Shoot to Kill (1988).

Review #2532: Shoot to Kill.

Cast: 

Sidney Poitier (Warren Stantin), Tom Berenger (Jonathan Knox), Kirstie Alley (Sarah Renell), Clancy Brown (Steve), Frederick Coffin (Ralph), Richard Masur (Norman), Andrew Robinson (Harvey), Kevin Scannell (Ben), Michael MacRae (Fournier), Milton Selzer (Mr. Berger), Les Lannom (Sheriff Dave Arnett), and Robert Lesser (Agent Minelli) Directed by Roger Spottiswoode (#171 - Tomorrow Never Dies, #191 - The 6th Day, #1205 - Air America)

Review: 

"The movies I want to make are not people's priority. Nobody would touch them. They cost a lot of money, and studios no longer finance development, so if I didn't pay for them myself they wouldn't happen."

Admittedly, I picked this movie to clear a few obligations of mine, mainly in my director logs (as one does when "this movie or this movie?" is not enough). I came across Roger Spottiswoode and figured, why not talk about one of his movies? The Ottawa-born director was the son of a documentary filmmaker that had made films for the war effort for the National Film Board of Canada. He started his film career as an editor (once stating that his school was in the cutting room), rising from doing work on commercials to being the co-editor of Straw Dogs (1971). He was approached to direct for the first time with the horror film Terror Train (1980), which was a light success. He took over the production of the troubled The Pursuit of D. B. Cooper that came out the following year before doing Under Fire (1983) and The Best of Times (1986), which were not major successes at the time. All of this collides with the return of Sidney Poitier to the big screen, as he had not starred in a film in eleven years (having spent a good chunk of his time directing). The story was written by Harv Zimmel, who in turn co-wrote the screenplay with Michael Burton and Daniel Petrie Jr, with the latter serving as a co-producer. For whatever reason, outside of North America the movie was called "Deadly Pursuit" (one of the working titles was "Mountain King"). Over the next couple of decades, he would direct a variety of films along with ones for television to varying levels of quality such as Turner & Hooch (1989) or And the Band Played On (1993). 

 

Sure, it might be easy to call this one routine, what with it being a buddy thriller in the mountains between two people who get through a few personal disagreements to work together in pursuing one pretty obvious goal. It's a machine of familiar aspects, right down to changing the locale for the final pursuit...and I love stuff like this. It's a fun movie for the execution that it holds in its hand of entertainment, one where you can playfully ask questions about its premise and not feel the need to come up with an answer (or, "cope", if one is younger). Who cares about why just one FBI guy is present to chase a killer when it is so much fun to see the revolving door of moments that come from Poitier and Berenger. It helps that Poitier (who turned 60 in 1987) hasn't lost his touch when it comes to selling the movie with poise that is basically unshakable even when in a different element (as one does when stolen jewels turn into folks having their eyes shot out), and it pairs well with the hardened Berenger (always a charmer*, I would say) for a few chuckles in the crisscross of trying to move forward in a locale that curves on a whim, such as say, a bear encounter. It helps that the movie takes some time to actually reveal just who is the killer is (okay you already can tell by the billing) to pair along with Alley (decent, if not exactly comparable to someone like Brown) and others for a bit of smooth tension, because there is a bit of a mean streak with the body count. Seriously, you get a few people thrown off ledges to pair with an experience that eventually climaxes with shooting a gun in water, it is the kind of movie you slip on at night and just enjoy the ride. Both actors get to run the process of what they know best in their environments without underselling the other person. This was a movie made when films still liked to actually strive for a landscape to look upon with pride (it was mostly filmed in British Columbia, as one does when being set in the Northwest), suffice to say. As a whole, Shoot to Kill is a pleasant thriller for all involved, maneuvering through its 109-minute runtime with a good sense of adventure and fun that doesn't waver in its entertainment value regardless of how familiar it might seem because its charms are too good to resist.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Berenger is a sentimental favorite of mine, I think, mainly because I re-watch Major League every year.

*By the way, this movie actually has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Seriously.

Redux: The Thing (1982)

Review Revised #712: The Thing (1982).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review: 

The original review was 276 words. Seven years later, I decided to reconsider and make a revised review in light of the 40th anniversary of the release of this film.

The Thing from Another World (1951), if you remember, was a loose adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?, which had been written by John W. Campbell in 1938 (it was only discovered in 2018 that Campbell had actually wrote an entire novel before cutting it down to the novella published in 1938; the manuscript, called "Frozen Hell", was published in 2019). Howard Hawks had supervised the production while Christian Nyby served as director (while Hawks denied that he served as director, his uncredited contribution to writing alongside the fact that Nyby never directed anything as good as this movie ever again makes for an interesting argument). Producers David Foster and Lawrence Turman had wanted to do a remake more faithful to the original novella, as opposed to the plant-like creature of the 1951 movie. Several directors and writers came and went in consideration from Universal Pictures in the late 1970s and 1980s before John Carpenter was hired to direct and Bill Lancaster (writer of The Bad News Bears (1976)) was hired to write; this was the sixth feature film directed by Carpenter, who had just finished Escape from New York (1981); it happened to be the last screenplay written by Lancaster, who died of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Rob Bottin (who had worked with Carpenter on The Fog in 1980) was hired to help provide effects for the creature (with one exception in a dog cage, which was done by Stan Winston to help an ailing Bottin), which his team helped do out of chemicals, food, rubber, and mechanical parts that made the budget go to $15 million; while Bottin's effects received mixed attention at the time, he would continue to hone his craft and wound up with two Academy Awards for his contributions to visual effects. Released on June 25, in a month and year that saw movies come out such as Blade Runner (same day as this movie) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released two weeks prior), The Thing would not be a major success nor a failure. Coming off the heels of movies like Alien (1979) probably did not help either, although this movie tries to go with a creature that isn't a man in a suit (as guided by Carpenter). Of course, the reactions that the movie received would make you think that they killed a dog on film, where even Nyby talked about the film negatively, saying "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch" (now you see why I mentioned Nyby earlier when I relate the irony of a guy famous for "directing" one good movie trying to trash a movie that is way better than his). Years after the film was described as a cult classic, a 2011 version of The Thing was released that apparently serves as a prequel to this movie, and I cannot imagine how anybody really gave a crap about seeing what happens before you see Kurt Russell in a movie.

I haven't seen the 1951 movie in a number of years, but my recollections of seeing it as a straightforward tense movie probably seems right. The 1951 and 1982 movies are set in completely opposite locations and have tones that reflect the age they were made in when it relates to dealing with a threat from within, but the latter movie is especially more striking in its nihilistic execution. Carpenter has said that it is his favorite film from his line of work, even though the results of the film did not help his career the way he thought it would. I said the movie "flat out rules" a long time ago, but now I am even more appreciative of what was accomplished by Carpenter and company that has proven to be one of his most enduring works. The title creature is a ruthless being that pervades whatever it imitates without hesitation, and it makes for one hell of a spectacle and threat to watch on screen. To me, thinking effects are disgusting is like a compliment rather than a criticism, as if the only way to make a tense horror movie is to do it without a hint of cynicism. The best sequence might be the one where a desperate scramble to save a person by pressing on their chest that results in the ripping off of arms. Yes, the movie is a triumph of special effects, but it also is a triumph of paranoia with an ensemble cast that completely sells what is needed. Generally, it is easy to say that Russell does well with the material, because we have seen him do well in other productions before. But he has an effortless charm to him that makes him the kind of actor to just seep into a role without hesitation in everyman sensibilities, which happens in a movie where sanity hangs in the balance. The other members of the cast help in lending fear and irrationalities that doesn't drag the 109-minute run-time any further than it needs to. It seems fitting that two actors making early appearances in film before they became more known excel best: David (in his credited film debut) serves well in the tense glares to not get lost among the group while Brimley (who had a few film and TV credits) makes a stodgy and fierce presence in the face of futility and gruesome gore. The others contribute to the cold tension that bubbles slowly to the surface beneath the early little character quirks in a movie where danger can lurk by what is hidden just as much as what you see.

The music by Ennio Morricone is used selectively by Carpenter to great effect, present in terror without overwhelming you. The movie builds up to the handling of its chameleon-like monster with great planning that doesn't fall privy to the worst type of cliches seen in the lone location type of horror movies (namely dumb characters). The climax lends a welcome deal of futility and ambiguity that fits for a certain audience sensibility that doesn't turn out to be a cheat when you have tired characters that sit there and look at each other while a fire burns in the background. In other words, the movie sets itself up well for how it has to end without straining for it (so yes, ambiguity isn't everyone's thing, but at least it is a contrived ambiguity). In the end, there are a handful of Carpenter movies that could be argued to be his best work in the countless movies he made, and The Thing has certainly had its case strengthened in the four decades since its release with its handling of effects with tension and a great ensemble cast. Now more than ever, one should really check it out for those who are interested in science fiction and horror as it is a triumph of filmmaking from John Carpenter, a director who certainly deserves the credit for making classics of American cinema.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Risky Business.

Review #1082: Risky Business.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Joel Goodson), Rebecca De Mornay (Lana), Joe Pantoliano (Guido), Nicholas Pryor (Mr. Goodson), Janet Carroll (Mrs. Goodson), Richard Masur (Rutherford), Curtis Armstrong (Miles Dalby), Bronson Pinchot (Barry), Shera Danese (Vicki), and Raphael Sbarge (Glenn) Directed by Paul Brickman.

Review: 
Risky Business is the kind of film that isn't merely just stuck to one type of genre or idea of what it is, whether that is a coming-of-age film, a romantic comedy, or look at society in the world of a teen. Whatever lens that you view the film through, it is a fairly effective experience that has enough clever moments and energy to make a solid winner. This was the film that helped launch the career of Cruise, who had starred in four other films prior to this one, and it is certainly easy to see his charisma on-screen and why he makes the film tick, including memorable moments such as the sequence with "Old Time Rock and Roll" (a fun song from Bob Seger to listen to in any context) - which is likely the most iconic thing from this film, with its own share of inspirations and parodies in the decades that have followed this film. In any case, it's an interesting part to the film. De Mornay manages to also pull off a fine performance, being quite the charming rogue that elevates a role that could've just been thankless with a sort of energy that works handily with Cruise in their scenes. The other members of the cast do fine jobs, with Pantoliano having some crudely effective zip in the scenes that he is in. The film is fairly engaging with its plot and its depiction of angst and greed that certainly make what could've probably just been a cliché teen comedy with less clever hands and instead make something a bit more sharper, with its own bits of social satire included. The cinematography by Bruce Surtees is glossy and effective, having some fine shots such as the sequence on the train or nighttime shots at times. Brickman (who also served as writer) wanted the film to end on a different note than what occurs in the film (as dictated by the studio), involving the nature of the two main characters and their future. It feels a bit more raw and it likely will touch a nerve for some, but I can't really object to the ending that ended up on-screen. Ultimately, this is a film that has enough amusing moments but also enough clever moments to make for a relatively engaging experience that is worth the 99 minute run-time - and then some.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.