Posse (1993)

Review #2180: Posse.

Cast: 

Mario Van Peebles (Jesse Lee), Stephen Baldwin (Jimmy J. "Little J" Teeters), Billy Zane (Colonel Graham), Tone-Lōc (Angel), Melvin Van Peebles (Joe "Papa Joe"), Tom Lister Jr (Obobo), Big Daddy Kane ("Father Time"), Reginald VelJohnson (Preston), Blair Underwood (Sheriff Carver), Isaac Hayes (Cable), Charles Lane ("Weezie"), Robert Hooks (David "King David" Lee), Richard Jordan (Sheriff Bates), Pam Grier (Phoebe), Nipsey Russell (Snopes), Paul Bartel (Mayor Bigwood), Salli Richardson (Lana), and Woody Strode (The Storyteller) Directed by Mario Van Peebles (#1978 - New Jack City)

Review: 

Oh sure, "revisionist Western" isn't exactly the newest thing for the 1990s, but, hey, I dig action Westerns or ones with interesting ensembles, and I had this film in mind for last February, so screw it. This was the second film directed by Mario Van Peebles, following the resounding success of New Jack City (1991), and it perhaps makes sense to make a big spectacle Western film and have yourself as the star. Hell, if Eastwood or Poitier can do it...anyway, the film was written by rookie screenwriters Sy Richardson and Dario Scardapane. The film was a modest hit with audiences at the time, at least on a reported budget of $3 million. Strode, who had previously been featured in a variety of Westerns alongside documentaries such as Black Rodeo (1972), is featured for parts in the beginning and end, which also includes a clip from Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) to go with clips from older black cowboys such as The Bronze Buckaroo (1939). Of course, like Buck and the Preacher, it never hurts to have something to jog interest in actual historical things, such as with Buffalo Soldiers, the U.S. Army regiments consisting of African Americans that served on the frontier for the latter years of the 19th century and early 20th century. In 1997, Van Peebles wrote and starred in a made-for-TV/video film called Los Locos, which was directed by Jean-Marc Vallée (director of future films such as Dallas Buyers Club), which was billed in some places as "Posse Rides Again", even though it really isn't related to this film. Van Peebles has kept busy over the years in directing (sometimes in television), whether that involves television or his latest film, which appropriately or not, is titled Outlaw Posse (2024).

It is a frantic film that seems like a tribute to the energetic Spaghetti Westerns along with blaxploitation features, which means one has a film that sometimes looks like it is going to collapse under its overwhelming nature. Is it overproduced and underdeveloped in characters? Maybe, but if you throw a bunch of likeable folks and a few cute moments together, then why not? What, one has to say they are a serious Western in order to be thought of as such? Fun indulgence when it comes to spinning a "town defense" story generally wins most of the time. This is a film with dueling narratives of "revenge and perseverance" that flashes off for start and end of 111 minutes with a bit of flabbiness in the middle. The persistent flashbacks remind me of High Plains Drifter (1973), which I can see as both interesting and slightly overproduced by the time one sees a sepia tone sequence involving folks you know are responsible again (which is where you see Hooks at any point of the film). The strong silent type works fine for Van Peebles, because in a film of generally familiar roles, he doesn't strain himself one bit, unless one finds macho posturing to be some sort of bad thing (one isn't exactly expecting a comedy Western like Blazing Saddles). Of the folks around him in the "posse", probably Baldwin does best when it comes to conniving relief, although Kane's relaxed composure is close at hand. If one accepts the array of appearances that might as well be cameos, it is fine to see folks like Hayes appear briefly (and yes, one does get a scene or so with father and son of Van Peebles, which I would expect for indulgences). Zane chomps the screen from time to time in general skullduggery that is totally in line with a fun Western outlook (complete with eyepatch and ridiculous final scene), while Jordan (in his penultimate film role prior to his death in 1993) strikes at the heart of venom and malice that is also fair to appreciate in acting. As a whole, the film is frenzied and probably a bit slipshod when it comes to doing anything particularly new with the genre, but I appreciate the attempt to make a black cowboy film on one's own terms. It was fun enough to watch once and get a few kicks out of the execution of action, and it might work out just as well for you if one is the mindset for what it is selling. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Review #2063: The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Cast: 

Robert Mitchum (Eddie Coyle), Peter Boyle (Dillon), Richard Jordan (Dave Foley), Steven Keats (Jackie Brown), Alex Rocco (Jimmy Scalise), Joe Santos (Artie Van), Mitchell Ryan (Waters), Helena Carroll (Sheila Coyle), Jack Kehoe (The Beard), Margaret Ladd (Andrea), and James Tolkan (The Man's Contact Man) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt, #927 - Krull, and #1197 - The Deep)

Review: 

In 1970, George V. Higgins saw his first novel in The Friends of Eddie Coyle become published. Formerly, he had served his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a deputy assistant attorney general alongside as an Assistant United State Attorney. Higgins dabbled as a novelist when not involved in private practice in law that distilled the words that he would hear from gangsters and made them the kind of thing you would hear in a great potboiler. Better writers than me can lend you some context within the scene of Boston and gangs (as presented here). It made some sense to have Peter Yates as director, as his third effort with Robbery (1967) had given him a chance to direct Bullitt (1968), a movie packed with a car chase so notable that I'm sure those who view it now will talk about with fanfare; Yates directed a variety of genres besides crime of course, but, well, we are here to talk about a film that was underappreciated by audiences in its time. This is the first of only two adaptations of a Higgins book, with the only other one being Killing Them Softly (2012). Paul Monash wrote the screenplay while serving as producer. Of the films that Yates made, he stated that the three films he was most proud of was Breaking Away (1979), The Dresser (1983), and this film.

When it comes to the grimy classics of a decade as ideal for grimy films as the 1970s were, you can't really go wrong with this one. Life is hard, but it sure is harder if you are stupid, as is reflected within the dialogue that is told with such dedicated efficiency. Before you get to films of the region such as The Town (2010) or The Departed (2006), you might want to consider this one when it comes to looking at the people that dwell in the corners of crime. This isn't merely just the big-timers or two-bit hustlers, it involves folks wrapped firmly in the middle, the kind that are referred to with irony as having friends. It rewards those who value character presences such as Boyle or Keats to serve in the lines behind the immeasurable Mitchum. One of the cast members actually was formerly involved in organized crime within the East in Rocco, who was linked loosely with the Winter Hill Gang in the Boston area that had seen him accused of being involved in an assault on a diner owner. Apparently, when Mitchum had asked to see a local gangster for research, Rocco tapped him to see Howie Winter, who was still part of the gang. Of course, Mitchum having an accent that has been looked upon favorably among select folks in the region is not a surprise given the veteran actor's immense talent that relies heavily on seeing this one man in the time he has remaining in such a weary existence that knows his strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the life put upon him. This includes moments spent with Carroll to remind oneself of just what is really at stake when it comes to playing information or not (it isn't a movie built on overt violence, basically). Only Mitchum could waltz right into a role like this with such natural skill that it seems that nobody could have done it better. He may be a hustler of guns, but he is our hustler and his dilemma matters more than anything to us, particularly since we know the game that comes in Boyle, who provides such a worthy mobster presence in subtlety on the level of a snake. Jordan is the leading authority (with pretty good results) to watch upon these distinct elements of crime that is thoroughly unglamourous. Violent or not, you know what kind of underworld you are in with this film in folks such as Keats and Rocco that obviously accomplish what is required in the shades of laying out plans in their own scope that can only go the way things go with the unending world of crime moving on with or without the best laid-out plans working right. The robbing aren't the most important part, because it is a slow boiler all about seeing what happens to Mitchum as a battle of pride, one that works out to effective drama with no sense of false note moral by its end. In that sense, it is a worthwhile crime film wrapped firmly in its Boston surroundings for a worthwhile time of grime. Bleak and unflinching, it stands worthy of its time rather than one that flinches away.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gettysburg (1993).

Review #1242: Gettysburg.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Lieutenant General James Longstreet), Jeff Daniels (Colonel Joshua Chamberlain), Martin Sheen (General Robert E. Lee), Sam Elliott (Brigadier General John Buford), Stephen Lang (Major General George Pickett), Maxwell Caulfield (Colonel Strong Vincent), Kevin Conway (Sergeant Buster Kilrain), C. Thomas Howell (Lieutenant Thomas Chamberlain), Richard Jordan (Brigadier General Lewis A. "Lo" Armistead), James Lancaster (Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Fremantle), Richard Anderson (Major General George Meade), Royce D. Applegate (Brigadier General James L. Kemper), John Diehl (Private Joseph Bucklin), Joshua D. Maurer (Colonel James Clay Rice), Patrick Gorman (Major General John Bell Hood), Cooper Huckabee (Henry Thomas Harrison), and Brian Mallon (Major General Winfield Scott Hancock), with narration by W. Morgan Sheppard. Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell.

Review: 
How does one do proper justice to a film such as this? It is a film that runs at 254 minutes (with 17 additional minutes added for the Director's Cut), making it one of the longest films released by an American studio. The original intent was to broadcast this as a miniseries for TNT, after ABC turned down backing the project earlier in the decade. However, it was felt by network namesake and famed media mogul Ted Turner that the rushes coming in were good enough to release in theaters. The film did indeed get shown on TNT the following year, shown on two nights to a viewership of over 20 million; it did not prove to be a major success at the box office, making back only twelve million on a $20 million budget owing to a limited release of less than 300 theaters at its peak distributed by Turner-owned New Line Cinema and being limited to few screenings per day (due to the length, naturally), but it did prove to be a hit on the video market, with its attention to authenticity ensuring that it would have a place with any history or Civil War buff. This is a film that had been sitting on my shelf for over a decade, and I had wondered exactly how to approach this over the years (alongside the question of exactly how many times my father must have put the film on to watch, with its disc having to be flipped over to experience both parts), but I find that at long last it needs to have its day in the spotlight. One must admire the courage to try and make a film like this, adapted from the 1975 historical novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel) with adaptation by director/screenwriter Maxwell that used many writings from the book; it is a sprawling spectacle that was filmed on location in Pennsylvania, including scenes recreated on the actual battlefield (allowed by the National Park Service), with plenty of Civil War reenactors to go around to contribute the scale that this movie wishes to show at times through the three-day battle.

What is a film about a battle if not one with a detailed ensemble cast such as this, headlined by Berenger, Daniels, and Sheen most terrifically. Berenger (the first in a line of actors with some sort of big facial hair) shines amiably, having plenty of moments to give credence to such a key role with careful tenacity, which helps carry the first half and chunks of the second well. Daniels plays his side of the coin quite well for himself, showing plenty of humanity and courage that also crucially carries well for the first half. Sheen is just as efficient, blending right in with such a key figure that makes his appearance count without struggle, thoughtful and determined as per the expectation. The rest of the cast make certain they stick out whenever they show on screen, whether it is from the beginning or midway in, acting to the standard one could expect in filling into men long gone but infused into the legend of Gettysburg. People such as Elliott, Conway, Howell, and Huckabee make it count for that first half (the first two hours at least), while others such as Lang, Jordan, and Lancaster accompany what they can in the latter half. It can be easy to see why a project like this was made in the first place, and it does become apparent that this did indeed belong on a movie screen, where the full weight of battle and drama can come out for all to see again and again through the hours.

I will admit that the first half does tend to run a bit better than its second, building its time and characters with a bit more handling than the second half, although the film never has a moment when it all crashes down or feels too out of depth. It is patience and appreciation that carries the tide rather than boredom or confusion. It yearns to cover ground on both sides of the conflict, not devolving itself into one easy corner - it may be about a battle, but it sure makes time to show besides the battle, of these men who have fought other men of their country, a war of freedom and rebellion (or whatever view one has historically) that raged for four years. Despite the war persisting on for two more years after Gettysburg, this proved to be a key fight, and the film makes sure to never lose focus on earning its moments, and the jewel is the execution of the grand battles and accompanying music from Randy Edelman. It isn't a perfect films by any means, and it certainly isn't the easiest one to stick through, but the curious ones at heart who love their history or ones deeply invested in long sweeping spectacles will (and have) find much to appreciate and care for here. Craftsmanship and hard driving work from all involved rule the day here, showing great care and authenticity for such an important event with balance and honor.

Happy Independence Day, folks. I sure hope you enjoyed this unique double-header and I hope you enjoy the 4th and all that comes with it - there are plenty of things to try and cover this month, and a little bit of patriotism helps along the way in getting there. I'll be happy to see where the Independence Day Feature takes me for next year and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Raise the Titanic.

Review #1195: Raise the Titanic.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Admiral James Sandecker), Richard Jordan (Dirk Pitt), David Selby (Dr. Gene Seagram), Anne Archer (Dana Archibald), Alec Guinness (John Bigalow), Bo Brundin (Captain Andre Prevlov), M. Emmet Walsh (Master Chief Vinnie Walker), J.D. Cannon (Captain Joe Burke), and Norman Bartold (Admiral Kemper) Directed by Jerry Jameson.

Review: 
What film can best be summed up by a quote from its producer other than this one: "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." With a budget of over $40 million (which would be roughly over $120 million in 2019) and an ultimate box office finish of $7 million, this was another of Lord Lew Grade's failures for the year of 1980, where production overruns and story re-writes doomed a film to fail beyond belief. The film is based off the novel Raise the Titanic! (1976) by Clive Cussler, the third book in his series of adventure books involving the character Dirk Pitt, for which he has currently written 24 of since 1973. Grade saw potential in Cussler's books to adapt to film and make a series much like with the James Bond films. The intent was to have Stanley Kramer as director, although he quit as pre-production began due to creative differences, with the brunt of the budget's spiraling being due to making models (alongside re-writes for the script); a fifty foot scale model was built for the climatic raising of the ship that required a 10 million-gallon tank to accompany its size. Larry McMurtry (writer of novels such as The Last Picture Show and Lonesome Dove) claimed to have worked on the screenplay alongside sixteen other writers, although he was the only one who did not petition for writing credit, although the final credits list Eric Hughes for story and the screenplay credit for Adam Kennedy.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the idea of making an adventure film set around raising the Titanic could have had potential, albeit one that would have to rely on charm and effects instead of tight logic to really work. Keep in mind, the Titanic was not proven to have been broken up into two pieces (as opposed to the theory that it simply sunk intact) until 1985. Unfortunately, the final product is not particularly interesting to watch, managing to squander its premise with plenty of padding surrounded by one pure highlight. Jordan doesn't spring too much interest as the main hero, perhaps in part because there really is nothing for him to go on in terms of personality. I suppose him and Selby are supposed to be an interesting pair to see interact and bicker with, too bad they don't really click well. Robards is okay. The actors besides him really seem to just say the lines very mildly. Honestly, the only one who seems interesting is Guinness, playing a survivor of the Titanic who exists just to say exposition about the mysterious person who just happened to put the "byzanium" in a vault before the ship sank. He's in the film for one scene, looking perfectly like someone waiting to cash a check, but at least it means he isn't stuck in the feature for very long. Archer has slightly more screen-time, yet her character (and her motivations for being in the plot) fade halfway through the film. There isn't even a real villain worth mentioning, and the only real menace in the entire film is boredom over the water scenes, which don't really give the film much in terms of spectacle for 114 minutes of run-time.

Comparing it to Grade's other boondoggle in Saturn 3 is amusing, since both films have such strange differences yet still manage to both be ridiculous in their own ways due to their cast, story and use of effects. In this regard, the earlier film is somehow a bit better, perhaps because it doesn't feel so long. Undeniably, the only shining part of the film is composer John Barry (known for his work on Born Free and the James Bond films) and his score, which is entertainingly majestic, fitting quite well for the film, particularly when dealing with the climatic raising. In a less flawed film (i.e. one that works better), the scene of the Titanic rising the depths would prove to make the film ultimately feel worth it, as it is a nice sequence even after over three decades since its release. Understandably, Cussler was not happy with the results of the film, saying that they had turned the plot into a hollow shell of the original along with not liking the cast. He refused to give permission for any more film adaptations of his books, with the only other film adaptation of his books in Sahara (2005) also being a tremendous failure with audiences. In any case, this is a strangely terrible flick, being occasionally watchable but also being something that doesn't quite elevate itself to serviceable entertainment, unless one likes to watch an adventure film sink itself.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Logan's Run.

Review #717: Logan's Run.

Cast
Michael York (Logan 5), Jenny Agutter (Jessica 6), Richard Jordan (Francis 7), Roscoe Lee Browne (Box), Farrah Fawcett (Holly 13), Michael Anderson Jr. (Doc), and Peter Ustinov (The Old Man) Directed by Michael Anderson.

Review
Logan's Run was a toss up to rate for a while. On the one hand, Logan's Run is a product of its time that is an example of a movie set many, many years into the future (the year 2274, with the book being 2116), which is beneficial in the sense that the movie has free reign to guess on a future none of us will ever see, making the movie have a chance to run wild with the idea of a utopia, the buildings, and...how we dress. On the other hand, it could be argued the movie is dated specifically by the effects, which is why Hollywood has been trying to remake this film for years (and failing at it, I might add), but Hollywood remade Robocop, and that ended...oh you already know. Logan's Run is the kind of movie you'd watch late at night and enjoy, but whether you'd enjoy the movie for how it deals with a utopia's effects on society...or how it treats itself in terms of clothing/effects is another story. I'm trying to make this review as anti wishy-washy as possible, so I'll just say that the movie is fine. York and Agutter are good, and they do make a fine pairing together, which is to the movie's advantage. You could make fun of the clothing...or Box. Box is a robot who lives in an ice cave. Take one look at him, and you'll see. Oddly enough, I was laughing at the part with the cats, because the second half of the movie has a bunch of cats meowing and moving around while the movie plays. But maybe I'm just weird. Jordan is okay, and the supporting cast as a whole is passable, it's one of those kind of movies. I was surprised to see that a bunch of locations in Texas were used (including a Water Gardens), mainly because it's not everyday you see your state in a credits sequence. The effects...are what they are. Monorails are cool to watch, and even the shots of the city look like they took a good deal of time to make, and I even saw a credit for matte painting, which isn't as easy it may seem, so I can give the movie credit. If you enjoy the movie (seriously or mockingly), the effects won't get in the way (rather they might actually be beneficial) of a good time. If you find it's not exactly up to code with your standards...the effects will kill the mood even more. But I can't help but enjoy this strange gem. Maybe you will too. Whether a remake will be made in the future or not, appreciating the movie for what it is makes sense too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hunt for Red October.

Review #080: The Hunt for Red October.

Cast
Sean Connery (Captain 1st Rank Marko Aleksandrovich Ramius), Alec Baldwin (Dr. Jack Ryan), Scott Glenn (Commander Bart Mancuso), Sam Neill (Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin), James Earl Jones (Vice Admiral James Greer, CIA Deputy Director - Intelligence (DDI), Jeffrey Jones (Skip Tyler), Joss Ackland (Ambassador Andrei Lysenko), Richard Jordan (Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor), Tim Curry (Dr. Yevgeniy Petrov), Peter Firth (Senior Lieutenant Ivan Putin), Ronald Guttman (Senior Lieutenant Melekhin), Stellan Skarsgård (Captain 2nd Rank Viktor Tupolev), Fred Dalton Thompson (Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Joshua Painter), and Courtney B. Vance (Sonar Technician Submarines Second Class Ronald Jones) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
This film is great. Simply put, it has everything someone needs to be entertained, but learn something at least. Sean Connery is the main lead, overshadowing Baldwin, and he does a great job. Connery makes the film more big by his prominent preformance, taking some if not at least 70% of the film. The plot is good, not messed up or too hard. The film is the parallel to Top Gun, bringing light to submarines, yet this one is a better film, that would inspire sequels, but played by a different actor...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.