Cotton Comes to Harlem.

Review #1635: Cotton Comes to Harlem.

Cast: 

Godfrey Cambridge (Gravedigger Jones), Raymond St. Jacques (Coffin Ed Johnson), Calvin Lockhart (Deke O'Malley), Judy Pace (Iris Brown), Redd Foxx (Uncle Budd / Booker Washington Sims), Emily Yancy (Mabel), John Anderson (Bryce), Lou Jacobi (Goodman), Eugene Roche (Anderson), J.D. Cannon (Calhoun), Mabel Robinson (Billie), Dick Sabol (Jarema), and Cleavon Little (Lo Boy) Directed by Ossie Davis.

Review: 

“...Harlem was home; was where we belonged; where we knew and were known in return; where we felt most alive; where, if need be, somebody had to take us in. Harlem defined us, claiming our consciousness and, I suspect, our unconsciousness.”

Actors becoming directors is not a surprising thing to see, because it has occurred for several decades, so one shouldn't be surprised to find that this was the directorial debut for Ossie Davis. The Georgia native initially studied at Howard University (after receiving a scholarship from the National Youth Administration) in philosophy. However, when asked by Dr. Alain LeRoy Locke (the head of the department) what his ambitions were, Davis had stated he wanted to be a playwright. Spurred by suggestions to check in with the Rose McClendon Players in Harlem to check what it means to be a writer, Davis left the university to go to Harlem, for which he joined the company in 1939 (seven years later, he would debut on Broadway). Aside from his acting interests, he also served in the United States Army for the Medical Corps and afterwards attended Columbia University School of General Studies from 1947 to 1948. Davis would start appearing in film in 1950 and television in 1955, eventually getting a few prominent roles (such as his first starring role with The Emperor Jones (1955, TV), Gone Are the Days! (1963, film), which also featured Cambridge, or The Hill (1965)) while being well known for his participation in civil rights activism (alongside his wife and actress Ruby Dee). This was the first of five theatrical films that Davis would direct in his life, and he was brought in by Samuel Goldwyn, Jr initially to star before being impressed by Davis' work in rewriting the script to have him direct instead. When it comes to the 1970s, blaxploitation was one of the dominant genres to come forward in making movies. It might be hard to describe what is the first one of its genre, but there were certainly example-setters in films that raised attention and eyebrows that came around at the start of the decade, whether involving Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971), or Shaft (1971). Of course one that shouldn't be forgotten is a film released a year before either film, one that is adapted from the 1965 novel of the same name that had been written by Chester Himes. The novel was part of Himes' series of mystery novels known as the Harlem Detective series, which had nine published works from A Rage in Harlem (1957) up to the last one in Blind Man With a Pistol (1969), with one unpublished work eventually being released after Himes' death. Eight of the nine works involved the characters of Gravedigger and Coffin Ed, obviously inspired by the exploits of pulp writers like Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. There have been two subsequent films since this one that were based on the two characters with Come Back, Charleston Blue (1971, starring Cambridge and St. Jacques but with no Davis) and A Rage in Harlem (1991).

What's not to like about a movie that wants to balance high action with cheeky humor? The film was written by Davis and Arnold Perl, who incidentally wrote for a variety of cop dramas (alongside directing the documentary Malcolm X (1972) before his death). They may be rough-and-tumble cops, but they sure don't break their promises to make sure to serve the community, especially when they are being swindled. I sure enjoyed what I saw, and it sure is easy to see why it proved to be on the earliest examples of raucous action entertainment, nothing that ends up great or even really good, but average is pretty good. This might be represented by a brief fight in the opening eight minutes, in which Cambridge and St. Jaques briefly deal in a scuffle with five folks that leads to one of the group getting tossed in the air to the stares of the others as he falls right back down. Not to be let down in further play in action is a roaring heist/duel between cops and thieves for money. Somehow, in the midst of the chase, the money was put into a bale of cotton and fell out of the truck, which naturally means the film is a pursuit of the cotton and the cons played to deal with said money. A variety of things occur through the film, such as a defrocked conman, blackmail, and plenty of gunfire and smart remarks to go around in a film shot in the summer of 1969 right in the heart of Harlem (with community support from The Black Citizens Patrol). Truly, one could see plenty of self-determination when it comes to slam-bang fun for a mostly interesting 97 minute tale. It might not rank up as a great action film or even as iconic as Shaft proved to be a year later, but it sure is a useful film that remains a curiosity after five decades, one that gets by with pride for its setting without too many details to bog things down. We have quite a duo here in Cambridge (who initially wanted to study medicine at Hofstra College before turning to acting) and St. Jaques (a Yale graduate in drama), each of whom did a variety of odd jobs alongside making it in acting through Off-Broadway roles; incidentally, Cambridge would also star in Watermelon Man (1970), which was also one of the first studio films directed by an African American (in this case Melvin Van Pebbles). At any rate, they make for a fine duo together, trading a few snappy lines that make for some chuckles while keeping the peace of mind with a casual cop plot. Lockhart makes for a quality adversary in terms of flim-flam confidence man, which goes over quite well in balancing humor with tension. Others follow along just fine in delivering a few plot details or curious stares, most notably with Foxx (known for his raunchy nightclub acts before sitcom stardom came in 1972), who proves for a few chummy laughs (particularly with a fitting close scene. Others play amusing fiddles such as Sabol or authority like Roche alright. As a whole, the film works best in its first and last acts, mostly because its process of investigation takes its toll in the editing department - the closing may not involve a big gunfight (that was earlier), but having a showdown in the theater is good enough. Is it a great film? No, and there would be plenty of blaxploitation films to come around, but it certainly has a place worth talking about when it comes to actor-director ventures with a bit of action and humor to go around.

Next Time: Now this one is different for Black History Month from the new voices seen so far, but it fits because of its angle within horror at the height of blaxploitation. That, and the fact it has an interesting history to it - Abby (1974).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm.

Review #1634: Symbiopsychotaxiplasm. 

Cast: 
Patricia Ree Gilbert (herself, testing for Alice), Don Fellows (himself, testing for Fredy), Jonathan Gordon (himself, soundman), Bob Rosen (himself, production manager), and William Greaves (himself, director) Directed, Written, and Edited by William Greaves.

Review: 
“I think probably the central reason why I got involved in film production in general and documentary production in particular was that I had the very good fortune of studying African history. That wasn’t something most Black Americans were familiar with back in the 1950s and 1960s"

It's easy to make something worth seeing for oneself, but it is another thing to make something curious enough for others to follow with - so why not a film without an easy category to list it under? William Graves certainly merits a discussion over his body of work, as he is considered a pioneer of African American filmmaking with his focus on documentary filming. The Harlem native originally started his studies in college with science and engineering (at City College of New York), but he dropped out in order to pursue the theatre. He moved his focus from dancing to acting, participating in study at the Actors Studio (studying other folks such as Lee Strasberg) along with songwriting. Frustrated with the derivative roles offered through stage and film (which included supporting roles like Lost Boundaries from 1949), he shifted his attention to studying behind the camera (doing so with Hans Richter at CCNY's Film Institute), such as work with Louis de Rochemont. In 1952, he decided to move to Canada to study with the National Film Board of Canada, where he went from assistant editing to making his own films through his course of eleven years. An interest in history in Africa (such as professor William Leo Hansberry) helped push him on the way to doing documentaries (as helped by John Grierson's book on the subject, since he not only coined the phrase but also helped create the NFB) that would teach about topics not generally told in education. He would spend several years in Canada doing films that are generally considered part of the first cinéma-vérité documentaries, and by the time he moved back in 1963 to America he was ready to take on independent work in filming. Greaves would work for a variety of places for freelance work that ranged from the United Nations to National Educational Television (the predecessor to PBS), where he would win an Emmy for his work on Black Journal in 1969. Over the span of a half century, Greaves would cover a variety of subjects with his filmmaking, such as the Harlem Renaissance, a feature documentary involving the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier 1971 fight, and the life of icons such as Ida B. Wells and Ralph Bunche. Greaves would also find time to teach film and acting alongside doing workshops and public speaking about indie film experiences before his death at the age of 87 in 2014.

One might wonder exactly what the title means with how long it is, and there might be a clue with a similar word that exists with Symbiotaxiplasm - That word refers to action of interconnectedness; Greaves was inspired by an Arthur Bentley essay on the subject for his own film, for which he described as events that happen in someone's life that impact upon someone within consciousness or the environment. Besides, this was the era of daring to do something different with the drama within experimentation, as noted in films such as Medium Cool (1969) in blending fact and fiction. His passion for acting and documentary is what led him to do this film, one that would be shot in the style of cinema verite that can be thought of as experimental or avant-garde. The release year is dubious, since it was shot in 1968 in Central Park in New York City, comprised of footage shot in the park, footage shot involving the film crew talking about Greaves and their doubts and footage in between that captures reality through coherence/incoherence with editing. In other words: there were three film crews brought in to do the film, with one shooting actors (brought in from Greaves' days at the Actors Studio), the second to document the first crew, and the third crew to film anything that relates to the overarching theme of the documentary of sexuality (which can include anything from someone on a horse to an eccentric homeless man), all while Greaves interacts in the film as the director to end all directors, doing on one side the act of maneuvering the film with the film while on the other hand including footage that doubts whether he knows what he is doing at all (credit to Rosen and Gordon for expressing their doubt so clearly). When the film was finally completed in 1971, it did not receive attention for financing a theatrical release from distributors, and an attempt to get the film screened at the Cannes Film Festival proved fruitless. Nevertheless, Greaves did find time to tour the film around, and a showing at the Sundance Film Festival caught the eye of Steve Buscemi in 1993, who wanted to help with financing and producing one of his films - believe it or not, this was intended as the first of numerous Symbiopsychotaxiplasm films. After a decade of limbo and finding another admirer with Steven Soderbergh, a sequel would indeed be commissioned, with Greaves returning to do so while each would have its own release in theaters in the fall of 2005 (this film is referred to with the secondary title of Take One, while the sequel is called Take 2 1/2 and the DVD release is just known as Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Two Takes). 

Could you imagine there being five of these films? How about the fact that over 70 hours of footage was distilled into 75 minutes? It's the easiest case to ever use the word meta-textual when it comes to this film, particularly with its instance of repeating one sequence for the actors (for which there are more than just one pairing) to do again and again, which can even include three cameras filming. It may be the most accomplished piece of reality-infused media, because at least when one sees a reality television show (or a documentary detailing life), one at least knows there is just one camera shooting all the action, complete with a Miles Davis music score that goes exactly with what is needed in composition for a film of experiments. That scene with the eccentric (named Victor) near the end fully encapsulates the spontaneity that encompasses this film, where anything could happen without seeming out of touch or a gimmick. It may be unpolished and might seem a bit on the fleeting side, but for anyone who yearns to see something about filmmaking besides just a movie about making movies, one can't go wrong about a movie about making a movie about making a movie that captures that line between what is real and what is just on the surface, what with numerous actors being shown playing the roles within the fictional film (with one singing the dialogue and the other in Audrey Henningham as the last shot of the film while teasing the follow-up film). Greaves hoped he would have the power of a hurricane with his arrival into filmmaking but ended up describing himself as a raindrop hoping for further directors of a similar mind, and he is correct in one sense, in that he ended up being a one of a kind director that made a worthwhile one of a kind movie to seek out. It might not be the perfect film for all tastes of patience, but it certainly achieves enough to blur the lines of fact and fiction. You just have to see it for yourself to wonder why it eventually found a home as an experimental gem, and it is a blessing that a website exists in tribute to the director that includes plenty of material involving the life of Greaves, and it is also nice to see this have an easier route to be viewed than it was at the time of its completion that dares to have its own revolution within the media of film that still goes on today.

You just never know what could come next with the range of genres or history. Next Time for Black History Month: Cotton Comes to Harlem.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Within Our Gates.

Review #1633: Within Our Gates.

True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Last of the Mohicans.

Review #1631: The Last of the Mohicans.

Cast: 

Daniel Day-Lewis (Nathaniel "Hawkeye" Poe), Madeleine Stowe (Cora Munro), Russell Means (Chingachgook), Eric Schweig (Uncas), Jodhi May (Alice Munro), Steven Waddington (Major Duncan Heyward), Wes Studi (Magua), Maurice Roëves (Colonel Edmund Munro), Patrice Chéreau (General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm), Edward Blatchford (Jack Winthrop), Terry Kinney (John Cameron), Tracey Ellis (Alexandra Cameron), and Justin M. Rice (James Cameron) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali)

Review: 

“The idea for The Last of the Mohicans came to me because I’d seen the film written by Philip Dunne when I was 3. I realized 40 years later that it had been rattling around in my brain ever since, that it was a part of me, a very important part. I just hadn’t been consciously aware of it up to that point. I also thought: there hasn’t really been an exciting epic, period film in a long, long time."

Sometimes you can't help but awe at someone's attempts at reshaping the frontier in terms of a period piece. The film is an adaptation of The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757, written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826. It was the second of five novels written by Cooper involving the frontiersmen Natty Bumppo, known by numerous nicknames to settlers and natives alike, one of which being "Hawkeye" - this was also chronologically the second in the series (referred to as the Leatherstocking Tales) that had adventures that spanned from 1740 to 1804 that was inspired by the real-life exploits of figures such as Daniel Boone (the capture and rescue of his daughter Jemina was fictionalized into an episode in his book) - he had his share of praise and criticism (most notably with Mark Twain, who mocked his excess), but that novel is generally referred to as his masterpiece work. There were a few previous adaptations of the stories to film, most notably with the 1936 adaptation in The Last of the Mohicans, featuring Randolph Scott as Hawkeye that was written by Philip Dunne - Dunne is credited for his screenplay in this film (right after Cooper), and each film had their clear differences to the book; a look into the details of the book when compared to the film reveals a few key differences, such as Hawkeye actually being older in the film, alongside additions and omissions such as a focus on settlers and their struggle with conscription alongside other moments spent away from the main group (such as focusing on the romance of Hawkeye and Cora rather than Cora with Uncas).

Here, we have a film where the authority of ritual become loosened and challenged by the wilderness. It has the look and gravitas needed in capturing the magic that other frontier films (shall we say Unconquered (1947), for example) that makes for a fairly useful attempt at making reactionary drama come alive for what is needed for the 1990s. It was shot in North Carolina with no expense spared to make a frontier adventure in the wilderness that had a committed Day-Lewis (in terms of actually living in the wilderness for a few months prior to shooting), a runtime of 112-117 minutes that is generally available in a revised cut (Mann had to trim it down from a planned three hours and tinkered with the film for DVD release - the 112 was the original, while the director's expanded version runs at 117) and a budget of $40 million. On the whole, it is a pretty good looking movie (as shot by Dante Spinotti in the second of films with Mann as cinematographer), one that aims for sweeping passion and excitement in the 18th century without being tied down to complete accuracy that tries to strike at the heart of forging forward in a new land with Mann's aesthetic for vivid entertainment that sticks with one for quite a while after seeing it. In a plethora of urban dramas that characterized Mann's previous work (this is his fourth feature film), one in which he wanted to do a current perspective on a complex time with intensity.

In this case, Day-Lewis certianly captures the task needed for such an earthy role. It is one that demands a resourceful actor that can play to romance and adventure needed in a film presenting a clear tapestry of athmosphere. The preparation done by Day-Lewis plays a part in how he does his performance, but it is also the striking eyes that play the key aid in how he balances his standing in where he is in when it comes to converging cultures. It is as if he reflects the soil of the frontier, reactive in what is needed. Stowe reflects the other side of frontier pursuit, an independent streak with grace that pairs quite well in romance (or the opposite feeling with Waddington) without getting lost in the land or with the action. Means and Schweig play their parts with reasoned solumn efforts despite not having as much dialogue - but they sure do help when it comes to the climax, where dialogue isn't needed to much to depict swift tension. Waddington reflects the stubborn spirit of the British well enough, one that moves by what seems proper and what seems to be needed in the wilderness. Studi plays maleficence with rightful emphasis, one that burrows his descent with edge that we can see in anyone as interested in seeing the perspective of preservation within revenge. At any rate, what we have here is an interesting piece between two genres, one that fits in the mold of adventure like a matinee film from decades ago but with the modern style and perspective that comes with the territory of forging a fresh film that takes inspiration from paintings of that era for a dazzling look to go with those weapons of the time to make a compelling narrative come alive. It plays with facts to make a useful time seem all the more interesting, and it has sat well within Mann's line of work after nearly three decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

L.A. Story

Review #1630: L.A. Story.

Cast: 

Steve Martin (Harris K. Telemacher), Victoria Tennant (Sara McDowel), Richard E. Grant (Roland Mackey), Marilu Henner (Trudi), Sarah Jessica Parker (SanDeE*), Susan Forristal (Ariel), Kevin Pollak (Frank Swan), Sam McMurray (Morris Frost), Patrick Stewart (Maitre d' at L'Idiot), Andrew Amador (Bob), and Gail Grate (Gail) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano)

Review: 

"My mature film career started with All of Me and ends with L.A. Story."

There are plenty of films that involve a depiction or shall we say "love letter" to a city, whether that involves symphonies like Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (1927), films involving history with a city like San Francisco (1936), or films with a city in mind for a theme like New York Stories (1989), or even films that just happen to have a city in the title like The Houston Story (1956). But what about Los Angeles? One could offer up La La Land (2016), sure, but there exists a more clear option, one with a dreamy touch. Here is one for the "City of Angels", written and starring Steve Martin, who was raised near the area (in Inglewood and Garden Grove), which even included study at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). This was his sixth writing effort, which he wrote on and off over the course of seven years (while working on other films, of course). Elements of William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream come out in in the film (alongside modified quotations from the author recited in voiceover), although Martin noted that The Bothy Band's "The Maid of Coolmore" affected his writing for the film as well. This was the second directorial effort of Mick Jackson, a British director who went to Hollywood after directing numerous television films.

This is certainly a nice little film for what is a romantic comedy that drips satire every which way it can that takes amusement of everyday life in a city as eccentric as Los Angeles with clever interest that hits most of its marks when it comes to amusement made over its pokes that range from architecture to gags involving art (complete with a rolling scene at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art). In addition to that, there are various cameo appearances throughout the film that range from Woody Harrelson to Chevy Chase to Rick Moranis, which result in a few giggles as well. If one lets their mind go, the body (and enjoyment) will follow, you might say - it happens with a film that involves a mix of sight gags and other moments within the sunny superficial city (whether that means gun etiquette on the highway or a scene at lunch for example). In this sense, Martin is obviously in his element here, wry but always on the move when dealing with modern struggles that come with neurotic success. He skates, he (loosely) quotes Shakespeare, and he even gets to have an interesting time to spend in chemistry with Tennant (the two were married at the time of production, coincidentally). Tennant is up to following along with the offbeat times spent as the outsider bemused at what passes for L.A. culture without seeming distant or too wry for bemusement. Grant may not have as much to do, but he sure is nice to see here, offbeat but useful for what is needed in this love rectangle. Parker (best known for work on Broadway as a youth alongside films like Girls Just Want to Have Fun) does well here, playing a Valley Girl type with energy and enthusiasm that counters Martin (and the evident age difference, obviously) without being just being used for cheap gags and nothing else. Others have their moments, such as an accompanying Henner and Forristal in go-getter status and friendly eccentric, respectively. Pollak and others like Stewart (utilized in one fun sequence involving restaurant negotiation) fill in the edges of a L.A. that will feel right at home for those who live there without seeming too lofty for anyone else to enjoy for themselves. At 98 minutes, it sure will make for a fine way to spend one's time for enjoyment, having a touch of the bizarre without any sort of false note or any love lost when it comes to optimism and carefree time spent in a city that still finds way to resonate after three decades like the lights on a freeway sign - it's a labor of love that one could only hope to have for their own city, you might say.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Miller's Crossing.

Review #1629: Miller's Crossing.

Cast:

Gabriel Byrne (Tom Reagan), Marcia Gay Harden (Verna Bernbaum), Albert Finney (Liam "Leo" O'Bannon), John Turturro (Bernie Bernbaum), Jon Polito (Johnny Caspar), J. E. Freeman (Eddie "the Dane"), Steve Buscemi (Mink Larouie), John McConnell (Bryan), Mike Starr (Frankie), Al Mancini (Tic-Tac), Olek Krupa (Tad), and Frances McDormand (The Mayor's Secretary) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, and #1552 - A Serious Man)

Review:

"It doesn’t really concern me if the audience sometimes loses the thread of the plot. It’s not that important to understand who killed the Rug Daniels character, for instance. It’s far more important to feel the relationships between the characters. The question of intelligibility concerns me more, but, until now, I haven’t received any bad reactions concerning that."

It can be amazing to look upon the early part of the career of a director and see how they can synthesize entertainment with their own particular brand of craftsmanship and characters that entices one with wit and intrigue in where it all will lead by the time of its final shot. The Coen brothers certainly have done well with cultivating memorable films over the span of four decades, with a fair share of notice to accompany it depending on how it reaches them. Miller's Crossing, the third film directed, written, and produced by the Coens, was made on a budget of roughly $10-$14 million, but it did not shake the world with fervor upon release, likely owing to the fact that it was released days after Goodfellas (1990). Granted, they are not entirely similar when it comes to dealing with the gangster film genre, since this one is more of a synthesizing of the gangster and noir genre than anything - they were not so much inspired by the gangster film but rather with the gangster novel with the works of Dashiell Hammett, particularly with the novels The Glass Key and Random Harvest (incidentally, the Coens have argued it to be more closer to noir than the gangster film). Incidentally, the time it took to write such an intricate plot (roughly eight months) led to writer's block, during which the Coens were inspired to write what became their next feature with Barton Fink the following year.

It sure is a puzzle with a dazzling look to go with it. It is a series of contradictions and machinations, whether that means a struggle for ethics in illicit activities or various angles for all but the one that matters (i.e. the man who takes more blows than a sunken ship). In short, it moves like the breeze on a fedora in a forest (that particular image spurred the idea for the film). They wanted to make a film with a jigsaw puzzle in the background as a plot that makes one focus on the momentum of the folks inhabiting a "dirty town movie". The 115 minute run-time moves with the shift of a long con that can go for humor alongside curiosity but also melancholy, which is naturally aided by its soundtrack by Carter Burwell and look (shot but not exactly set in New Orleans - this was the third and final film that Barry Sonnenfeld shot for the Coens). It's a journey with various twists that goes with such a visual and complex punch that has a rhythm of greatness that always keeps itself a step ahead of the viewer without shaking them down for it. There are a variety of memorable presences, all of which spring down from its primary man of inscrutable charm in Byrne, who actually had to lobby with the Coens to keep his native Irish accent for the film (The Irish accent would also be done by the British-born Finney). He protrudes icy confidence with reasonable edge, one that can take a hit or an angle without ever striking a false note throughout all the layers. He weaves his way through a rough and tumble rat-a-tat kind of film with the sense of a lead presence taken from 50 years prior (such as a Bogart) but without the sense of being duped into watching an impersonation, which works with scenes that revolve around banter with Harden to moments spent in counsel with Finney. This was the first major role for Harden, who had a few roles on television and stage prior to this feature - she does well here, fitting the screen well in sultry jaded charm (in a sea of gangsters and molls, who expects anything less?) that keeps in motion with Byrne in clear-cut noir interest. Finney was a last-minute casting choice, as Trey Wilson died just before shooting was to begin. Who knows how it would have worked out with Wilson, but one sees Finney right at home with this role, one that is sprinkled through the film with great character role presence in wry intrigue. He has likely the best scene in the whole film, involving him in a shoot-out while "Danny Boy" (sung by Irish tenor Frank Patterson) plays in the background to a constant pulpy hail of gunfire. This was the first collaboration between the Coens and numerous actors that they have worked with in various films, such as Polito (5 in total), Turturro (4 in total), and Buscemi (5 in total). Each are memorable in their own way, such as Turturro and his rambling cover of hustling, which naturally sticks with one in scenes dealing with guns in a forest or in a dark house. Polito (who was actually approached to play the Dane but insisted on reading for Caspar) proves his own among a talented group of ethically challenged folks that try to avoid (or give) the high hat. Buscemi may have just one scene, but he sure talks his way into it (and webbing of the plot) with worthy ease. Freeman finishes the job with worthy smarm required of a second man in a film full of triangles between folks. What we have is a film that moves on its own plotting, detailed in its style with intricate care that will leave one curious by the time of its climax and its last fateful scene in the trees. It is the kind of noir that fits like a glove with others of its ilk in one category: it merits more than one viewing in a positive way, where one wants to follow along with the webbing of its story and characters through and through, because it looks and feels so good to do so. It may not have been the proper respect it deserved three decades ago, but it surely has found a place in worthy entertainment in the noir and gangster genres that one should be looked upon with great interest in the progression of the Coens in their execution of story and style.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Arrival.

Review #1628: Arrival.

Cast:

Amy Adams (Louise Banks), Jeremy Renner (Ian Donnelly), Forest Whitaker (Colonel G. T. Weber), Michael Stuhlbarg (Agent Halpern), Mark O'Brien (Captain Marks), Tzi Ma (General Shang), with Abigail Pniowsky, Julia Scarlett Dan & Jadyn Malone (Hannah, aged 8, 12, and 6) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario, and #997 - Blade Runner 2049)

Review:

"Arrival talks very little about language and how to precisely dissect a foreign language. It’s more a film on intuition and communication by intuition, the language of intuition. That’s something that I find in my work. "

It is easy to see why science fiction can reach an audience on numerous levels. It can range from speculative in its detail that can range from extraterrestrial life to the future or perhaps dealing with telling said sci-fi story that involves the human condition or to focus on an issue. This film is an adaptation of the 1998 novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang. There are quite a few details different from novella to film, such as the fact that the alien ships remain in orbit with contact done through looking glasses (112 of them) rather than twelve that appear on Earth for first contact (done in order to generate tension); the character of Shang is not featured in the novel (nor with war), and the ending is changed. Screenwriter Eric Heisserer described the change made to the ending with regards to the lead character by giving her a choice (i.e. free will) despite "what seemed like a deterministic future". Villeneuve was attracted to the novella because it was exactly what he wanted to do in the realm of making a science fiction film, and it would be one that was parallel to his preceding works that seemed dark (such as Polytechnique (2009) and Prisoners (2013), for example) as the eighth feature effort for the French Canadian.

The film poses a different approach to the usual tale of aliens and communication that doesn't pose to simplify the process of the latter but instead wants to look at it with a clear glass. After all, we are talking about a movie that features a viewpoint about language being the sticking point of civilization and conflict, and it all tries to tie that together by the point of its key narrative point midway through the feature. Of course, this relies on one enjoying the film as a journey without needing to focus so much on the destination, where the focus isn't quite where you think it will be. With that regard, it is a fine movie, but it is likely a bit too sterile to truly reach greatness. Actually, it made me wonder about other different kind of sci-fi movies about communication like Contact (1997), or maybe just sci-fi films to compare with in this decade like Gravity (2013). Perhaps the truest thing it inspires is to remind me of Slaughterhouse-Five, the 1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut that was based on his experiences of the bombing of Dresden that also happened to deal with fate and free will with its jump through time (or so it goes, since I read it about five years ago). Actually, another similar film might be The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), which involved aliens and an important message for humans. The strange thing is that each of those (minus Contact, which I haven't seen) are all better than this film. There is a confounding mystery to how much a film or novel will stick with you enough to think about experiencing it more than once, particularly with how the journey sticks with you - in that regard, I wish I enjoyed it better, because I wish it was better than just "good" along with the fact that I wish it was more interesting in provoking thought than it really is through a 116 minute run-time that should feel less tedious. Actually, it did inspire one quirk: it is one of those films that will likely confuse you into thinking you should turn up your brightness on your television, unless one does desire a "dirty" science fiction film, as the director put it.

Oh but why don't we talk about the acting, too. After all, there's only four performances to really highlight, since two spend their time dealing with the Heptapods in glass, while the other two basically spend time looking at screens and/or talking about exposition. In that sense, it is fruitful that Adams does what she needs to do to keep the film interesting in compelling depth, one that deals with the challenge of dealing with communication between two worlds with the proper patience needed to make the balance between duty and care seem compelling and useful. Renner doesn't exactly have as much to say (given the final result it is a bit troubling), but at least he does what is needed in a light touch of exposition-delivery with competence. Whitaker is there merely to provide authority (because hey, how many sci-fi films have a recruiter to help with something "sciencey" to understand), and that results in a somewhat alright role, although it seems more apparent in the first half. Stuhlbarg may have an interesting line of work, but he seems more in the background with all of those screens with stowing doubt than anything too interesting. O'Brien and Ma are used in parts, while the scenes spent with Adams and (one of) the on-screen children seems to muddle the film more than really help it. To be clear, there are aspects of the film that are interesting to go through with its journey beforehand, such as with its opening half, which does generate a row of interest both in the nature of linguistics alongside where it could go with the creatures, and the effects that come from showing the aliens are fairly interesting. It creates a semblance of tension that does in some way make one not know exactly where it will go but not worry too much about it, moving as a puzzle box that keeps turning the edges around. In theory, its message of hope when it comes to communication is an interesting one, and it will certainly stick well for folks looking for a film that doesn't want to skip the usual procedures of a sci-fi film (although it may side step other moments) without being thought of as subversive or esoteric. Of course, the borderline between good and great comes with the twist that eventually comes into play (at least the one that seals the film up, not so much just the obvious one) - it sure is a shame I didn't care for the twist, and it is the fact that the film likes to close itself on where it began that makes it seem to think it has looped itself into a perfect circle when in fact it only seems to have mangled itself into the fear of smug inevitability (interestingly, its original ending dealt not so much with language but with a solution that would need to be constructed in the next 3,000 years, but it was a viewing of Interstellar (2014) that inspired the change). In other words, it is the kind of science fiction film that aspires to be on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but it can't even touch The Martian (2015) in resonance. I don't mean to dissect the film as I do, but it is my touch of disappointment with the level of how "good" it is when compared to its relative legacy in the five years since its release that makes me do so, as I find it to be a decent look upon communication within the realm of science fiction without quite landing all of its touches. The best way to watch it is to do so without looking much into its plot details or comparisons to other media, as instead it would be best to let it communicate all on its own, which in some ways will reach with its main performance and its dealing with people and communication, for better or worse. In a sea of great, good, average, and downright awful science fiction films, it doesn't hurt to pick one in the second category like this one - just go with it on its terms and let it talk from there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Review #1627: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Cast: 

Russell Crowe (Captain Jack Aubrey), Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin, Surgeon), James D'Arcy (1st Lt. Tom Pullings), Edward Woodall (2nd Lt. William Mowett), Chris Larkin (Capt. Howard, Royal Marines), Max Pirkis (Blakeney, Midshipman), Jack Randall (Boyle, Midshipman), Max Benitz (Calamy, Midshipman), Lee Ingleby (Hollom, Midshipman), Richard Pates (Williamson, Midshipman), Robert Pugh (Mr. Allen, Master), Richard McCabe (Mr. Higgins, Surgeon's Mate), Ian Mercer (Mr. Hollar, Boatswain), Tony Dolan (Mr. Lamb, Carpenter), and David Threlfall (Preserved Killick, Captain's Steward) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously, #1185 - Witness, and #1519 - The Truman Show)

Review: 

"Peter Weir's film is brilliant. An exacting, detail oriented, epic tale of fidelity to Empire & service, regardless of the cost. Incredible cinematography by Russell Boyd & a majestic soundtrack. Definitely an adults movie." - Russell Crowe

The sea epic is a tough task to get right, when you think about it. This is a film that spends over 80% of its time on the water that is an interesting curiosity: a booming studio epic that received notice from audiences but stands on its own sealegs as a stand-alone adventure (in other words, a film that a studio liked in counting the profits but not like all the way to go back again into the well). It's a shame too, because it ended up overshadowed by a certain other film involving ships and spectacle in the same year that inspired a franchise despite being adapted from a theme park ride (Pirates of the Caribbean). With this one, it is a loose adaptation of the Aubrey-Maturin series (named for the two main focuses in a ship captain and naval surgeon/spy, respectively), a collection of works done by Patrick O'Brien (who reportedly wrote his works with ink and quill). The British author wrote twenty complete novels over the course of thirty years (with an incomplete work at the time of O'Brian's death in 2000 being released four years later). The script, written by Peter Weir and John Collee, takes elements from several novels of the series, ranging from the first novel in Master and Commander to The Far Side of the World. The series was noted for their attention to detail with naval jargon alongside the depiction of numerous events that occur in the 19th century (primarily with the Napoleonic Wars), with O'Brien drawing from the exploits of commanders such as Horatio Nelson alongside research of The Naval Chronicle that dealt with detail about the lives and battles involving members of the Royal Navy.

What can one expect for a film that starts with a opening text that describes the ocean as a battlefield? Quite a bit, actually. We have a film that took measures to recreate a man-of-war alongside having a replica mounted on gimbals in a large tank to go with digital rendering (most notably with the USS Constitution, turned into a French vessel - incidentally, The Fortune of War, O'Brien's sixth work in the series, depicts the ship in battle) that certainly compares relatively well with Weir's previous output of work that was quite eclectic (this was his 13th film, with his next one being seven years later). Weir (who also served as a producer) knows what he wants from his actors when it comes to trying to make an engaging spectacle of leadership and camaraderie come across without lingering on cliché or seeming dull with its 138 minute run-time. It certainly is easy to see why an actor like Crowe or anyone with his flair for adventure would enjoy this film, because it appeals to the curiosity that a youth or an adult can have about history or strategy in leadership (in that sense, one could think about Star Trek, since it took inspiration from another sea-faring novel series just as famous with C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower). Granted, it isn't the kind of film that can be digested for those lacking patience or perhaps something more than the sea (such as say a smart mouthed pirate), but it has a great look and sound that really will make one believe they are in a 19th century ship trying to do the impossible. I don't think it sells each and every breath-taking moment, but it certainly will prove enough for those with the disposition for it. Crowe certainly grabs the lead role with the confidence required to make the film his own without suffocating it with brutish cliché or being overwhelmed by the sense of being the man of the moment that could be thought of as having the aura of a performance from a war film (besides, one of the most famous lines about every man expected to their duty for England came from Nelson). Bettany follows along with useful enterprise, one with dutiful interest that goes with Crowe in interesting sync with each other in terms of friendship that makes for a few stirring moments of interest, with the operation sequence (involving surgery on oneself to the look of his friend) probably being the best highlight. The rest of the actors do well in filling the spirit of what is needed in a ship adventure: stories to tell besides being on the cannon or clutching a post in water, whether that means strong quiet types like D'Arcy or youthful presences like Benitz and Perkins or established elder presence with Innes to carry the tension and leave the film on fine shoulders. One gets to see a rousing sea battle without too much warning for its opening act alongside cat-and-mouse tactics of ship faring and even a bit of time spent in the Galapagos Islands, and it ultimately results in a messy (in the right way) climax between two ships that closes itself with a hint for continuing pursuits in the sea without having to shake your head for it. It proves to be one of the unsung heroes of entertaining epics - interesting for those who like to see details and respect play out in a film on its own terms that leaves it to imagination for adventure that makes a pretty good time for those who seek what it wants to show with good reason.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ghost.

Review #1626: Ghost.

Cast: 
Patrick Swayze (Sam Wheat), Demi Moore (Molly Jensen), Whoopi Goldberg (Oda Mae Brown), Tony Goldwyn (Carl Bruner), Rick Aviles (Willie Lopez), Vincent Schiavelli (Subway Ghost), Gail Boggs (Louise), Armelia McQueen (Clara), and Phil Leeds (Emergency Room Ghost)  Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, and #1274 - First Knight)

Review: 
"You have an idea of where you want to get, but you have to experiment your way through it, and it might take a long time to get there.”

It's easy to say a movie is a ride before you actually see it. One that tries to balance romance and comedy within a mystery that certainly has endured for itself after three decades as a romance for the spirits. I suppose romances always had a big appeal with audiences, so it shouldn't be a surprise that this was actually the highest grossing film of its year (beating out films with their own notable reputations like Home Alone and Pretty Woman). The film began its script life through an idea Bruce Joel Rubin (whose two previous writing credits involved death with Brainstorm (1983) and Deadly Friend (1986)) had involving inspiration taken from Hamlet, in which the ghost desired for someone to take avenge him. Years of approaching studios for the script (written in 1984) led to Jerry Zucker being approached by Paramount Pictures to do the film; Rubin reportedly cried when he heard the news, thinking that it would be turned into a comedy, owing to the success that the Wisconsin native Zucker had with films like Airplane! (1980) with his brother David and Jim Abrahams. Discussions with the director over quibbles with the script to improve its structure led to better confidence in Zucker, who had expressed interest in the film not so much to break out of comedy but instead to just make a good film. This was the fourth film that Zucker directed, and it is one of just two that did not fall into comedy (the other was First Knight) - he wanted to make a "roller-coaster ride" that would make you laugh and cry. 

Rubin believes the film taps into some sort of primal thing with audiences, since it deals with death and closure within romance in fantasy. There is certainly a bit of truth to that argument, since what we have is a fairly interesting film with some spiritual interest that will soothe those searching for something pleasing in entertainment without too many quibbles. Others might bristle at its 128 minutes as perhaps being a bit too labored in pace, and its reach for thriller tropes that could be thought of as contrived when leading to its drawn out ending. In other words, it is the kind of entertainment that could be thought of as either sweet or corny depending on one's patience for such material (i.e. something like Titanic, albeit with more/less hokum). Is it one of the best films of its year? Not exactly but being a good film with some staying power isn't exactly a bad thing either, being one that proved rewarding for everyone who did the film, particularly with Rubin and Goldberg. Believe it or not, the lead role was actually a hard one to cast, since I suppose playing a ghostly observer isn't something easy to peg to one actor, with even Paul Hogan rejecting the role because he thought it wasn't funny enough (he would star in a film involving ghosts with Almost an Angel the same year). A showing of Road House (1989) furthered Rubin's belief in Swayze for the lead while conversely not convincing Zucker, and it was an audition with Swayze (who wanted to break from action fare) that convinced the director. Swayze has the charm required in someone tasked to observe and find one's place without the one needed most, balancing that line between chilled and confident that naturally sells his time spent with Moore for all the tissues needed in curiosity. Moore does well enough with chilled mourning that plays the other side of the romantic coin with great interest, as the pottery sequence allows them to move with grace that dazzles in crisp romantic charm, and it repeats itself with soothing closure for the end. The film kicks itself into the next gear of interest when Goldberg shows up around the forty-minute mark. Who would've have believed that a comedian could play a charlatan so well? Her and Swayze do quite well with keeping the film on its toes in amusement without it turning into a bit just for ghostly giggles. This seems most apparent with the sequence spent in the bank, as one guides the other with conniving chuckles that keeps the plot rolling; if The Color Purple (1985) was her breakout role, this only proves to confirm her obvious talent within humor and soothing truth. Not to be forgotten in all of this is Goldwyn (in his fourth film role), walking that tight rope of assured and sniveling that does quite well with what is needed in balance, while Aviles (a stand-up comedian) plays the heavy to useful effect. Schiavelli may only have two scenes, but he makes them count for what it is worth in rough advisory that nevertheless sticks in your mind. As a whole, it is the passion of the film that keeps things going on as decently as they go, for better or worse - it has a neat cast and a stirring music score from Maurice Jarre that makes for a serviceable effort. It has a range of memorable moments that keep it on the level more so than the aspects that could have sunk a lesser effort that drives this film to three decades (and counting) of endurance for all the right reasons.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Long Riders.

Review #1625: The Long Riders.

Cast: 

David Carradine (Cole Younger), Keith Carradine (Jim Younger), Robert Carradine (Bob Younger), James Keach (Jesse James), Stacy Keach (Frank James), Dennis Quaid (Ed Miller), Randy Quaid (Clell Miller), James Whitmore Jr (Mr. Rixley), Kevin Brophy (John Younger), Harry Carey Jr (George Arthur), Christopher Guest (Charlie Ford, Nicholas Guest (Robert Ford), Shelby Leverington (Annie Ralston), Felice Orlandi (Mr. Reddick), and Pamela Reed (Belle Starr) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 

"I'd been dying to do a Western for years. I just like 'em. There's a kind of an idyllic quality that surrounds the shooting of them, it seems like a more fundamental film process, more to me what movies are about than clearing crowds off a city street."

The legend of outlaws has spanned a variety of media for over a century, and it is the intrigue of seeing the Old West and all the storytellers that can come from it that make it an interesting curiosity. Whether it is the ballad, or the dimestore novel, or the Western, there always seems to be an interesting idea waiting at the barrel for someone to make seem fresh. There had been various perspectives on the James legend, with one of the more recent films done before this one being The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid (1972), so it would only make sense for yet another adaptation of the James legend (of which there were at least fifteen prior to 1980), albeit with a twist - brothers playing brothers. The idea for the film came about after James and Stacy Keach had starred in a production on television together nine years prior, in which they had played the Wright brothers. James had the idea to play Jesse, while Stacy came up with financing as producer and financer for the play that James wrote. It was briefly staged in New Jersey and Off-Broadway, but they eventually decided to make it into a film for each of them to be involved, and they enlisted the help of Bill Bryden and Steven Phillip Smith to develop the screenplay (the Keaches would also serve as producer alongside Tim Zinnermann). Enlisting the Carradines came in the form of J.Keach approaching Robert Carradine during their time in the production of the TV film The Hatfields and the McCoys in 1974 about being involved with the film, and they soon approached David and Keith with the prospect of doing it, which they eventually agreed. The Quaids came after that, but finding the fourth group came after a bit of turnover, as the Bridges brothers (Jeff and Beau) could not do the film due to schedule conflicts, and it later fell to the Guests (incidentally, the Bottoms family of Joseph, Timothy, and Sam wanted to star as the Youngers). Interestingly enough, a Carradine had already been involved in an adaptation about the legend of Jesse James and Robert Ford, as the eldest Carradine in John (who had four of his sons become actors) had played the latter subject in two films with Jesse James (1939) and The Return of Frank James (1940). That particular film was noted by Walter Hill as the best film made about the Younger-James brothers in terms of character truth, even if the historical accuracy was low.

United Artists agreed to help produce the film if they found a suitable director. Walter Hill certainly fit the mold of a man wanting to tell a good story. The Long Beach native grew up with an interest in film from a young age, although he once thought of being a comic book illustrator before he went into writing and eventually directing in order to tell his own stories. He has described his films as "rather retro", with his genre films generally trying to capture a serious framework within action that take inspiration from Sam Peckinpah among others - after all, he had worked with the director with The Getaway (1972); the clearest influence seems to be The Wild Bunch (1969), particularly with its use of slow motion for certain sequences of violence. Most (but not all) of his films can be argued to have elements of the Western genre, since Hill has noted his liking of complexity with a foundation on simple stories (Hill has argued they are essentially Old Testament morality tales), and this is the fourth feature film that Hill directed. It is a pretty good effort, one that does well with trying to capture a mosaic of the time and landscape that came with folks in the Old West that happen to engage in moral choices involving robbery and murder. In other words, it isn't just a straight action Western, nor one that gives focus to any one individual, instead being just a balanced film with a midwestern feel that makes its 99 minutes count with usefulness. There have been adaptations of the James story since this film (most notably with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), but this film still stands for itself after four decades because of its capable charm, although it wasn't a big hit with audiences upon release (Keach has maintained that the film made a profit, although United Artists was likely thinking about the other Western they released that year that nearly sunk the studio - Heaven's Gate), making just a bit under double its $9 million budget.

When it comes to the first group of brothers, one can say that David proves the best in relative interest, as he is the most adept in charisma without having to strain for it. This seems most apparent during a sequence involving Reed and a new love interest, which naturally ends in a knife fight with a rope for them to chew on and duel. Keith and Robert do fine with a little less time to show, although the sequence with the Pinkertons and an unfortune cousin is a good one. The Keaches do well in their balance of laconic steel (mostly with J.Keach), one that doesn't aim for straight sympathy for the James brothers but instead lets them paint the picture for one to judge - their scene on horseback jumping through the window is likely the best image and moment from the film. The Quaids have a reserved amount of time on screen (most likely due to cutting from the studio), but they do well with being members of chaos (chained or not) that don't fall into the background, mostly with Randy. The Guests lurk right where they need to be in terms of calm sniveling, while Reed and Whitmore Jr fill out the edges in terms of allure and lingering authority that make for a off-kilter balance of a film, revisionist in its approach without seeming like a film relying just on a gimmick. It hits with a worthy punch in its look upon the landscape and the outlaws that became names to remember, no matter the efforts of authority like the Pinkertons or even the firing of a barrel to stop it. While it may not be Hill's best effort, it serves as an interesting start to a productive decade of work that packaged plenty of thrills within some of the confines that made the Western what it was without being chained to it exclusively, and it is a curiosity worth looking into today.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Shivers.

Review #1624: Shivers.

Cast: 

Paul Hampton (Roger St. Luc), Joe Silver (Rollo Linsky), Lynn Lowry (Nurse Forsythe), Alan Migicovsky (Nicholas Tudor), Susan Petrie (Janine Tudor), Barbara Steele (Betts), Ronald Mlodzik (Merrick), Barry Boldero (Det. Heller), Camil Ducharme (Mr. Guilbault), Hanka Posnanska (Mrs. Guilbault), Wally Martin (Doorman), Vlasta Vrána (Kresimer Sviben), and Silvie Debois (Benda Sviben) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, and #1239 - Stereo)

Review: 

"If you admit to the possibilities of the most horrific things, then maybe they won't happen. It's what I do when I make movies. You're hoping it's going to stay on the screen and not come into your life." 

There have been a variety of important directors in cinema that came from the nation of Canada, but David Cronenberg most certainly is one of the most transgressive to help shape the course of cinema in body horror with films that provoke just as much interpretation as they inspire squeamish feeling. They inspire confrontation as much as they do chills because they involve qualities of life that are not easy to face in clear comfort, as he aspires to take the audience on a journey to ask questions without needing clear answers. The Toronto native had an interest as a child in reading from a young age (owing to his parents, a journalist and a musician in their interests), ranging from science fiction to comic books to EC Comics, and his initial interest was to become a novelist. While he was an avid cinemagoer (ranging from Westerns to Bambi to The Blue Lagoon), it was the screening of Winter Kept Us Warm (1966) by fellow University of Toronto classmate David Secter that sparked him to get into filmmaking, which he started with experimental work in 1966 that led to two shorts and two arthouse features. Cronenberg approached Cinepix with his script first. The company, if one did not know, had been started in 1962 under the leadership of John Dunning and Andre Link, and Cronenberg would note them as crucial influences on him (the former for filmmaking and the latter on the finance side). The Montreal-based company went from distributing films in Canada and the United States to eventually doing their own with Valerie (1969). They had wanted to tap into the independent market with horror (as was the case with Roger Corman and his films at the time) instead of just sensual-tinged work (the company persists on to the day, although you might recognize them under their current name as Lionsgate Films). Cronenberg had just two films to his output at the time (which were basically like underground work), and Cinepix desired to buy his script without having him direct. Cronenberg was not willing to let his script be filmed without him, and he was close to approaching the lower budget-minded studios in Hollywood and doing the film there before funding was found, with the Canadian Film Development Corporation (now known as Telefilm Canada) helping to allocate funds. Ivan Reitman (co-founder of the Toronto Film Co-op with Cronenberg) served as producer for the film (alongside music supervisor), and he would work with Cronenberg and Cinefix again with his next film in Rabid two years later alongside his own breakthrough venture with Meatballs (1979). The film was shot for $185,000 over the course of 15 days. Joe Blasco was the effects man for the film, and it certainly goes to show the state of the Canadian industry to see this as one of the first serious horror films in the nation.

There were numerous titles that came before and after production occurred, with the initial working title being "Orgy of the Blood Parasites", while the title done for filming was "The Parasite Murders", and in America it was released as "They Came from Within". The funny thing is that the uproar over the film nearly overshadowed the fact that the film was a success from the start with audiences. Since it had been funded in part by the government, there was a bit of commotion done about its merits, most notably with an article in Saturday Night magazine, in which it was felt that Canada shouldn't have a film industry if films like this needed to be made to have an industry; reportedly, the article delayed production of Cronenberg's next film with Rabid (1977) in terms of setting up funding. Obviously time has proven Cronenberg infinitely correct in this regard, since Shivers serves as an important shift in the director's career as his first triumph that serves as a creeping gem. I readily enjoyed the film in its low-budget creeping chills, one that that shows a degree of dark humor within a somewhat familiar premise that works over its limitations for interesting entertainment. We are talking about a movie involving hedonistic zombies that desire pleasure while creeping into your body, after all. Cronenberg has noted that some of the elements might seem familiar when compare to Alien (1979). Think about it: we have a creature that go around a location through someone's orifices and lurk within the stomach that happen to burn acid if in contact with someone's face (Cronenberg once noted that if free love really was true, would this not be what it actually looked like?) - interpret it for yourself, since the writer of that film (Dan O'Bannon) noted that he didn't steal the idea from anybody, he stole it "from everybody!" The effects were done through a combination of condoms, tubing, bottles, and coat hangers that helped move the parasite around to simulate being in the body or being outside, and while the wires might be visible at certain times (like the shot involving it going across the grass), I found it fascinating in its gruesomeness, unsettling with its gooey movement, one that will certainly fit for these monsters of lust. 

The acting is okay, showing a mix of somewhat familiar faces and voices with more obscure ones. Hampton for example was more known as a singer and composer, although he did spots on film and TV. He does alright here, even if he seems more indifferent that readily concerned with the growing trend of craven creatures desiring each other's flesh. Silver was noted for his deep voice and roughly a thousand appearances on television alongside occasional appearances in film. He certainly makes a useful impression in terms of moving the plot forward, and he even gets in on the parasite action near the end for effect. Lowry is known for her horror appearances (such as The Crazies), and she proves the best performance for the film, one with captivating spirit that seems out of place with the growing weirdness, and it is her scene in the climax that proves quite fascinating about desire and dreams. Migicovsky and Petrie don't have as much lasting effect, with the former being used more for the stomach (with a creature inside) and the latter to react to all that (plus a scene with Betts), which is okay but not as interesting as the others (Petrie apparently needed to have Cronenberg slap her really hard in order for her to cry when the cameras needed her to cry). Steele doesn't have as much to do, but at least the scene spent in the tub is squirmy enough. Mlodzik is the branch from the previous Cronenberg films, with this being the third of four appearances, and he plays the smarmy manager just fine. The 87 minutes go by with some shivers at what we see play out through a film not afraid of limitations or taboos that strikes a chord with its perversions of the flesh that is entertaining without becoming a lynchpin for weirdness without some sort of interest to keep coming back to where it wants to go. For a director that would only hone his craft further with interesting films involving the body and horror, this is certainly a good starting point to go with Cronenberg and his dazzling display of terror within us. It is a nasty one that might not hit everyone's mark, but I got a kick out of where it wanted to go in unsettling nature to make it count.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.