Showing posts with label Val Avery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Val Avery. Show all posts

June 28, 2025

Cobra (1986).

Review #2392: Cobra (1986).

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Marion "Cobra" Cobretti), Brigitte Nielsen (Ingrid Knudsen), Reni Santoni (Sergeant Tony Gonzales), Andrew Robinson (Detective Monte), Brian Thompson ("Night Slasher"), John Herzfeld (Cho), Lee Garlington (Officer Nancy Stalk), Art LaFleur (Captain Sears), Marco Rodriguez (Supermarket Killer), Ross St. Phillip (Security Guard), and Val Avery (Chief Halliwell) Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II, #1177 - Tombstone)

Review: 
Sure, it is loosely adapted from a book. But the real curiosity might be from the fact that the script for the movie was inspired by a failed idea. You might remember that Sylvester Stallone was the serious candidate to star in 1984's Beverly Hills Cop (after the attached actor in Mickey Rourke dropped out) at least before he made his script revisions. Apparently, he was once quoted as saying "Somehow, me trying to comically terrorize Beverly Hills is not the stuff that great yuk-festivals are made from. So I re-wrote the script to suit what I do best, and by the time I was done, it looked like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan on the beaches of Normandy." The bottom line is that Stallone's revisions were just not suitable to film (particularly in the budget) and, well, you know the rest. Stallone was credited writing the screenplay while the "based off" material was the 1974 novel A Running Duck, as written by Paula Gosling. Interestingly, the novel was later published under a different name in Fair Game and Andrew Sipes filmed an adaptation of the book under that title in 1995 with William Baldwin as star. The finished version of Cobra runs at 89 minutes after extensive battles with editing, since the MPAA originally rated it as an X, and it probably didn't help that it was released in the wake of Top Gun (1986). Deleted sequences from the film do exist online, if one is curious to search for it, anyway (one small scene for example, has a kid delivering a present to the police that is stated to be a hand). This was actually a co-production between The Cannon Group and Warner Bros. (only the logo of the latter is seen, naturally), and Stallone would be involved with the two again with Over the Top (1987).

It's very amusing to make a Dirty Harry pastiche with two of the actors from the first film (Robinson and Santoni) in it, don't you think? There might be some who believe the film would serve as a comedy to lampoon the over-the-top nature of the movie, what with its view of a character taking extrajudicial measures to get things done and the occasional one liner (those people probably think MacGruber is just as funny as Cobra or go on Reddit). Well, I take that back, he starts the film by listing crime statistics of burglaries happening every 11 seconds and violent crimes happening every 25 seconds and so on. It is a pretty terse 89-minute movie, but I think you can see how someone could enjoy the proceedings, particularly with the curious observation that Stallone saw the lead character as "Bruce Springsteen with a badge." Even in its average qualities that mark it as roughly equivalent to Cosmatos & Stallone's previous collaboration with Rambo: First Blood Part II (as released one year prior), there is something curious to watch with a movie that basically comes off as a supercut of all the cliches possible for strange delight: villains with understated motives? attempts at levity for romance in the middle of mayhem? A secondary character exchanging quips with our lead that gets setup for getting wounded in an ensuing firefight? A grisly finish to close out the proceedings? All that and more is present here, and it goes to show that you can include plenty of familiar aspects of an action movie and seem pretty enjoyable anyways. Edits aside, there is an energetic presence to the film that comes out quite clearly even if it wasn't going to a series of movies. Stallone might've had a bit of an ego present with being part of filming, but there is still something worth watching him engage with the proceedings, which might as well be blueprint for further smart-ass heroes going against free-wheeling bad guys in the future with Stone Cold (1991). It doesn't really mean great chemistry with Nielsen (Stallone's wife at the time), but I can imagine worse. Thompson may not exactly get much to really do as the heavy (okay, there's a cult that likes playing with axes, I expected less anyway), but I like it anyway, he just has a ferocious energy that inherently watchable, particularly when it comes to the climax (okay, it ends with him on a hook, but still). You get the "heh, that's nice to see" with folks such as Santoni and LaFleur, suffice to say, mainly because it's hard to make an unenjoyable wiseass accidentally in an action movie. Robinson* and character apparently was meant to be the real bad guy of the movie, complete with a planned sequence involving a tattoo at the end. Even here there is still a wiseass energy that I can't help but like from Robinson, cliches be damned. The supermarket sequence and the climax are fair enough highlights in mayhem, at least for those who know that what they get here is mainly stuff that wouldn't be too removed from a Dirty Harry offshoot (the ones who don't hesitate to label those movies as "fascist" would probably get more blubbery in criticizing it, but, well, the eyes only roll so much). Cobra might be thought as the litmus test for seeing one's taste in the same way in the same way that one can tell if someone is prevaricating you in explaining things as evasively as possible**. You either get with it or don't, as Cobra is a lubricious but worthwhile piece of entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, I don't hate Reddit, here's a source from there, as Robinson was quoted on there as calling Cobra: "The worst movie I was ever in... well, there are a few that qualify, but on another level Cobra was one of the best things I've ever done because it gave me the down payment on our house of 30 years."
**I heard that one word earlier, so why not use it?

May 28, 2020

Faces.

Review #1428: Faces.

Cast: 
John Marley (Richard Forst), Gena Rowlands (Jeannie Rapp), Lynn Carlin (Maria Forst), Seymour Cassel (Chet), Fred Draper (Freddie Draper), Val Avery (Jim McCarthy), Dorothy Gulliver (Florence), Joanne Moore Jordan (Louise Draper), Darlene Conley (Billy Mae) Written and Directed by John Cassavetes.

Review:
"My films are expressive of a culture that has had the possibility of attaining material fulfillment while at the same time finding itself unable to accomplish the simple business of conducting human lives. We have been sold a bill of goods as a substitute for life. What is needed is reassurance in human emotions; a re-evaluation of our emotional capacities.”

We all know important independence can be in life. It can also be important when it comes to film as well, which proves to be the case with actor and director-writer John Cassavetes, a pioneer of independent cinema. The son of Greek immigrants, he had graduated from the Academy of Dramatic Arts (New York) in 1950 and soon began acting in theater with small bits in film and television following not long after, with works such as The Night Holds Terror (1955) and Edge of the City (1957). He was a proponent of an alternative to method acting through his own workshop that he did in New York City. It was during an appearance on the radio show Night People (hosted by Jean Shepherd) to promote the latter film that he pondered over if someone could make a film about ordinary people (without all the Hollywood business interference). Funds from listeners of the show (which apparently totaled to over $2,000) along with raiding funds from family and friends led him to have a chance to make what he wanted. Over time, he would use funds garnered from acting gigs (with notable performances in films such as The Dirty Dozen (1967) and Rosemary's Baby (1968)) to help fund his films, not wanting to compromise his vision from producers who might have wanted to shift a project to something more "commercial" (although he did do a few films with involvement or distribution with studios, such as the two films before Faces in Two Late Blues and A Child is Waiting). He cultivated his films from his experiences with an fiercely independent streak who once stated that the only person less important than the director on a film set was a talent agent, since he felt a director should create their own material for their films. He was characterized for allowing a manner of improvisation for his actors through their delivery and interpretation of their character, which would shape the story (as opposed to the other way around). Ultimately, he would direct twelve films in a span of 27 years from Shadows (shot in 1957, previewed the following year and then reworked for release in 1959) to Big Trouble (1986, which he disowned) before his death in 1989 at the age of 59. One of his scripts would eventually be adapted into a film after his death with She's So Delovely (1997), directed by his son Nick (the first of Cassavetes' three children to turn to directing).

For this film (his fourth), he spent over six months with filming (most notably filming in the house of his mother-in-law alongside his own) and then three years to edit. The film runs at 130 minutes, but it had existed in numerous forms prior to general release, including an initial cut of six that reduced to four before a preview screening of a three hour version, and a 147 minute version was deposited for preservation at the Library of Congress.  One thing that is for certain is that the film is an interesting look upon communication and how few we really talk to each other. What one thought about communication when it comes to how passive and desperate we are to connect with our loved ones back in 1968 still resonates with how we are now, with Cassavetes managing to make an honest film that sets its own path of casual venom in examining communication with rawness. It can be an uncomfortable sit at times, lingering with conversations on their own terms that can test the patience at times but ultimately work itself out to discussion and curiosity worth having. Marley and Rowlands lead this ensemble (with five of the main six having starred in at least one Cassavetes film before this one) to curious heights, leading one's curiosity with a bit of sadness to it all, whether that means a working man trying to escape his empty love-life in a capable Marley (a character actor with plenty of film/TV credits) or a wiry and knowing performance from Rowlands (an actress of over six decades in film, stage, and television known for collaborations in her husband Cassavetes' films) that serves to drive the film's look at desperation to feel something with someone. Carlin, the secretary-turned-actress makes for a fair debut that captures a hollowed-out person of marriage with subtlety. Cassel shines in carefreeness that pulls you in when he shows himself to try and warm up the presence of desperation without becoming a caricature to laugh at. In the end, this is a bleak movie, but it is one that has a place for doing so on its own terms for its story and for its actors that shows the reflection on the mirror of the 1960s without flinching or making an easy out. It might not be for everybody, but it certainly has a place in inspiring curiosity for those who want something a bit different from the usual fare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

May 11, 2020

Hud (1963).


Review #1411: Hud.

Cast: 
Paul Newman (Hud Bannon), Melvyn Douglas (Homer Bannon), Brandon deWilde (Lonnie Bannon), Patricia Neal (Alma Brown), Whit Bissell (Mr. Burris), Crahan Denton (Jesse), John Ashley (Hermy), Val Avery (Jose), George Petrie (Joe Scanlon), and Curt Conway (Truman Peters) Directed by Martin Ritt.

Review: 
"I make the kind of films that not too many people get to make in this town, though sometimes I've had to take the risk myself"

One cannot simply make a good film without some sort of sensitivity and knowledge of how to maintain a production and the aspects that go with it from cast to tone. Martin Ritt was a director known for his socially conscious films, concerned with the human condition while making sure to film with a careful hand and careful approach to his stars, which served him well over the years. Born in 1914, he grew up in New York City but attended college in North Carolina, with the latter experience shaping his vision in wanting to show the struggle of inequality. He moved to the theater not long after graduation, shifting from theatre groups (as actor and director at times) to the Federal Theater Project to the Group Theatre where he met Elia Kazan (in later years Ritt would do work at the Actors Studio when Kazan could not make a class). After serving in World War II under the US Army Air Forces, he had shifted some of his focus to television, but the prevailing fear over red influence into entertainment trapped him on the blacklist for a few years. A few years later, he directed his first feature film with Edge of the City (1957), which depicted a interracial friendship. In the course of over three decades, he would make several notable films, such as The Long, Hot Summer (1958, which also starred Newman), Sounder (1972), and Norma Rae (1979).

The film was adapted by Harriet Frank Jr and Irving Ravetch (who co-produced the film with Ritt) from the 1961 novel Horseman, Pass By from Larry McMurtry, the first of six of his works to have been adapted into film (with others being notable films like The Last Picture Show and Terms of Endearment). The key change made in adapting the novel was in expanding the character of Hud to be the main focus, as opposed to Lonnie. The film was shot over the course of four weeks, with most of it being done in the Texas Panhandle, with some time being spent beforehand to rehearse with the cast to have them delve into their roles before shooting. This is a feature with a tremendously well-rounded quartet (with Douglas and Neal winning Academy Awards for their performances), headlined by Newman. The method actor had risen from theatre work to feature film roles in the 1950s, and he had spent a couple of days in a Texas ranch working and sleeping in a bunkhouse to prepare for the role. He pulls off a magnificent performance here, a charming monster who lives for himself and the tastes that go with said figure that swaggers over the conventional lead focus for the time, sinking with ease into such a rough role. To the surprise of Newman and Ritt, audiences found a liking to this amoral character, who they thought would not be accepted as a heroic character, with Ritt believing it being a reflection of the counterculture that would engulf the latter part of the decade. Perhaps it is evident in a quote from the film that talks about how a country changes its look by who we admire, and one must make up their mind over what is right and wrong. In that sense, theatre-turned-film star Douglas matches up with principles and a weary but unbroken spirit that reflects his ranch with measured composure. When it comes to deWilde, he holds his own as a yearning youth at a crossroads that all growing youth find themselves, and he does it with plenty of conviction. Neal, a member of the Actors Studio that appears for just twenty minutes, makes the best of her time with a relentlessly compelling performance, filled with worn-out cynicism and wit. The other key highlight is James Wong Howe (a pioneer of cinematography for six decades) and his stark cinematography, which captures the depth of such a landscape like the Panhandle with tremendous contrast and shadows that make for a devastating effect for a reasonably paced 112 minutes. This is a film that sets its own trail of where one can go in their life without needing to draw it out for the audience, with four capable performances and direction to drive a film that drives hard to questions that aren't easy to get to but prove fairly worth it in the long run. It reaches most of the marks it wants to make while serving as its own kind of Western melodrama worthy of a watch for its vision of the countryside.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

June 28, 2013

Movie Night: The Anderson Tapes.


Review #404: The Anderson Tapes.

Cast
Sean Connery (Duke Anderson), Dyan Cannon (Ingrid Everleigh), Martin Balsam (Tommy Haskins), Ralph Meeker (Captain Delaney), Alan King (Pat Angelo), Christopher Walken (The Kid), Val Avery (Socks Parelli), Stan Gottlieb (Pop Myer), Garrett Morris (Police Sergeant), Paul Benjamin (Jimmy), Anthony Holland (Psychologist), Richard B. Shull (Werner), Conrad Bain (Dr. Rubicoff), and Margaret Hamilton (Miss Kaler) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men and #036 - Network)

Review
There have been seven reviews on Movie Night in which Sean Connery starred in the film, consisting of the six James Bond films he did from 1962-1971 (#150, #278, #298, #335, #354, #279) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (#170), so reviewing a film different from those is a welcome addition, especially when directed by Sidney Lumet, who hasn't gotten too much attention from me, though I loved 12 Angry Men. The Anderson Tapes manages to a decent thriller, and it does have its level of suspense, along with music by Quincy Jones, which is allright. Connery himself does a good job, as he manages to break out of the James Bond typecasting, doing something new, and it works. A fun fact in this film is that Christopher Walken makes his acting debut in this film and Margaret Hamilton makes her last acting appearance. The wire tapping and camera thing may seem a bit dated, but this film still works even in this day and age, and the thrill aspect of the film is toned enough to have an effect today. A fairly decent thriller with some more than decent actors and fine directing.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.