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. 

Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

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). 

Blue Steel (1990).

Review #2361: Blue Steel.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Officer Megan Turner), Ron Silver (Eugene Hunt), Clancy Brown (Detective Nick Mann), Elizabeth Peña (Tracy Perez), Louise Fletcher (Shirley Turner), Philip Bosco (Frank Turner), Richard Jenkins (Dawson), Kevin Dunn (Assistant Chief Stanley Hoyt), and Tom Sizemore (Robber) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark)

Review: 

"What was interesting to me was kind of a heretical, irreverent look at a particular moment in time. You have this woman who's a police officer. And believe it or not, that was very difficult to get made because the police officer was a woman. I was asked to make her a man, and then we could get financing. I said no, the whole point of making this was that she was a woman. It seems so strange today to think of that as being an obstacle, but it was a big obstacle."

The road for what became Bigelow's third feature film is a tricky one. According to Bigelow, Universal Pictures had tried to develop a movie that would be about gangs in East Harlem that had her interested in writing and directing that had come after Walter Hill had been in the process of setting up a producing deal there around the time of Streets of Fire. Years later, Oliver Stone apparently was interested in doing a project but about South LA gangs...and then he got involved in Salvador and Platoon while she did Near Dark. Long story short, Stone liked that film and was interested in doing whatever she wanted to do next, complete with being producer, and Bigelow sent him, well, the script for Blue Steel, which eventually came around with Stone and Edward Pressman producing. I wonder who exactly came up with what in the script for the film, since Bigelow shares the writing credit with Eric Red; they had previously written Near Dark (1987) together, although Red has apparently labeled the script as basically a "female version of The Hitcher". Apparently, the climax of the film (you know, the gun fight) would've had Curtis nude, but she said no to that, being quoted as saying "Everyone would be watching my breasts flopping around instead of watching the scene." Bigelow in the past was quoted as having an interest in "treading on familiar territory", describing Blue Steel as a "mutation that maybe implies a different genre". The movie was released by MGM in the wake of Vestron Pictures' impending doom as a company, and the movie made a small amount of money while Bigelow next directed with Point Break (1991).

Some reviews of the time compared the movie to Halloween (1978) because of the whole boogeyman thing and having Curtis, I guess, but I don't seem to remember the part in the earlier film where the lead became a cop. But what we do have is a weird movie, one that is entertaining but stupefying in its execution to varying levels of effectiveness that tries to play two different angles: the plight of a (woman) cop that has to come to terms with who they really are when faced with rough surroundings...and also a nut that has an obsession with her and, well, things that lead him to want to shoot again and again. Technically speaking, the movie is kinetically interesting in general action while dragging along at 102 minutes to a conclusion that will befuddle the viewer in its certain positioning (ambiguity or overwrought, you might wonder) while seeming digging new ways to throw itself in melodrama. But how many films do we let certain things fall by the wayside because of our relative enjoyment, anyway? Is it nitpicking to wonder where the line should be drawn with a movie where a robbery takes place but somehow the guy in the front of it thought he saw a knife rather than, well a gun*. But Curtis does hold the film together with a generally tense performance that shows the struggle that arises with her position that only is solid when she essentially plays nice in the box she is constrained to, and that's without even mentioning her interactions with the other side of the coin of someone trapped in the strange world of struggling with their position and place. We the audience know what we know, so if someone can badger her about her method the way they do in one particular scene, imagine how is in an actual active scenario. If you're not with her and her charm that comes through even in the plight around her, then, well, the rest of the film goes down with her, for better or worse. Silver is mostly effective in evoking tension, albeit with a few obvious beats (bad enough he carves names into bullets, does he need to have voices in his head and also spout lines about death?) to go with the newfound power of a gun, which I'm sure could be interpreted in different ways**. The scenes the two share with each other are curious enough to make a worthy enough cat-and-mouse game to a certain point, being more interesting in the start and close rather than the holding down that comes with stretching things out. Brown moseys about with a casual charm, albeit with late usefulness in the long run, since it is more a movie of doubts and moods that might as well be a dreary dream. You don't exactly get much time to spend with Bosco and Fletcher[*] besides the bare minimum that comes with semi-resolved (?) family tension either. By the time the movie moves to its endgame around Wall Street, you have a movie that is frantic enough to possibly override the inevitable quibbles because it has a committed director and star that want to make an entertaining thriller. In a sea of varying effectiveness when it comes to women-leading action movies, Blue Steel is at least a solid enough recommendation to seek out for the ride it goes on in the curiosity about the nature of power and, well, the thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I don't want to pick all the way to hell, but probably the most ridiculous idea is that our lead comes to her parents, sees a fresh bruise on her mom, arrests her dad but decides in the middle of a conversation with him in the back of the car to just...let him off with a warning to not be who he is anymore. Or something. 

**Something something Freud something something penis. Actually, I wish my memory was a bit better, because I swear it isn't too particularly hard to find a movie about someone finding a gun and deciding to mosey around the city with it. Instead, I keep wondering why I haven't watched Gun Crazy.

[*] Bosco was a Tony Award winning actor for 1989, while Fletcher, well, you know her Academy Award-winning role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but for me, her performances as Kai Winn on the massively underrated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was probably just as cool.

Saving Private Ryan.

Review #1520: Saving Private Ryan.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Captain John H. Miller), Edward Burns (Private Richard Reiben), Matt Damon (Private James Francis Ryan), Tom Sizemore (Sergeant Mike Horvath), Jeremy Davies (Corporal Timothy Upham), Vin Diesel (Private Adrian Caparzo), Adam Goldberg (Private Stanley Mellish), Barry Pepper (Private Daniel Jackson), Giovanni Ribisi (Medic Irwin Wade), Ted Danson (Captain Fred Hamill), Paul Giamatti (Sergeant William Hill), Dennis Farina (Lieutenant Colonel Walter Anderson), Joerg Stadler (Steamboat Willie), Max Martini (Corporal Henderson), and Nathan Fillion (Private James Frederick Ryan) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, and #1478 - The Color Purple)

Review: 
"What Steven wanted to do from the get-go was to use all of his magic, and all of the tools that existed in cinema as of 1997, and make a war movie that was going to break every one of the tropes, visually and cinematically, that all war movies had"

The 1990s were an interesting time for films, with Steven Spielberg being a significant contributor to that distinction through six films, which primarily resulted in audience attention, a studio that he helped to establish in DreamWorks Pictures, and three Academy Awards. Within those films are a mix of both adventure and historical drama, although this would be his first epic war film since Empire of the Sun (1987). The genesis for the script by Robert Rodat came from inspiration over the Niland brothers while reading Stephen Ambrose's book about D-Day (Ambrose's other book in Band of Brothers would later be turned into a miniseries by Spielberg and Hanks). There were four brothers in the family that served in World War II, with three of them fighting in the Normandy campaign. The surviving brother was believed to be the only Niland left, and he was shipped back to the United States to complete his service (however his oldest brother, a member of the Army Air Forces captured in a POW camp, was eventually liberated before the end of the war). The script appealed to Spielberg and his interest in the war, which he once described as "the most significant event of the last 100 years", one in which his father had served in as a member of the Army Air Corps, with the younger Spielberg being fascinated with the war due to his father's stories and recollections and what was depicted of it on American television; some of his early short films were combat ones inspired by his father. It shouldn't be surprising that the actors seem up to what is required in depicting combat with respect, since the main stars all endured a mini-session of boot camp led by Marine Dale Dye, who you might hear about as a trainer for other military-themed films.

The film opens and ends at the same place that seems interesting for an epic war film: the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, with Harrison Young as our first focus as a certain veteran here to pay his respects. I found these sequences to be fairly well-done in setting the film on pace for the thought that occurs after war when it comes to sacrifice in the horrors of war. And then of course there is the second sequence of the film, likely one of the best ever put to film that involves the landing on Omaha Beach in Normandy, France, with over a thousand extras used within a recreation of the beach shot in Ireland. There is nothing quite like it in such devastating power as it moves across the killing field with tactile precision that makes for a harrowing experience for its viewers (who can feel every little moment of spilled seasickness and various other things) to set in and feel immediately without pretense. Soldiers being taken down before they hit the sand is still a striking image to dwell on. It has been a point of debate over the idea of said battle being the "peak" moment of the film. To me, that's pretty ridiculous, because that seems to imply that the rest of the film isn't as maintained in heightened fear or well-executed in discipline. If the D-Day sequence was at the end, would we being saying the same thing? Of course I also don't find the film drowns in maudlin nature unlike others - it grips me and keeps that grip firm and steady. I found that the film worked just as well in building its conflict within its mission that makes the inevitable fates all the more successful. One doesn't bat an eye much at the 169 minute run-time because of how well-involved it is when relaying the sacrifices made in the name of war. The film does its best work in depicting the fears and instincts that made up the men to fight without becoming a caricature, the absolute best in uncompromising epics for what Spielberg wanted to do.

But enough about details, there has to be a cast to go with it. Hanks proves quite resilient in displaying the humane side of persisting onward with what he must do regardless of the reasons or consequences, one who maintains himself with range that stands on his own terms as a useful lead to follow without becoming swept up in platitudes. Damon, showing himself past the halfway point does well with role filled in reluctance and care apart from the main group that does what is needed. Burns (in his first role that he also did not direct/write/produce, as he debuted with The Brothers McMullen three years prior) and Sizemore both do well with simmering intensity that carry the film in moving with the tides of weariness that doesn't seem wavering. Davies works well with unassuming quiver that we observe in the contrast between combat in translation and non-combat in translation a different way that sells that harrowing last shot of him worth it. Another filmmaker featured in this film Diesel, who had previously made two low-budget films of his own (as writer, director, producer, and star), and it was his short in Strays (1997) that impressed Spielberg to wedge his way into this film, and Diesel makes the most of it with some of the hard-edged charisma that would later make him a star. The others that are peppered through the film work handily in keeping the candor efficient from its journey across the fields of war with care, whether that involves folks like Goldberg or smaller turns for Danson and Giamatti. As a film that set itself on garnering more realism from what had come from war films in the previous decades (which featured films such as The Longest Day), Saving Private Ryan packs enough a wallop in its initial setup of harrowing bloodshed to make its resulting story a stirring experience that leaves its audience something it cannot forget about as just entertainment when it ends.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Natural Born Killers.

Review #1265: Natural Born Killers.

Cast: 
Woody Harrelson (Mickey Knox), Juliette Lewis (Mallory Wilson Knox), Robert Downey, Jr. (Wayne Gale), Tom Sizemore (Detective Jack Scagnetti), Tommy Lee Jones (Warden Dwight McClusky), Rodney Dangerfield (Ed Wilson), Edie McClurg (Mrs. Wilson), Sean Stone (Kevin Wilson), Russell Means (Warren Red Cloud, Sr), Lanny Flaherty (Earl), and Evan Handler (David) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street and #1090 - Platoon)

Review: 
It is interesting to look upon this film today, 25 years after its release. It is a notoriously famous kind of film, one that was modified from its original script by Quentin Tarantino (the second of two scripts he had sold, with the other being True Romance) to the point where he was given a story credit while screenplay credit went to Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, and David Veloz. Tarantino wasn't a big fan of the final product, and the film is certainly an easy one to rage/rave about. The resulting film is one that is bold in its violence and its attempts to make a statement about society and so on and so on while also serving as a twisted romance - two hours of chaotic energy that is frantic, satirical, and a bit of a mess. Honestly, it must be real hard to fall along the middle ground with this particular film: One can appreciate the technical aspects of the film and yet still take issue with its approach for the message it wants, or one can really, really feel that it is a tiresome and ridiculously shameless attempt at satire that goes over the top to where it hits the moon with jagged edge front and center. One film that came in mind when viewing this was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which in itself was a controversial film for its violence with its lead characters while being a seminal film for a burgeoning generation. This is definitely a film that is trying to be the kind of thing for its type of audience, with its decade certainly being a polarizing one in terms of the landscape of media and the world as a whole. One can certainly see that effect today, for better or worse (the less said about quote-unquote fake news, the better). It is the kind of loud film that probably seems right at home with the loudness that can accompany our lives if one allows it (or even if they don't).

No one seems to be safe from Stone's grip on message-making, or his grip on spectacle violence (or whatever you really want to call it), and they make for a cumbersome cocktail that when sipped manages to hit the consumer on the head and make for a fuzzy feeling all at once. This is especially apparent with the editing (which took eleven months as opposed to the shoot taking just 56 days) and look of the film, which can go from color to monochrome or just be filmed with a dutch angle (or most notably superimposing images of the 20th century in the background). Am I watching an crime movie or an art film? Really, you could say it is a bit of both. Does it go over the line when it comes to actually making a point? Sure, and it does that with no real sort of regrets, much in the same way a shock jock can hammer the hot take home till the cows come home to call the complaint hotlines. For me, it is a well made film that comes off okay with its approach while scoring points for capable film-making (moreso in the first half than the second) and its cast. Each of the core five has some sort of oddity to them (the headlining couple need no explanation), where being over-the-top is more like being over the rails and into the weird aisle, which generally works out fine in showing some ooze. Harrelson and Lewis are a dementedly successful duo when it comes to performances. One always wants to know what they will prove to do, whether with each other or with someone else, a sort of hypnotic feeling really. Much like the others in the film, one can't help it. Downey Jr plays his role of prowler for the attention machine (or however one would describe a tabloid TV host who happens to have an Australian accent) with effectiveness, where one can see the thirst for something deep in us (or what have you) that manifest in a wildly weird climax. Sizemore surely proves to task with his unconventional conventional role, where you can see the powder keg show its cracks from time to time. Jones hams it up (this is apparent with the hairstyle), and it works itself out for a few laughs at a man meant to have control yet can't even control himself. Special scene-stealing consideration goes to Dangerfield, who actually wrote his lines for his dark part that is perfectly horrific for what is needed. In the long run, this is a movie that roars itself from the very beginning with an ax to grind about its topic of conversation that swings for the trees and manages to cut down the entire forest while also setting it ablaze. Its fury can prove a bit too much after a while when it comes to actually trying to contain itself to one frenzy at a time. It can prove to be a horrific, biting, infuriating, frustrating, or rewarding experience, depending on how one looks into it. It is a controversial film for a reason, but the curious film mind will certainly have quite the time with it, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.