True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Boyhood.

Review #1568: Boyhood.

Cast:

Ellar Coltrane (Mason Evans Jr), Patricia Arquette (Olivia), Ethan Hawke (Mason Evans Sr), Lorelei Linklater (Samantha Evans), Libby Villari (Catherine), Marco Perella (Bill Welbrock), Brad Hawkins (Jim), Jamie Howard (Mindy Welbrock), Andrew Villarreal (Randy Welbrock), Jenni Tooley (Annie), Richard Andrew Jones (Annie's father), Karen Jones (Annie's mother), Bill Wise (Steve Evans), Zoe Graham (Sheena), and Charlie Sexton (Jimmy) Written and Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock, #1138 - Dazed and Confused, and #1206 - Bernie)

Review:

"It had been growing in me in ’99 and 2000. I’d been a dad for a while and seeing a kid growing up is a very intense thing. It made me think, ‘What about my childhood? What is childhood? Maybe I’ll make a film about childhood.’ But I was frustrated because I couldn’t pick a moment. It became a storytelling challenge and I’d almost given up, and then in 2001 the idea hit me in one big moment: We’ll film a little bit every year.”

It makes sense for a Texan to have made a variety of his films involving his home state in some form or another, so it should prove no surprise to see Richard Linklater with a distinct film to display his canvas of cinema again. The Houston native was involved in sports from a young age that led to a scholarship at Sam Houston State for baseball before moving back to work on an offshore oil rig. During those years on the rig, he found himself interested in film through watching them at the theaters. He would start venturing into his own moviemaking by buying his own Super-8 film camera and did his own short films. He made his first feature with the camera with It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books (1988), a minimalist movie that he handled all the production duties that never had a wide release. His next feature proved to be an indie standout in Slacker (1990), which he wrote/produced/starred in that achieved attention and profit made despite a small release that dealt with misfits in Austin, Texas. Over the course of three decades, Linklater has made a variety of films with distinguishing features, whether that involves a relationship over the years in the Before trilogy (1995, 2004, 2013) or films involving animation like Waking Life (2001).

Someday, there might be a time when a Linklater film really resonates with me and seems ambitious enough to actually accomplish what it sets out to do for a true classic. It is good film, no question about that, one that is unique for its filming over the course of twelve years that follows a growth from child to teenager in all the bumps and rolls. Oh sure, the adults at every turn find ways to interact with our main star in their lectures with him about what he is supposed to be (whether as a kid doing homework or a cleaner doing his job), and it is this sense that he perhaps becomes someone reminiscent of the pathway presented in Dazed and Confused (1993) in being oneself in their own life. Of course that presents a strange little problem: that film was unbelievably average, and this film is just above average in what really matters in the end in what was described by Hawke as “human time-lapse photography". The film wants to play its game of highlighting the little moments between things that make a person's life rather than just being aligned on the big milestones (good or bad) to try and be documentary realism with the drama of ordinary life in a movie. If this reminded me of anything, it reminds me of a documentary series I look up every so often in curiosity despite never seeing it: The Up series, which has followed the lives of a group of children from when they were 7 that started in 1964 that checks up on them every seven years. Not every child brought in for that project has continued on to that project, but this is a different story in filming people over and over again without being obligated to do it under contract (since one can't contract someone for that long of work), and a script wasn't even finished before filming began, aside from a few contracted points of plot for each character that would segue into writing the script for each year of filming after seeing/doing the previous year's footage. Sure, you could make a story based on the idea of talking about the little victories/losses between the main procession of life without the supposed clichés that come from it, but I don't really buy that as really all that refreshing. If I filmed fifteen minutes of a one day and then returned to do the process again the next year for fifteen years and brushed aside key moments (like moments with finance or moments with friends outside, whichever sounds more believable), could one just wave their hands at that and say "look upon this and how it depicts LIFE!" - by that point, we are getting ourselves into subjective desires for what makes a good story worth following. I liked most what I saw, achieving most of its lofty goals through a long pace of 165 minutes that could prove an interesting starting point on one's patience - so here we are.

Coltrane was six years old when he was cast for a project like no other for an actor. It is the journey that counts in seeing his evolution play out on screen from innocence boyhood to making his step into the real world. Do I relate to all of his journey? In parts, I do, but at least Coltrane can be given credit for making this journey at least seem more than a series of vignettes (although one almost wonders if it was almost more suited for the progression of television). With actors like Hawke and Arquette playing parents in the film, it is nice to look upon the contrast and presence each bring to the feature and highlight their qualities (which to me works out better in observation for the former than the latter, although it is more about preference rather than saying one has more "fun" scenes), even if listing them as "support" when it came to awards season is a bit dubious (because if there are no parents here, we would have an entirely different film, estranged from the "ordinary" Boyhood). There is just something appealing about the feckless charm shown by Hawke here, one whose differences in being a figure to his children that pops in from time to time proves his worth in moving forward with strong will and humor that shines with Coltrane in those moments together, particularly for the last one at the gig venue that might as well have been the last sequence. Arquette does fine with gravitating the expectations and hopes that come from primary care of maintaining all the pressures of family and beyond, the unwavering presence in the storm of ambitions and life passing by, which I suppose makes it all worth that last scene with Coltrane. L. Linklater (daughter of R. Linklater) is fine, in the same way that she has her own bit of growth over the years that come across in the film with a set point to rest on. Others are there to serve as markers for where one is in the story, whether that involves a brash Perella or Hawkins, for better or worse when it comes to relevance. Maybe it all plays into the idea that narratives in life don't have to end in a neat little bow, and that might prove worthy for those who get into what the film is selling as a portrait of life in the margins. I don't know, I just think that's a bit convenient, since it ends on a line about the moment seizing oneself rather than the other way around - a slacker moment to roll the eyes with for a film that will either prove profound or otherwise for viewers. If you find yourself dazzled by what the film brings to the table in a 12-year tale involving a particular vision of what it means to grow up from a director who has liked to make distinct movies of story, all power to you. For me, it is good, but not quite a great feature that shows some flickering interest in where it could go in its vision and the occasional response it can generate involving childhood experiences with a decent cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.

Review #649: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.

Cast
Heather Langenkamp (Dr. Nancy Thompson), Patricia Arquette (Kristen Parker), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Craig Wasson (Dr. Neil Gordon), Ken Sagoes (Roland Kincaid), Jennifer Rubin (Taryn White), Bradley Gregg (Phillip Anderson), Ira Heiden (Will Stanton), Laurence Fishburne (Max Daniels), John Saxon (Donald Thompson), Rodney Eastman (Joey Crusel), and Penelope Sudrow (Jennifer Caulfield) Directed by Chuck Russell (#157 - The Mask)

Review
I described the second movie (Freddy's Revenge) as "a mismatch of random ideas that spring into a less than mediocre horror film." With that in mind, the third film can't be as bad because Langenkamp returns to the series, and she does a pretty good job once again, she doesn't get on your nerves (like the doctors in this movie), and she's not annoying, like some of the characters, such as the doctors (save for Wasson and Fishburne), who just keep believing that the dreams aren't killing them, despite two of them dying, because apparently none of the doctors have ever heard of Freddy Krueger. At least the actors are pretty good, Arquette is a pretty decent co-lead, though for me one of my favorite actors that return is John Saxon. He doesn't get too much screen time, but he is awesome to watch, for me it's his expressions and how he reacts to all of this, Saxon is just so cool to watch. The effects are pretty good, although for some reason my favorite scene is when Dick Cavett (in the strangest cameo for a horror movie I've seen in a while) suddenly turns into Kreuger while interviewing Zsa Zsa Gabor (2nd strangest cameo), which segues into one of the kids' deaths, which is a cool scene as well. The fact that Wes Craven returns to help write the screenplay is also a big help, and Russell does a pretty good job directing, I like how Kreuger is given something new to do, and Englund excels at that. The movie is not near the first's level of scares, but it's better than the second film and it's entertaining enough for October, or as I call it, Spooktober. Check it out, and have some fun-I mean fright.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Holes.

Review #187: Holes.

Cast,
Shia LaBeouf (Stanley Yelnats IV), Khleo Thomas (Hector Zeroni), Sigourney Weaver (Louise Walker), Jon Voight (Marion Sevillo), Patricia Arquette (Kate Barlow), Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Pendanski), Dulé Hill (Sam), Henry Winkler (Stanley Yelnats III), and Eartha Kitt (Madame Zeroni) Directed by Andrew Davis (#176 - The Fugitive)

Review
Holes is based off the 1998 novel by Louis Sachar, and the film follows it pretty well. There is one thing to distinguish it a bit from most book to film adaptations, and that is that Sachar wrote the screenplay for this film, which gives some of the good part in the film, with the rest just being the acting, atmosphere, wit, and charm. LeBeouf *sigh* can be a good actor, with the films he has been in on this show (#057 - Transformers and #058 - Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen), this is a good one by him. The others in the cast such as Weaver, Voight, Thomas, and Kitt all do a good job in the time they're given. Good cast with good direction make...well, a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.