Next of Kin.

Review #2553: Next of Kin.

Cast: 

Patrick Swayze (Detective Truman Gates), Liam Neeson (Briar Gates), Adam Baldwin (Joey Rosselini), Helen Hunt (Jessie Gates), Andreas Katsulas (Johnny "Papa John" Isabella), Bill Paxton (Gerald Gates), Ben Stiller (Lawrence Isabella), Michael J. Pollard (Harold), Ted Levine (Willy Simpson), Del Close (Frank), Valentino Cimo (Rhino), Paul Greco (Leo), Vincent Guastaferro (Paulie), and Paul Herman (Lieutenant Tony Antonelli) Directed by John Irvin (#1591 - Hamburger Hill)

Review: 

Sure, you probably saw this on a DVD pack sometime or maybe your dad had the film on the shelf (this is a case where both applies, because it lurks on both the bottom of the film shelf and also on an "action multi-pack" with stuff such as The Last Boy Scout). You might say this is a case of a movie being so mediocre that I have to strain to find words to talk about it. This was the seventh film of John Irvin, who had moved over from his native England (where he did documentaries, TV adaptations such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) to do feature films, with a few of his first being a mix of British and American productions, such as The Dogs of War (1980) and Raw Deal (1986), respectively. The years after this film saw him do a varied amount of films and TV work afterwards, mostly outside the States. The movie was written by Michael Jenning in his only film credit (the only other credit is writing for a TV movie called "Spot Marks the X"). Made on a budget of roughly $12 million and released a few months after audiences could see Swayze in, say, Road House, the movie was not a major success with audiences.

Admittedly, I wanted to like the movie. You've got young promising talent with Neeson, Hunt and Stiller (one of these people won an Academy Award, and somehow it wasn't Neeson) to go along with ideas of interest with Baldwin and Katsulas and a semi-game Swayze for a movie...that never really goes that far. It lumbers for 108 minutes with what can only be described as "the bare minimum" in generic nature that will work for some and make others shrug when it ends and leaves the memory bank just as quickly. It's a revenge tale that has an idea in mind: a tale serving revenge "country style" (no, I will not use the word "hillbilly") that you would imagine would sound like someone trying to drunkenly combine Deliverance and The Godfather. But no, it basically just meanders around Chicago with Swayze trying to corral Neeson from blazing a path fierier than Sherman's March to the Sea*, complete with one stunt about jumping onto a train. It is an aimless movie that only really commits to having a battle between country style folks and gangsters for the ending, which naturally has to be at night, with arrows being involved (somehow, there's a scene of preparing lunch for the travelling country boys that amuses me in its placement). There are flashes of lunacy from Baldwin to be compelling, but it mostly feels like moving the chairs on the deck waiting to see if something really comes into play beyond neutral gear. Swayze basically has the movie stolen from him by Neeson, who just has the offbeat energy to be more compelling in a misguided quest (and accent, because if you have the shot to cast a Northern Irishman to play a man from Kentucky, you take it) than whatever is supposed to be the case with an ordinary family dynamic between Swayze and Hunt. Obviously one character has to go at minimum to advance the plot, but it sure is a shame to see Paxton go so early, but it almost seems necessary to do so with Stiller in a nepo baby role that basically screams "move along". It all is just a long-winded revenge tale where you find yourself entranced at the stuff you've seen before in these type of movies or just check your watch. At least the climax tries to present something different in resolving the wounds of a blood feud, corny as it can be. As a whole, Next of Kin might as well be the Ink blot test of action movies: you see what you see and go from there in either liking the experience or forgetting it just as quickly as you saw it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Stretching a reference, sure. But fuck the Confederacy.

Between the Lines.

Review #1988: Between the Lines.

Cast: 

John Heard (Harry Lucas), Lindsay Crouse (Abbie), Jeff Goldblum (Max Arloft), Jill Eikenberry (Lynn), Bruno Kirby (David Entwhistle), Gwen Welles (Laura), Stephen Collins (Michael), Lewis J. Stadlen (Stanley), Jon Korkes (Frank), Michael J. Pollard (The Hawker), Lane Smith (Roy Walsh), Joe Morton (Ahmed), and Marilu Henner (Danielle) Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street)

Review: 

Admittedly, if you want to follow up a sleeper hit that was thought to be too "ethnic" from big studios, I suppose an ensemble piece with up-and-coming actors is not the oddest thing to come up with. As with her last effort in Hester Street (1975), Raphael D. Silver served as producer. The film was written by Fred Barron and David M. Helpern Jr. Barron had written for the Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly periodical and he used his experiences there to help shape the script (incidentally, Silver had worked for the Village Voice before becoming a director. This was the second of a total of seven theatrical films that Silver directed. The cast might be the most standout quality in terms of the sheer rise that came from some of them: this was the debut for Heard, Eikenberry, and Morton, who each had started in stage and television before this film, while Goldblum had made his debut in film only three years prior while Crouse was fresh off supporting roles in All the President's Men (1976) and Slap Shot (1977). Perhaps fitting the tone of the film is the inclusion of Welles, who earlier had a supporting role in Nashville (1976). The film was shot and set in Boston.

The movie has a picturesque style of trying to show a look at a time that was within a bare plot composed of episodic pace and an attempt at forming an interesting ensemble. I just wish it was a better movie to sit through for 101 minutes, because it is an experience that seems hopelessly stuck between wistful reminiscences of a time long ago and mildly interesting humor without ever sticking to one main plot. It lingers in episodic format without making a stand for itself beyond trying to ride with mildly likeable people (except for one glaring case) that has a last act that feels like it should have been firmly in the middle. Look, you don't need much to go on about the dangers of big business in little papers, but the bare minimum is meant to be doubly excelled, not barely cleared. Heard makes for a mostly capable lead in frustration and drive. His on-again, off-again dynamic with Crouse is at least entertaining to try and hold a film longer than the other ideas presented, if only because one would like to see more when presented with someone loaded in talent that could use her as just an excuse to not write. You can already see how Goldblum became a curious presence in film here, since he practically gobbles the attention right out from under folks, one that sees him act like a flake in mostly satisfying ways that might as well be a predecessor to his role in The Big Chill (1983); I especially like a scene where he talks with a performance artist with accompanying acts of "art". Kirby makes a suitable middleman in terms of wistful charm in the foreground. Korkes makes an okay beleaguered head to the process. It should only figure the one actor who is the most loathsome in terms of who they became in later life has the least interesting performance. Collins is simply not fun to watch, seemingly trying to bring humor in self-involved author crap that is bland and easily skippable when contrasted with literally anyone on screen. Whether intended as a caricature of writers who want to write the "great American novel" or not, he doesn't do anything worth mentioning positively. Hell, Pollard is playing a cliche with the newspaper salesman on the street, and he runs circles around him when it comes to general charm because one finds Pollard endearing in the foreground and background in those moments, while Stadlen is at least meant to be a foil in his advertising shill persona. Smith only shows up in the last couple of scenes as the prospective buyer of the news station that clearly means big changes...and since the movie ends quickly after that, his impact is diminished despite the fact that he makes an imposing figure. I mean, sure, make an argument all you want about the creeping danger of big business onto papers that supposedly tap into the city, but don't just latch it in late (putting "rumors of a big buy" through the film doesn't cut it). The presentation of contrasts between Heard-Crouse and Collins-Welles would be interesting if the latter didn't end with a completely lame resolution to the latter that is less a case of "human decision-making" and more just a lazy way to throw things together. As a whole, what I like about the movie is the occasional amusing moments that come within trying to make a living in newspapers with a place now resigned to being a middle-ground on the way up or down for people, one that has some ideas wishing to flow for a stronger experience. The loss of innocence within a newspaper that sees its ambition squashed would make an intriguing tragedy, but here one finds a movie that can barely hold the jockstrap of Park Row (1952) It might be an interesting time capsule for a time long past in terms of newspaper media being more than just the option used for people who don't like reading a phone screen, and that is probably the best compliment one could make. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

Tango & Cash.

Review #1876: Tango & Cash.

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Raymond "Ray" Tango), Kurt Russell (Lieutenant Gabriel "Gabe" Cash), Jack Palance (Yves Perret), Teri Hatcher (Katherine "Kiki" Tango), Michael J. Pollard (Owen), Brion James (Requin), James Hong (Quan), Robert Z'Dar (Face), Marc Alaimo (Lopez), Roy Brocksmith (FBI Agent Davis), Phil Rubenstein (Matt Sokowski), Lewis Arquette (FBI Agent Wyler), Clint Howard (Slinky), Michael Jeter (Skinner), and Geoffrey Lewis (Captain Schroeder) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky and Albert Magnoli (#885 - Purple Rain)

Review: 

"Andrei was a real gentleman and I thought his take on "Tango and Cash" was very good and would've been infinitely more realistic had he been allowed to continue. His replacement was more attuned to comic pop culture, so the film had a dramatic shift into a more lighthearted direction."

The combination of director, producer, and star(s) for an action film has probably never seemed so surprising with a film like this. Yes, Konchalovsky was an established director, so consider his resume: an adaptation of Uncle Vanya (1970), a historical epic with Siberiade (1979), his venture into American cinema with the drama Maria's Lovers (1984)...and the action thriller Runaway Train (1985), which used a script from Akira Kurosawa. Born in Moscow, he studied for a decade at the Moscow Conservatory with the intent to be a pianist but encountering Andrei Tarkovsky led to him to working with him on the script that became Andrei Rublev (1966). Konchalovsky began his career as director with The First Teacher (1964) and did a handful of films before moving to the United States in 1980, where he resided before returning to Russia in the 1990s, with this film being his last full American production (his next film, The Inner Circle (1991), was a co-production between America, Italy, and the Soviet Union). Now, if you were wondering how this movie came about, it was based on a script by Randy Feldman, who in turn was doing it on an idea that Jon Peters and Peter Guber had thought of, with the intention of Sylvester Stallone and Patrick Swayze as the stars. But Swayze decided to do Road House (1989) instead, which served as one of many weird things to come. Konchalovsky would spend three months in the director's chair before arguments with Peters came to a boiling point because of disagreements with tone (believe it or not, Stallone was on the director's side) and budget problems. Peter MacDonald (who had directed Rambo III ironically after taking over for a director that Stallone had fired) and Stallone filled in temporarily before Albert Magnoli was hired to shoot the chase and fight scenes in the ending. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to try and do re-writes to the script but hated the final result so much that he didn't want credit. Remember that this was a film that started to shoot in June and end shooting in August of 1989...which ended up needing re-shoots for two weeks in October before intending to be released in December. It barely met its goal, thanks to editing from three people, including Stuart Baird, who had edited countless movies such as Lethal Weapon and its sequel (incidentally, he would be brought in to fix further troubled movies such as The Last Boy Scout), with the film being released on December 22, serving alongside Always) as the last movies released in the 1980s.

Wait, people didn't care for this film in 1989? What exactly did they expect? It wasn't exactly a great commercial hit, but there is a tinge of appreciation for it after over 30 years. Honestly, I enjoyed it just fine, as it is a movie that does exactly what it wants to do in macho action flair. A sillier person could possibly make the argument that this is a play on the action genre, one that is as goofy and beefed up as possible with the most obvious lead stars to accomplish this goal. My god, it's a movie that starts with someone shooting a vehicle to reveal cocaine, continues with a guy using rats to demonstrate his complicated scheme, and ends with monster trucks and tank-like SUVs - who would resist? I understand the potential for a serious buddy cop type of movie, but sometimes going for broke really is the better option. For someone who is fascinated at seeing both Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell on screen like I am, this is basically the ideal bait. That doesn't mean that it is infallible in being good (because, trust me, Stallone has had made a few duds worth talking about), but it does mean that the curiosity factor went up far more than if it was just a strait-laced attempt at buddy cop stuff. Call me a junk connoisseur, but I do enjoy movies with a bit of bombast and confidence to just go on the beat of its own drum in action, winking eyes or not (my problems are more if someone tries to bullshit their movie into "up their own ass" territory"). Calling it a bastardized Lethal Weapon only serves to make the interest go up, not down, considering the impending mediocrity of movies that tried to hone in buddy cop cliches in obligation or bewildering confusion with 1990's Another 48 Hrs. or The Rookie.

Honestly, I understand where Stallone was coming from with the character, he tries to play here in this offbeat take on the action cop type with glasses (actual ones used by Stallone) and a banker attire...but Stallone is Stallone. Making a chuckle with "Rambo is a pussy" is cute, but one knows that the best way to contain the ever-growing ego of Stallone (when you created Rocky, you get slack) is to just let him be himself. He has the schlock factor of someone who would've been "man in a suit" for a certain type of older movies, but he does it with a certain charm that you go along with what he tries to pull here. Besides, Russell has always been a favorite with me, in that he can basically walk through a role with no trouble, which I would expect from someone who went from Disney child star to a guy who can pass for both comedy and drama. He passes through here with casual charm, one who knows what kind of movie he is in without thinking they are above it all, smirking his way through with the kind of stubborn tenacity I would expect to see play out when playing out this intense dunderhead chemistry shared with Stallone that plays in the vein of The Odd Couple at times. Of course, in the middle of this is James, whose went from having two scenes turned into more when they liked his "Cockney" accent (he was an American with plenty of experience playing bad guys). He overshadows Palance (who even manages to turn a role of watching things happen into a ham) to the benefit of the movie when it comes to casual derangement. Hatcher would obviously find better material to hone in her charms (besides TV anyway) while Pollard breezes through with light amusement. The climax is preposterous and exactly what one could expect without dull surprises. As a whole, it manages to rein enough out of 104 minutes for stupefying fun that I believe make it a worthy curiosity, one with the general action sought by audiences with corny liners and general engagement from two likable stars to carry it despite plenty of clear faults and excesses. If you've seen one, you've seen plenty, but the folks that enjoy what they like to enjoy will be right at home here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Wild Angels.

Review #1423: The Wild Angels.

Cast: 

Peter Fonda (Heavenly Blues), Nancy Sinatra (Mike), Bruce Dern (Joe 'Loser' Kearns), Diane Ladd (Gaysh), Buck Taylor (Dear John), Norman Alden (Medic), Michael J. Pollard (Pigmy), and Frank Maxwell (Funeral preacher) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, and #1186 - A Bucket of Blood)

Review: 

What has been said about Roger Corman that hasn't been said before? He is a trailblazer of independent cinema, one who has directed, wrote, and produced numerous films over in over six decades of work, whether through American International Pictures or through New World Pictures (which he founded) or through various ventures. He has collaborated with several people who have gone on to have careers of their own such as directors Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, and Peter Bogdanovich (who served as production assistant and un-credited writer that modified Charles B. Griffith's script). He made films in a variety of genres for studios, whether that meant Westerns, horror, or exploitation features like this. He was inspired to do this film from a photograph in Life magazine that depicted a group of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang on their way to a funeral for a member. It wasn't the first film to depict a motorcycle rampage (popularized by The Wild One (1953) and subsequent exploitations films), but it would attempt to show its gang from the inside, since Corman saw them as "riding free as a modern-day cowboy." (this was of course before they were profiled by Hunter S. Thompson in 1967 and events such as the Altamont disaster). Actual members of the club were utilized for the film, paid $35 a day for cooperation and $25 for use of the bikes. Dern found himself with a role for the film when George Chakiris could not ride a motorcycle (imagine wanting a stunt double for a film about outlaw bikers as a focus), so Fonda went from a supporting role in the Loser character to the main focus.

This is the kind of film that has an aim for freedom with its characters, what with its climatic quote near the end from Fonda about said desire for freedom without trouble from "The Man" and have a good time doing it. The fact that this is said during a funeral only makes it amusing (particularly since it was later sampled for a song). There is a sense of ridiculousness with how it tries to balance its nihilism with a wavering focus and pallid pace at 93 minutes. I suppose this is the best example of a film fitting the project management triangle: It can be good, fast, or cheap, but one can only pick two of those options. In this case, it is evident that the latter two fit this film to a T. One could've made a film with less dialogue and probably come out better for it than what happens here. On the one hand, it is an interesting piece for the late 1960s that shows some promise in the beginning, but ultimately it can't quite live up as anything other than mild exploitation at best, something that aims for riding free but ultimately coming up short of anything really meaningful. Fonda, a different kind of leading man that would become a counterculture figure for the era, pulls off a subdued performance that has a small edge of calm collectedness in leading a band of misfits to whatever point seems necessary, whether that means raising trouble or not. Sinatra, a singer (best known for her hit song "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'" in 1966) and occasional actor, proves to be a quiet calm presence that seems in need of more to do (the same could be said for Ladd). Dern, who would go on to a career of his own with usually villainous supporting roles, is rough but interesting to view in the time he is present, even if his last scene is just him acting dead and being given a cigarette in a ruckus. The others come and go with a line or so, and a lack of conflict (no, arguing with a preacher over how the funeral should be doesn't count) makes things teeter on tediousness, with a dispiriting ending that I suppose is meant to mean something about not having anywhere else to go. Perhaps that is an apt metaphor for an average film that never really seems to go anywhere to begin with. To me, it seems too dated to really rise to something worth checking out, unless one really needs a raucous biker film from way back when or want to see a selection from Roger Corman in his prime decade.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967).

Review #981: Bonnie and Clyde.

Cast:
Warren Beatty (Clyde Barrow), Faye Dunaway (Bonnie Parker), Michael J. Pollard (C.W. Moss), Gene Hackman (Buck Barrow), Estelle Parsons (Blanche Barrow), Denver Pyle (Frank Hamer), Dub Taylor (Ivan Moss), Gene Wilder (Eugene Grizzard), and Evans Evans (Velma Davis) Directed by Arthur Penn.

Review:
August holds significance for this film, as it was released 50 years ago on this month, with three different premieres: August 4 (for the Montréal Film Festival), August 13 (New York), and August 23 (Los Angeles) before going into general release the following month. In any case, I decided it made sense to finally cover this movie today to see how it has aged after (roughly) 50 years. There is something about how the movie works on nearly every level, from its cinematography by Burnett Guffey to its dynamic cast to how it becomes more than just a movie with violence (and lots of it) that opened the floodgates to a new level of bloodshed in cinema that is still readily apparent today. There have been countless other films revolving around criminals and/or a good deal of violence (such as say, The Wild Bunch (#591), though that was a Western), but this does not manage to fall into the background because of how it operates itself, with the ending scene being shocking in its execution. Of note is the use of squibs (a miniature explosive device) in order to imitate bullet hits, which surely stands out from prior movies that didn't have as much (or any) blood for the violence. The editing by Dede Allen is also quite good, having a rapid pace that rolls with the action neatly, with influence coming from the styles used for films directed during the French New Wave. Beatty and Dunaway both do great jobs, along with having a great chemistry together that seems instantaneous. The rest of the cast is also quite excellent in roles that led to further fame (along with an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for Parsons), with Hackman and Parsons being enjoyable to watch in their interactions within the Barrow Gang. In a film as rough as this is, there is still a level of humor and excitement one can get from all that happens in the movie, from the first scene with Beatty and Dunaway to the Gang escaping from the cops with Parsons holding onto a spatula. It's a forthright kind of film that never seems inauthentic with its goals and pace. The film does take liberties with what happened in real life with the Barrow gang, but it does not alter the fact that this is still a fine piece of entertainment that never ceases to be anything other than captivating.

This was a controversial film upon release, with criticism being about the level of violence apparent in the movie, but it was still a major success (no doubt due its appeal for the generation the movie was released to). No matter what you might think about how the film portrays violence, the legacy that Bonnie and Clyde has in changing the way violence is depicted on screen is undeniably still felt today, for better or for worse. It may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it definitely pulls no punches in how it operates itself and achieves all of its goals.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.