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.

Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

The Silence of the Lambs.

Review #1498: The Silence of the Lambs.

Cast:
Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Ted Levine (Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Brooke Smith (Catherine Martin), Diane Baker (U.S. Senator Ruth Martin), Kasi Lemmons (Ardelia Mapp), Frankie Faison (Barney Matthews), Tracey Walter (Lamar), Charles Napier (Lt. Boyle), Danny Darst (Sgt. Tate), Alex Coleman (Sgt. Jim Pembry), Dan Butler (Roden), Paul Lazar (Pilcher), Ron Vawter (Paul Krendler), and Roger Corman (FBI Director Hayden Burke) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004))

Review:
"I realized the actual bottom line truth of doing Silence of the Lambs, something I felt when I read that book. I thought, this could be the scariest movie ever, and I wanted to make that movie. I wanted to make a Psycho caliber fucking terrifying movie."

As the first (and so far only) horror film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, the inevitability for covering this film was high, particularly since the character of Hannibal Lecter is particularly well-known across film and novels over the years. This is adapted from Thomas Harris' novel of the same name, originally published in 1988 as the follow-up work to Red Dragon, which had been adapted into a film by Michael Mann under the name Manhunter (1986). The follow-up book Hannibal (1999) and the other book would be turned into films with Hopkins as Lecter, while the prequel Hannibal Rising (2006) would be turned to a film with Harris as screenwriter, and a Hannibal series followed a decade after that. Fitting that a horror film like this would come from an acolyte of Roger Corman (who even cameos in the film) with Jonathan Demme. He met Corman while doing publicity for Von Richthofen and Brown, and Corman was interested in Demme to do work for him at New World Pictures. The result was Angels Hard as They Come, which Demme produced and co-wrote with Joe Viola. He then directed his first work with the studio as director with Caged Heat (1974). Over the years he had a steady career of films, such as Melvin and Howard (1980), Something Wild (1986), and Married to the Mob (1988).

Despite the failure with audiences at the time of Manhunter (now regarded as a cult classic), there was still interest in turning the next Harris novel into a film, although the initial plans was apparently going to have Gene Hackman directing/starring in it (various others were considered for both lead roles, such as Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer). Hopkins came about in interest because of his doctor role in The Elephant Man (1980). With a dark sense of gravitas and two killer performances from Hopkins and Foster, it is no wonder why this proves to be a great classic. It finds a balance between suspense and horror that drives through every beat and procedure with relish and entertainment. It is amazing to think about how solid of a performance Hopkins draws from such an unsavory but relentlessly fascinating presence, particularly since he only occupies a certain amount of time in the film that doesn't even run to thirty minutes. And yet here we are, still captivated and engrossed by what we see of him (such as in the numerous close-up shots of his face) as the calmest and most brilliant terrors of the human mind. On the other side of such interesting conversations is Foster, who proves quite dedicated and useful in focus of the drive for curiosity with regards to the dark parts of the human mind. She makes a resourceful presence that never seems lost within the madness. Glenn proves just as sharp in reasoned authority, while Levine rounds out the main group with creeping finesse in his lurking moments, and the others prove worthy in keeping the stakes level. On the whole, while the sequences with Hopkins and Foster are easily the most memorable of the film, the film holds up just as well in driving one in pursuit and skin-crawling with no pretensions whatsoever. The thrills can be quite entertaining like any other movie, but it is in that chase that really gives one a good jolt in their seat, and it is easy to see why this became imitated and well-known. It has a capable director in staging scenes with useful impact to go with a game cast that makes the most of their surroundings for a good time of carefully executed thrills that prove as effective nearly three decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wild Wild West.

Review #454: Wild Wild West.

Cast
Will Smith (James T. West), Kevin Kline (Artemus Gordon and Ulysses S. Grant), Kenneth Branagh (Dr. Arliss Loveless), Salma Hayek (Rita Escobar), M. Emmet Walsh (Coleman), Bai Ling (Miss East), Ted Levine (General "Bloodbath" McGrath), Frederique van der Wal (Amazonia), Musetta Vander (Munitia), Sofia Eng (Miss Lippenrieder), and Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon (Belle) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (#005 - Get Shorty, #077 - The Addams Family, #078 - Addams Family Values, #211 - Men in Black, and #212 - Men in Black II)

Review
This was adapted off the classic television show The Wild Wild West, though judging by how they apparently changed significant aspects of the film, I'd cross out the word adapted. Will Smith is usually charming, even in the cliched Independence Day, but not even he can give any life to the way his character is portrayed. Kevin Kline is okay at best, but to say this would be a step down from A Fish Called Wanda is an understatement. Kenneth Branagh...playing an southern scientist with no legs was odd enough...but the thing that takes the cake is...the spider. Yes, a Mechanical Spider, in the Wild West. You might wonder how it could feasibly be made, I'm just wondering how no one ever mentions seeing it after the film's end, though I suppose Grant wouldn't want "I saw a giant spider, while opening a railroad. No I am not insane." being the last line of his memoirs. The effects have more merit then the story and it's a bland  stand still of a film, disappointing western buffs, action buffs, and of course, Wild Wild West fans.

The film was terrible enough to inspire Robert Conrad (the star of the original show) to accept the film's five Golden Raspberry Awards in person, and I can't blame him for doing that. In conclusion, the best way to sum this film is one quote: "I made a mistake on Wild Wild West. That could have been better. ... No, it's funny because I could never understand why Robert Conrad was so upset with Wild Wild West. And now I get it. It's like, 'That's my baby! I put my blood, sweat and tears into that!' So I'm going to apologize to Mr. Conrad for that because I didn't realize. I was young and immature. So much pain and joy went into The Fresh Prince that my greatest desire would be that it's left alone." And when that comes from Will Smith himself, that just makes this sad film even worse. Avoid this film like it's the plague.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fast and the Furious.

Review #043: The Fast and the Furious.

Cast
Paul Walker (Brian O'Conner), Vin Diesel (Dominic Toretto), Michelle Rodriguez (Leticia "Letty" Ortiz), Jordana Brewster (Mia Toretto), Rick Yune (Johnny Tran), Chad Lindberg (Jesse), Johnny Strong (Leon), Matt Schulze (Vince), and Ted Levine (Tanner) Directed by Rob Cohen.

Review
This film was the first film reviewed on "Movies in Oregon", in which I reviewed films I watched while on vacation in Oregon. Anyway, this film has alright car scenes, with some cool things to help dazzle a bit, like the fashion and music. The acting is decent, with Vin Diesel doing a stand out job, being entertaining to watch, especially his chemistry with Walker. The action is fun, especially near the end, with a riveting scene in the end with the two. Looking back, I was wrong in saying that it lacked discipline; I can't help but be more sympathetic and bump up the rating a star just because of the charisma of the actors, the cars, and the tone.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.