The Rookie (1990).

Review #2487: The Rookie (1990).

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Sergeant Nick Pulovski), Charlie Sheen (Detective David Ackerman), Raul Julia (Ulrich Sigmund Strom), Sônia Braga (Liesl Strom), Tom Skerritt (Eugene Ackerman), Lara Flynn Boyle (Sarah Ackerman), Pepe Serna (Lieutenant Raymond Garcia), Donna Mitchell (Laura Ackerman), Coleby Lombardo (Joey Ackerman), Marco Rodriguez ("Loco" Martinez), Xander Berkeley (Ken Blackwell), Roberta Vasquez (Officer Heather Torres), Hal Williams (Detective Powell), Paul Ben-Victor (Felix "Little Felix"), and Tony Plana (Morales)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter)

Review: 

I'm sure you've heard this before: buddy cop movie pairing two distinct folks up for strange hijinks and action to go around. The script to the film is credited to Boaz Yakin (in his second credit after The Punisher [1989]) and Scott Spiegel (the co-writer of Evil Dead II [1987]). This was the second Clint Eastwood film released in 1990 after White Hunter Black Heart, a film that Eastwood apparently had a personal interest in (so, yes, "one for them and one for me"). While that movie wasn't exactly an audience favorite, The Rookie didn't fare too much better at the time because of its release in December 1990 that got overshadowed by Home Alone, released three weeks earlier (did you know that movie was the highest grossing comedy of all time for decades?). The highlight of the film for those at the time may have been the stunt work, with major scenes involving no miniatures or blue screens, which were filmed at night. Of course, this is also the movie where Eastwood gets sexually assaulted by a woman and it is also the same movie where Raul Julia and Sônia Braga were cast to play a couple of Germans. So there's that.

It is a silly and loud affair that almost seems tailor-made for those who enjoyed stuff such as Lethal Weapon, Tango & Cash, you get the idea. But I can't help but wonder if the problems with the film come from the fact that Sheen and Eastwood just don't mesh that well together. Even Tango handled that better. One sometimes wonders who exactly was thought of for the role besides him, as if even Emilio Estevez would've been better off playing the toils of someone trying to be by-the-book in a weary world (this is where I try to not just wish for a different movie in the middle of talking about this movie*). But Eastwood doesn't exactly come off that great either, as if he himself is tired of playing a Dirty Harry pastiche (ironically, The Dead Pool from two years earlier was a better movie). The movie just seems flat-footed for a good chunk of its two-hour runtime, never really getting into full gear with its energy beyond neat stunts (again, mostly at night). It just feels like an obligation film, one that goes through the motions that almost sounds like it was supposed to be a parody of the action thriller, right down to the assault scene which is there because, uh, because. But instead the parts that are meant to be funny aren't as funny and the parts that sound like they want to be serious (such as the flashback trauma) sound like a riff. Even the moments where Julia says racial epithets (get it, he's playing a rough German?) sounds like it was dug up for a joke for the parody rather than an actual serious/fun thriller. Boyle was on Twin Peaks in the same year this premiered and it can easily be said that she has more to actually do on that show than here*, which is kind of sad, and the less said about Skerritt's lack of presence, the better. Julia and Braga technically are the best part of the film, but they can't save the film from meandering as much as it does. As a whole, I wish I could appreciate the movie more, but there is a clear air of lethargic nature to the whole proceedings that you don't get from the usual Eastwood fare. Even when the Dirty Harry movies got a bit long in the tooth, you could still see some zip to them. Here it just doesn't sound like anyone but the stuntmen is having fun, but it doesn't seem quite enough to make for a well-rounded film to actually recommend.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*For whatever reason, I thought of Tom Hanks. Or hey, what if it was Emilio Estevez matched up with his father Martin Sheen? Or even Eastwood playing the beleaguered lieutenant for a whole film would probably be ideal. 

*As a person who's seen the first six Twin Peaks episodes, anyway.

War Hunt.

Review #2421: War Hunt.

 

Cast: 

John Saxon (Private Raymond Endore), Robert Redford (Private Roy Loomis), Charles Aidman (Captain Wallace Pratt), Sydney Pollack (Master Sergeant Owen Van Horn), Tommy Matsuda (Charlie), Gavin MacLeod (Private Crotty), Anthony Ray (Private Joshua Fresno), Tom Skerritt (Sergeant Stan Showalter), and William Challee (Lieutenant Colonel) Directed by Denis Sanders.

Review: 

Yes, there are plenty of starts to highlight when talking about a film. This was a breakthrough of sorts for three people: this was the first credited role for Robert Redford, and it was also the film debuts for Sydney Pollack and Tom Skerritt. Now, who directed it? Well, this was the second feature film directed by Denis Sanders, who had done a handful of short films, which included A Time Out of War (1955), which not only served as his master's degree thesis at UCLA but also won an Academy Award for Best Short Subject. That movie got the attention of Charles Laughton, who hired them to work on The Night of the Hunter [1955] (Terry as a second unit director, Denis as a dialogue director). The brothers worked on further films such as Crime and Punishment U.S.A. With War Hunt, it was made as part of a deal between United Artists and the Sanders brothers. The two did a handful of documentaries over the next few decades, with Denis winning an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short Subject with Czechoslovakia 1968 (1969) while Terry co-produced the Academy Award winning Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision (1994). The writer of the film was Stanford Whitmire, a regular writer on television shows and TV movies for many years. I suppose it might be interesting to note that Francis Ford Coppola drove a truck in the film.

Sure, a war movie can be pretty dour, and it probably isn't up to the level of say, The Steel Helmet (1951), but War Hunt is a curious movie to engage with, one that wonders aloud just what the hell is one going to do after it isn't so easy to go around killing the enemy in war. Well, as one does when set near the armistice of the Korea War. Sure, it is evident to see where it is more "low budget" than just being a "carefully composed drama" that happens to be a bit light on the action side. But it is a solid film of the soul, crafting itself well with an offbeat sense of patience and a worthy ensemble that you could at least call a solid find to maybe check out in long odds, complete with having a resourceful look from (prior Academy Award nominee) Ted McCord. At this point, Saxon had been a "teen idol" with films such as Rock, Pretty Baby (1956) and The Happy Feeling (1958) before doing other sorts of roles with The Unforgiven (1960). Here he gets to play an offbeat soldier that manages to give off an unnerving vibe without having to say many words that is weirdly fascinating, even when considering the stilted nature of what really drives his dynamic with Matsuda (an orphan reminds him of old times?). Redford had attended (and was expelled from) the University of Colorado in Boulder and soon traveled a bit before taking up work in the stage in the late 1950s. He did a handful of television appearances, but this is the first film he did in what was a long career before his death just this month. The toils of idealism in the face of actual combat are probably a bit obvious for anyone to portray, but Redford at least shows some promise that obviously would get meatier material to really sink in. In general, it is a movie that comes and goes for 83 minutes with familiar routines that look upon the people fated to kill or be killed and finds that some really will just wander into their own world even when the target is soon to be washed away. In a sea of movies dwelling in the action of war, sometimes you might find something in the low-key type of movie pile here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I couldnt make the whole review about the actor debuts, so here is a note. Sydney Pollack actually started as an actor in the 1950s with theater work while dabbling in truck driving before he became influenced to direct when working as a dialogue coach on The Young Savages (1961) but dabbled in acting for films here. Then you've got Skerritt being noticed for a production of The Rainmaker (when at UCLA) by Sanders. But I suppose the reason this movie was picked was for Redford. RIP.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

M*A*S*H.

Review #1433: M*A*S*H.

Cast: 
Donald Sutherland (Hawkeye Pierce), Elliott Gould (Trapper John McIntyre), Tom Skerritt (Duke Forrest), Sally Kellerman (Maj. Margaret 'Hot Lips' O'Houlihan), Robert Duvall (Maj. Frank Burns), Roger Bowen (Lt. Col. Henry Blake), Rene Auberjonois (Father John Mulcahy), David Arkin (Sgt. Major Vollmer), Jo Ann Pflug (Lt. 'Dish'), John Schuck (Walter "The Painless Pole" Waldowski) Gary Burghoff (Cpl. 'Radar' O'Reilly), and Fred Williamson (Dr. Oliver "Spearchucker" Jones) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville)

Review: 
"I equate this work more with painting than with theater or literature. Stories don't interest me. Basically, I'm more interested in behavior. I don't direct, I watch. I have to be thrilled if I expect the audience to be thrilled. Because what I really want to see from an actor is something I've never seen before, so I can't tell them what it is. I try to encourage actors not to take turns. To deal with conversation as conversation. I mean, that's what the job is, I think. It's to make a comfort area so that an actor can go beyond what he thought he could do."

The 1970s were an interesting time try and push the envelope with films, so it only makes sense to cover one that its director described one that didn't get released but instead escaped. Robert Altman was the right man at the right time to have a breakthrough through directing a film as transgressive as this one. Altman had a long and strange path to this film, with his first writing credit being a co-story effort on Bodyguard (1948). In the next few years, he would direct industrial films for the Calvin Company in his native Kansas City before getting a chance to direct with The Delinquents (1957), an independent hit. It led to Altman having plenty of chances to direct for television, which he would do for over a decade that helped him hone his craft in making things on budget. Altman returned to feature directing with Countdown (1968) and That Cold Day in the Park (1969), although neither had been particularly successful. When it came time to do a film version of MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors, several directors rejected the chance, but Altman was the one who ultimately agreed to do it. The 1968 novel had been written by Richard Hooker [Hiester Richard Hornberger Jr], who had served in the Korean War for the 8055 Mobile Army Surgical Hospital that was based on his dramatic and comedic experiences there. The film's success would inspire a broadly popular television series two years later that would match the success of this film. Ironically enough, Altman was not fond of the book or the show, describing the book as "just terrible" and the series as an "antithesis of what we were trying to do", while Hooker also disliked the show. To add on to this, screenwriter Ring Lardner Jr, who had disowned the film for its deviation from his script, would win an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Altman, knowing that 20th Century Fox was focusing their attention on their bigger budgeted war films (Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora!), aspired to make his film under budget and without too much trouble so he could sneak through without too much interference from the studio.

The film has quirks to it that would become trademarks of Altman's films over the following three decades, such as overlapping dialogue, an ensemble cast, and improvised performances, which ultimately prove forthright in making a chaotic and irreverent classic. There is a mix of familiar and new actors present, such as Sutherland (who would have a breakthrough in his career starting with films such as these), Gould (who rose to prominence in his previous role in Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice), and Duvall (man of stage, television and occasional film who would become a bigger presence in this decade), while others were fairly fresh in film, such as Skerritt and Kellerman (both having breakthroughs after plenty of prior television work), or Bowen, Auberjonois and others (such as Bud Cort) making their first appearances in film. Each of these actors have their part to play in making this satire come alive with plenty to say and do, most of which resulting in an effective dark comedy. Sutherland does well with such mischief that is balanced from the seriousness of the horrors of war on the operating table that makes for inspired anarchy with his counterpart in Gould, who never seem to be out of step with each other in driving humor through situations without needing to hit one over the head too many times. Skerritt accompanies the action at times with steady timing, while Kellerman and Duvall both make for formidable balances (and targets) of authority to poke around with (although admittedly the film is much rougher on the former in terms of crudeness of jokes). Bowen and Auberjonois step in at times to round out the cast with straight-laced dignity (or at the very least the appearance of it), while others do fine with brief moments (such as a quietly sardonic Burghoff). On the whole, this is a fine film wrapped in cynicism, right down to the title song "Suicide is Painless" from Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman (Robert's 14-year old son), which was mandated by the elder Altman to be "the stupidest song ever written." The film packs a caustic punch for 116 minutes involving the nature of war and the people who have to make the most of it in their own way. It manages to pull through without too many crude stumbles after a half century because of a game cast and capable direction from Altman in making an apt film to mark the beginning of a new decade and new perspective for film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Poltergeist III.

Review #1199: Poltergeist III.

Cast:
Tom Skerritt (Bruce Gardner), Nancy Allen (Pat Gardner), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Lara Flynn Boyle (Donna Gardner), Richard Fire (Dr. Seaton), Nathan Davis (Reverend Henry Kane), and Kipley Wentz (Scott) Directed by Gary Sherman.

Review:
Was there really a big desire to make another Poltergeist film? The previous films were successes with audiences (with the first making ten times its budget and the second making double), so why not make a cheap sequel - complete with O'Rourke and Rubinstein being the only ones returning, with a reduced budget of $9.5 million, roughly less than half of the sequel's budget. Sherman (who directed and co-wrote the film with Brian Taggert) thought that the setting of the film being a building was a scary one, stating that "there are people on the other side of the wall, and no one cares that you are in trouble". Perhaps that could have proven true, but the final result is a movie that proves to be just another disappointing Poltergeist sequel. The film sure tries to make sure you won't forget who Carol Anne is, since characters in the film keep saying her name. I lost count after about the tenth time Kane (or someone else) said it, and it sure seems more like something to ridicule than be terrified of.

I do appreciate the in-camera effects, which were done live on the stage, with some highlights including a corpse being clawed out of at one point, and some of the mirror effects are a bit spooky. They can't save a movie that seems to meander in cheese. Nobody in the film does a terrible job, but they can't really give this film any sense of suspense or sell this as something worth using much effort over. Skerritt and Allen are okay at least, although the tonal shift for Allen's character near the climax feels abrupt and tacked on in order to deliver tension. O'Rourke does a fine job with her role once again, just as captivating and watchable as before in her final film. Rubenstein is just as offbeat as ever with giving exposition and occasional amusement, such as when she interrupts her session of tea and drops everything to fly on a plane after sensing danger for Carol Anne. Boyle and Wentz are okay, but their characters don't really have much to do other than just play the teenagers in a horror film (with the latter being forgotten about when it came to the ending). The angle involving the family and O'Rourke doesn't really hit as well when compared to the family angle from the previous two films. Fire is pretty annoying, but it is a bit hard to really make a skeptic in a horror film (particularly a sequel) seem anything other than just one to make for conflict, and he isn't really too interesting to follow with in any case. Davis (or more specifically, Corey Burton in a recording booth smoking a bunch of cigarettes to get that proper raspy voice) doesn't make for much of a villainous presence, perhaps in part because it is strange to even see Kane again in the first place. They might as well had just made up a new villain anyway, since his return is just as strange, seeing as Carol Anne was doing a bunch of hypnosis sessions while attending some sort of school for the gifted - complete with a skeptic doctor who believes it is all a product of mass hypnosis (which is pretty stupefying, actually). I guess getting stabbed with a spear just isn't enough closure. In any case, the film just doesn't have a real big scare up its sleeve besides occasional tricks for its 98 minute run-time.

The ending of the film is a letdown, particularly with its stinger that actually tries to sequel-bait. The film had its ending changed in post-production, which was actually more optimistic than what eventually made it onto the screen. Both endings keep the sacrifice made by Tangina, but while the original ending simply had the family return to the real world, the revised ending includes the John Hancock Center having two lightning bolts strike it (the only visual effect added in post-production) while Kane's laughter is heard; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer wanted to punch-up the ending, which I suppose they valued more than a real ending. It should be noted that the re-shoot (done months after production ended) occurred without O'Rourke, who tragically died on February 1, 1988 from misdiagnosed intestinal stenosis. Four months later, the film was released, with the movie not being as successful with audiences - in part due to reduced marketing by MGM, who wanted to avoid being thought as exploitative, to the point where Skerritt and Allen did not do interviews for the film, lest they get asked questions about O'Rourke. In any case, the film is just not that scary, feeling just as pale of an imitation as the original, with only occasional bits of interest sprinkled in. If you were into the sequel and want to see a further supernatural tale involving some of the characters from before, this may work for you. Anybody looking for a quality follow-up to just the original or one wanting a proper close to the series will probably be disappointed.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alien.

Review #530: Alien.

Cast
Tom Skerritt (Dallas), Sigourney Weaver (Ripley), Veronica Cartwright (Lambert), Harry Dean Stanton (Brett), John Hurt (Kane), Ian Holm (Ash), Yaphet Kotto (Parker), and Bolaji Badejo (The Alien) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner)

Review

Alien has its shares of influences such as (#519) The Thing from Another World or (#331) It! The Terror from Beyond Space, but beneath all that is a wonderfully dark masterpiece. The set design by Ron Cobb and Chris Foss is really well done, it doesn't distract from the movie, but it is wonderful. The alien (and other accompanying elements) by H. R. Giger works so well because the design doesn't look like a suit for somebody to be in, it's a big and long suit that is so unconventional and yet so cool looking. Ridley Scott does a good job directing, his best decision in this film is not showing all of the Alien throughout most of the film, which keeps the suspense and terror of the Alien intact. The actors (insert your John Hurt as the War Doctor reference here, which I won't do out of choice in the name of peace and sanity...oops.) are well suited for a film like this, especially Sigourney Weaver, who certainly can act with terror all around her. Even Bolaji Badejo does a good job, his movements of the Alien from inside the suit are more natural looking and menacing. This is a tense and effective horror film that would later have three sequels and a...film in the same universe as Alien but not a prequel. Whatever the case, Alien is still a terror to behold 35 years later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.