Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

Review #2572: Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

Cast:

Mickey Rourke (Harley Davidson), Don Johnson (Robert Lee "Marlboro Man" Edison), Chelsea Field (Officer Virginia Slim), Tom Sizemore (Chance Wilder), Daniel Baldwin (Alexander), Vanessa Williams (Lulu Daniels), Giancarlo Esposito (Jimmy Jiles), Robert Ginty (Thom), Tia Carrere (Kimiko), Big John Studd (Jack Daniels), Julius Harris ('The Old Man' Jiles), Eloy Casados (Jose Cuervo), and Kelly Hu (Suzie) Directed by Simon Wincer.

Review: 

You're never going to believe this: a buddy biker action movie (that could also be called a "neo-Western") that wasn't a hit on release. The film was directed by one Simon Wincer, an Australian director that had done plenty of television before becoming a film guy with such movies as Snapshot (1979), D.A.R.Y.L. (1985) and Quigley Down Under (1990). The original script was written by aspiring actor Don Michael Paul that apparently took inspiration from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid [1969] (which is strange because the movie has exactly one robbery while Cassidy features multiple robberies and a failed attempt at going straight, although a "super-posse" does sound pretty prevalent in both). It soon found a deal with MGM (at the time in hell with Giancarlo Parretti in management) and a quick turnaround with Wincer and company (you might be wondering - Paul? Yes, that's correct, Paul ended up being the writer/director for Half Past Dead [2002]*). Sure, Johnson and Rourke were mostly in it to try and get out of career ruts, but they apparently had a decent time making the movie. Released on August 23, 1991 (the same week as movies such as Dead Again) with little expectations from even MGM's own president at the time with a budget of roughly $18 million, the movie made less than half of that. Wincer went on to make a string of movies that surely sound normal: Free Willy (1993), that movie with a big whale in it, Lightning Jack (1994), an ill-fated attempt at a Paul Hogan vehicle (?), Operation Dumbo Drop (1995), a movie involving an elephant in the Vietnam War (no, really), and The Phantom (1996), a comic strip movie with a big purple costumed hero.

The heroes being named after brands was, well, not trying to sell cigarettes (which suck anyway*) or motorcycles. The real movie basically starts about nearly an hour after the heist is done and it's just two folks riding around trying to make the best of the fact that one can barely shoot a gun and the other wears duct-tape boots. Rourke was there solely for the money because of a string of flops and decided that as a 39-year-old in 1991 to do, and I'm not kidding, focus his time on boxing (he wound up doing a few fights around the world before going back to acting). Meanwhile, the elder Johnson (i.e. early forties) was still hoping to branch out from being more than Crockett from Miami Vice (hey, in fairness, he was fine in A Boy and His Dog [1975]). Even with that type of freewheeling attitude, there is still a veneer of interest in watching these people meander across the screen engaging in the most predictable type of adventure imaginable because they do conjure up a smile for those who are familiar with wiseasses that should know better. It's the kind of movie for those who thought Tango & Cash (1989) or Stone Cold (1991) were sick as hell, honestly. What other movie goes around having characters spend 99 percent of the time in duct-taped boots to go along with stunts of jumping onto pools or say, a person falling off a motorcycle just so it rolls at a group of people (who naturally all jump over it at the same time)? Or arm wrestling / bar fights? 

Much like the film, there are no excuses for what I do (see, I do crib quotes) in saying that this was a pretty decent movie in basically exploring two people that don't really know what they want besides having as much as possible before, well, the ride of the grim reaper hits. It just happens to be a movie where folks decide to rob a bank threatening to foreclose their favorite bar. Sure, it doesn't have much for Field to really do opposite Johnson (Williams also gets exactly one scene that doesn't involve singing), and sure, Baldwin and Sizemore don't get that much to particularly do as the primary adversaries (one basically travels in a straight line with other black-coated dudes but you still go, "cool"), and sure, it's a movie that hinges on selling drugs *back* to the people they robbed (equal opportunity robbers that don't love addictive drugs, what a pairing) but I got a kick out of its entertainment value. When your favorite place gets trashed (or in the modern sense, bought out or turned lame) by a bunch of stooges from a bank (capital?) just because they can, yeah, I would think wish fulfillment in getting revenge sounds like a fun time for 98 minutes, quite honestly. 35 years haven't exactly elevated it all the way to a cult movie, but it is the kind of curious movie to watch get on the road to ass-kicking and a few chuckles along the way.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: At last, a movie title worthy for this month: Freaked.

*Supposedly, Johnson had his friend Sean "Arizona Slim" Walsh (a Miami Vice script doctor) and Jay Helfert write the pool hall scene that introduces his character. Wikipedia is fairly trustworthy on select movies, but I prefer a clickable link, so who knows?

*Movie Night explicitly says that cigarettes are a shitty product in every shape or form. Hell, that goes for vaping too. 

*I really should watch Rourke in The Wrestler, I keep forgetting to do that one. A whole lot easier to justify than watching Sean Penn in Milk, that's for sure. 

Buffalo '66.

Review #2341: Buffalo '66.

Cast: 

Vincent Gallo (Billy Brown; John Sansone as young Billy Brown), Christina Ricci (Layla), Ben Gazzara (Jimmy Brown), Mickey Rourke (The Bookie), Rosanna Arquette (Wendy Balsam), Jan-Michael Vincent (Sonny), Anjelica Huston (Jan Brown), John Rummel (Don Shanks), with Kevin Pollak and Alex Karras (TV sportcasters), Kevin Corrigan (Goon/Rocky), and Bob Wahl (Scott Wood) Directed by Vincent Gallo.

Review: 

"I’m really a controlling person. I don’t want somebody else to do the cinematography, I don’t want somebody else to do the poster - I did the poster. I don’t want somebody else to do the trailer - I did the trailer. I don’t want somebody else to do the casting - I did the casting. I don’t want somebody else to produce the movie - I produced the movie. I did the music, I designed the shoes, I controlled everything. Even if you look at the credits where it says costume person - I did the costumes. No one made any decisions on Buffalo 66, no one physically did anything unless it was my concept, my plan, my idea. That felt really good. Am I a filmmaker? No. A control freak and a hustler is what I really am."

Sure, it might be a bit strange to have curiosity for a film mostly because of its title, but it probably isn't as strange as the winding road of Vincent Gallo as a director. Honestly, the reason I became aware of Gallo was, um, his appearance in an ESPN piece about his hometown Buffalo Bills that I stumbled onto a few years ago. Anyway, Gallo was born in Buffalo, New York in 1961 to a family with parents he once described as "dishonest people" (food for thought: his mother, a noted superfan of the Bills is credited as a producer while a song his father Vincent Sr. sung is featured in the movie). He apparently worked for the local mafia in the city at the age of 12 in jacking cars and shoplifting but was eventually convinced to After graduating high school, he ran away to New York City. From there you might bat an eye at his pursuits: hi-fi guitar shop worker, Formula II motorbike racer, painter, model for Calvin Klein and above all else, musician and actor .He acted in a wide variety of shorts and films, ranging from his debut in the "No Wave" film The Way It Is or Eurydice in the Avenues (1985) to a small part in Goodfellas (1990) and lead roles in Palookaville (1995) and Truth or Consequences, N.M. (1997). Gallo has released two films as a director since the release of Buffalo '66 while basically doing whatever he felt like doing, ranging from stoking controversy with his film The Brown Bunny (which premiered in 2003 to furor before an edit was released in 2004) to making a film in Promises Written in Water (2010) that was shown in two festival screenings and has not been available for anyone to see since to go along with occasionally acting such as Tetro (2009) and composing music (to take what he says on his website completely seriously, specifically selling himself to women aside from shilling his music, would be a joke unto itself).

According to Gallo, he wrote the first version of Buffalo '66 in 1989 that dealt with a character trying to win a big part in a film. Of course, the loss of the Bills in Super Bowl XXV in 1991 played a part in the idea to re-think the script. He re-wrote the film with Alison Bagnall, who obtained a co-credit on the screenplay while Gallo claimed she "really was my typist for a couple of weeks" (she has since wrote or directed three films on her own). Monte Hellman had originally set it up for himself to direct, but the apparent desire by the producers to wait for snow (well, the film was shot in Buffalo) to go along with Gallo's desire to shoot it right away (on reversal stock, no less) led to Gallo deciding to do it himself, which was done for roughly $1.5 million in the city of Buffalo (the house Gallo grew up in is the one you see in the film). Whatever one thinks of Gallo (provocateur, hustler, psychopath, genius, take your pick), I will say Buffalo '66 is a curious experience, one that defies you to call it "self-indulgent" (the director-writer-actor-musician Gallo once claimed that he designed most of the film's cinematography rather than Lance Acord, who he said had "no aesthetic point of view"), particularly for a film with basically an emotional hustler for a lead (his look apparently served as the basis for the 2011 video game Catherine, which clearly makes this a weird world indeed). It is a movie for the strange one in all of our hearts: compulsive, foolish, insecure, vulnerable, but most of all: being a creature of nature (whether as part of it or as bystander). In short: sincerity is a long hard road to actually reach, no matter how one calls themselves. It is a disorientating type of movie that rolls along with a nail-line belief in things that would make Blast of Silence (1961) blush in all of its hang-ups (real or imagined) that I can't help but appreciate in its twisted vision. It is the kind of honesty you could only find when coming back home to the old neighborhood, where a sight of the pavement could remind you of nightmares long past, or, for some, nightmares that pervade on anyways.

Ricci (for probably obvious reasons) did not particularly enjoy her time on the film with Gallo, but she does quite well here, managing to balance the tight rope that comes with basically being a puppet or circumstance. Puppet or whatever you call it, there is something about the way she approaches a scene with her mannerisms (call it "the time when Gallo isn't running his mouth") that is endearing in the strangest sense of the word. Consider the photobooth sequence in just looking at these people when it comes to "take photo" mixed with "spanning time". Far from kindred spirits, they just happen to be creatures of varying ideas of what love sounds like (I'm reminded that some people do take what they see on TV and implant that as an expectation). The funny thing is that the supporting presences are each fascinating in selling moments on the timing of a noir. You've got Rourke having two minutes in a chair that is strangely amusing more than just being a bit. Huston (and a wig) and her lunacy practically hits the movie with the commitment level of a 2x4 that goes hand in hand with the slimyness of Gazzara, who in one scene lip synthesis to a song to Ricci (consider that the song was one originally sung by "Vincent Gallo Sr."). Corrigan didn't want to be credited at the time, but his wallowing disposition is immediately effective. The movie builds in curiosity despite all odds that seem against it (murky, strange and building to a climax that could only come from immaturity in motivation) because it just...goes for it all in transgressive energy. What one sees in the scene that ends the film (as compared to the one that starts it) leaves the viewers with the idea that maybe, just maybe, one can exorcise at least one hang-up in their mind. Call it unflattering, call it a strange city movie, call it whatver, but you can't call Buffalo '66 a wasted effort on anyone's time or place, and I'd say that is the ultimate victory possible for the acerbic person responsible for it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Yes, at last I finally get to this one. Honestly, I had this movie in mind for a number of years if the Buffalo Bills were in striking distance of a Super Bowl. Four years ago [the last January before I started New Directors Month, point in fact], in the leadup to the AFC Championship, I reviewed movies from 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 to match, well, Buffalo winning the AFC in those seasons.

Movie Night, and by that, I mean myself, have an affinity for teams like the Bills in wanting to see them (and the city) happy as New York's only pro football team. With that in mind: Go Bills!

Movie Night: Diner.

Review #561: Diner.

Cast
Steve Guttenberg (Edward "Eddie" Simmons), Daniel Stern (Laurence "Shrevie" Schreiber), Mickey Rourke (Robert "Boogie" Sheftell), Kevin Bacon (Timothy "Fen" Fenwick Jr), Tim Daly (William "Billy" Howard), Ellen Barkin (Beth Schreiber), Paul Reiser (Modell), Kathryn Dowling (Barbara), and Michael Tucker (Bagel) Directed by Barry Levinson (#383 - The Natural)

Review
Diner was Barry Levinson's directorial debut, and his first set around the city of Baltimore (He would make three others based on the city such as Tin Men, Avalon, and Liberty Heights), this being set on the turn of the 1950's. This is a very fun film to watch, this a movie that doesn't need much of a plot to work, it's a series of events that are pretty funny but also brilliant to watch (I like this one brief scene where Reiser complains over the word nuance. It's a short scene, but it exemplifies how random conversations get between friends, even over the stupidest things) The main five actors are great, they function well with each other, and that's the point of the movie. It's just a bunch of friends reuniting with one another for the wedding of one of them, but it's not about the wedding, it's a collection of moments between friends, a movie that feels natural, a movie that has fun and it's a movie that certainly delivers.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Double Team.

Review #379: Double Team.

Cast
Jean-Claude Van Damme (Jack Quinn), Dennis Rodman (Yaz), Mickey Rourke (Stavro), Natacha Lindinger (Kathryn Quinn), and Paul Freeman (Alex Goldsmythe) Directed by Tsui Hark.

Review
This is a weird combination, isn't it? Obvioously not because of Van Damme, but because of Rodman. I don't know if it is the rainbow-ish hair or the fact that even when he wears a hat, he sticks out like a sore thumb. The thing about this combination is that it makes no sense. Who in their right mind thought this was going to be successful? Rodman manages to do no better than Michael Jordan (#235: Space Jam) in terms of athletes trying to act. Van Damme (llast seen here in #326 - Timecop) does okay, but it feels he isn't trying that much to begin with, but who is? Mickey Rourke is strangely in this film, last seen doing better films (such as #047 - The Expendables and #334 - Iron Man 2) in better times. The film's action scenes, rather than entertaining the viewer, reminds them of better action films. While the film has one scene (involving a soda machine, a tiger and some mines) that is memorable, it is memorable for all the wrong reasons. The film doesn't keep much interest despite Rodman and Damme "trying" in vein. Sometimes picking two random names from a hat does not mean a good combo for a film.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 2.

Review #334: Iron Man 2.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff), Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer), Mickey Rourke (Ivan Vanko), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Garry Shandling (Stern), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Jon Favreau (#135 - Iron Man)

Review
This is the tenth Marvel film reviewed here (X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers), the fifth in the Marvel film Universe that has been taking place the last few years. This is the sequel to Iron Man (Obviously), but does it hold up to its predecessor? In some ways, yes. Downey does a fine job once again, keeping that distinct, yet fun personality. Paltrow and Downey mesh well once again, and Cheadle (though not the same actor from the first film) works well into the film. And then there is the villain. Rourke is good, but I feel that the film doesn't focus on him enough. While the first film had a villain that gradually came to be only in the end, there was a feeling for that character. And yes there is another villain (sort of), but it's not exactly a feel of a villain. But oh well, the action is still entertaining and it doesn't really have other real big flaws. While it may not be as good as the first, it still is good enough to work out in the end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.