and is then called out of the blue years later by our main lead (as part of a "Get Money" list), the listing of where the money goes when it comes to pay for the workers (minus expenses for the DJ, etc...), and even the events with a sympathetic unlucky client (who had a recording!) that starts a case against the girls that is accentuated by further tabloid cases of others (such as a cardiologist who apparently had a $130,000 bill from four trips to a club that did not want to pay). In any case, 110 minutes is just enough to keep the crime story fairly interesting, wrapped with a bit of introspection about the nature of the con at hand and the drive for more in a scenario that practically (but not literally) invited it. It never wavers on itself for too long to collapse, making for interesting entertainment that will attract those who seek a fair crime story with a distinct perspective and style to go with it to make for a good time.

Next Time: For the last film of the month, we reach the new decade with Wander Darkly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars