Pale Rider.

Review #1476: Pale Rider.

Cast:
Clint Eastwood (The Preacher), Michael Moriarty (Hull Barret), Carrie Snodgress (Sarah Wheeler), Richard Dysart (Coy LaHood), Chris Penn (Josh LaHood), Sydney Penny (Megan Wheeler), John Russell (Marshal Stockburn), Richard Kiel (Club), Doug McGrath (Spider Conway), Chuck Lafont (Eddie Conway), and Jeffrey Weissman (Teddy Conway) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys and #1310 - Million Dollar Baby)

Review:
"You have to trust your instincts. There's a moment when an actor has it, and he knows it. Behind the camera you can feel the moment even more clearly. And once you've got it, once you feel it, you can't second-guess yourself. You can find a million reasons why something didn't work. But if it feels right, and it looks right, it works. Without sounding like a pseudointellectual dipshit, it's my responsibility to be true to myself. If it works for me, it's right."

Clint Eastwood has cultivated a unique and prolific career for himself over half of a century. Ther have been quite a bit of actors who have become stars in both television and film, but there have not been as many actors who have also sprung into star directors. Eastwood has had a breakthrough project in each decade since the 1950s, whether that involves television (Rawhide, 1959-65), starring roles (The Dollars Trilogy, Dirty Harry), or directing (debuting with Play Misty for Me (1971), the first of over thirty films), with influence coming from directors he had worked with such as Sergio Leone and Don Siegel with a quick pace. The Western certainly had declined in stature for the 1980s, but Pale Rider was certainly a high point for its decade (being one of the most profitable Westerns released for that era). This was the third Western directed by Eastwood and his first since The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), and it certainly isn't the first of him playing a nameless and mystical drifter (such as with High Plains Drifter over a decade earlier). In general, the film seems to cover ground that was done with Shane (1953), which also had a stranger that came into a town wracked with intimidation over settlers by a baron and his minions that soon escalates into hiring a gunfighter to combat the stranger (in this case, a group of marshals), and the stranger leaves town after it has been settled to stay with its settlers. Of course there are quite a few differences between the two (namely in gold miners as opposed to homesteaders), with the most key being in the quiet details of this film, which has a mystical quality to its title hero, practically seeming like a ghost when engaging in action (which Eastwood subsequently confirmed). In that sense, it makes for an interesting experience of 116 minutes with careful precision. No matter how familiar one is with Eastwood as an actor or director, it isn't too much of a stretch to enjoy what we see without feeling like one is watching a greatest hits Western or something without a competent athmosphere and support to go with it. Eastwood may always grit his way through a role, but it doesn't mean he can't be curious to view regardless, a sardonic presence of careful words. The others prove fairly adept with making this small town setting come forward with careful interest. Moriarty proves an affiable leader of the folks with calmness. Snodgrass and Penny do fine when paired with others, while Dysart and Penn make fair adversaries to view involving greed. Russell (known for his work in the TV show Lawman) makes for a useful presence of old eyes that carry menace. The film proves diverting in its own look upon the mysterious stranger lurking on the frontier with its own kind of mythic nature that make a quietly effective time - whether in thinking about a man we see with bullet holes in the back at first glance or in how he operates with these folks without really needing to show much of himself and cut the ambiguity. There is always a place for a Western that wants to cover a frontier worth looing upon, and this is a fair film in its genre that sets itself up well with atmosphere and a cast worth viewing at least once for its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mask (1985)

Review #1475: Mask.

Cast: 
Cher (Florence "Rusty" Dennis), Sam Elliott (Gar), Eric Stoltz (Roy L. "Rocky" Dennis), Estelle Getty (Evelyn Steinberg), Richard Dysart (Abe Steinberg), Laura Dern (Diana Adams), Micole Mercurio (Babe), Harry Carey, Jr (Red), Dennis Burkley (Dozer), Barry Tubb (Dewey), Lawrence Monoson (Ben), and Ben Piazza (Mr. Simms) Directed by Peter Bogdanovich (#1000 - The Last Picture Show)

Review:
"Directing is really creating an atmosphere, a particular kind of atmosphere and usually one that is very peculiar to the director. It doesn't necessarily have to be. Some directors have no personality and it shows. But one way or another, what the actors are doing or the crews are doing, they're trying to please the director."

Peter Bogdanovich has had a long and varied life, with plenty of it spent in some way around film, a subject he loved starting in his youth. He studied acting at the Stella Adler Conservatory in his twenties before taking up work at the Musuem of Modern Art as a film programmer. He wrote his first book at the age of 22 in The Cinema of Orson Welles, the first of numerous books about seminal directors of cinema (which later included another book about his friend Welles along with an appearance in The Other Side of the Wind), with further works involving Howard Hawks, John Ford (which he did a documentary of years later), and Allan Dwan. He later desired to make his own films (inspired by the directors he loved along with the French critics-turned-directors like Francois Truffaut), and an encounter with Roger Corman led to his first work with The Wild Angels (1966). 1968 was the year of his first directorial efforts, with Corman having him shoot footage for a English-dubbed version of Planeta Bur that became Voyage to the Planet of the Prehistoric Women (which he did not take credit for). His first true directorial debut came with Targets (1968), as Corman had two days of Boris Karloff to use (Bogdanovich would also have a small part in the film while writing the script with help by Samuel Fuller). The 1970s were both his rise and fall from prominence: The Last Picture Show (1971), What's Up, Doc? (1972), and Paper Moon (1973) each recieved tremendous praise and attention, while Daisy Miller (1974), At Long Last Love (1975), Nickelodeon (1976), and Saint Jack (1979) recieved middling-to-negative notice. By the time of Mask (1985), he had already filed for bankruptcy, having self-distributed They All Laughed (1981) to financial failure (the story of that film and its stars is best for another time). His career has lessened in recent years, but he has kept himself busy within films (which also included work in television and documentaries) alongside acting, teaching directing at the University of North Carolina School of the Arts, and a podcast about his life released this year.

He was inspired to do the film because of his late partner's fascination with The Elephant Man with the similarity of alienation whether beautiful or ugly. There is two versions of the film, with the key difference being in music along with a few additional scenes. The Director's Cut (which I viewed) includes the music of Bruce Springsteen, which was noted as the favorite of Rocky Dennis, and the singer had wanted the music in the film, but catalogue disputes led to the usage of Bob Seger instead (Bogdanovich later sued the studio over this as a breach of contract). The film is based on the brief life of Roy Dennis (1961-1978), who lived with craniodiaphyseal dysplasia, in which calcium builds up in the skull that affects facial features and life expectancy. Wracked with a disease that gradually made him legally blind alongside headaches and troubles, Dennis nevertheless tried to live a normal life with family and school. The film was written by Anna Hamilton Phelan, which took certain liberties with the life of Dennis and his mother (born Florence Tullis), who described the film as a "fairly tale" while liking Cher's depiction of her. It isn't hard to see why one could like this film, since it proves quite interesting in its honesty and care for its depiction of its main subject without needing to wallow in melodramatic cliches. Stoltz, wearing award-winning makeup Michael Westmore and Zoltan Elek, is immeadiately someone we follow along with no need to focus on what he looks like but instead by how we judge others without such a task: through what we hear and see in his actions through the film, whether that involves trying to make the best of his life within school or with the people that accept him for who he is, which Stoltz handles with charm. Cher proves to be an interesting presence, expressive and provocative whenever in view for us with others or up close that makes an organic performance. Elliott shows up from time to time as a collected presence of coolness, proving a worthwhile time without having to say much beyond that distinct voice. The others in the cast make their moments count, such as a bright Dern in one of her first breakthrough roles, or Getty and Dysart in their distinct difference when interacting with Stoltz and Cher, or the warm rough presences of Carey Jr and Burkley. The film utilizes its two hours wisely, making its key moments count with dignity in warmth or tension without suffocation, whereas a lesser director would have turned it into something to cry incessantly at without grace. On the whole, it is a bittersweet achievement of entertainment, one that pulls plenty of emotion for its subject with balance and a game cast to serve as a fair achievement for its director and for its decade as a whole.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Beverly Hills Cop.

Review #1474: Beverly Hills Cop.

Cast:
Eddie Murphy (Axel Foley), Judge Reinhold (Detective Billy Rosewood), John Ashton (Sergeant John Taggart), Lisa Eilbacher (Jenny Summers), Ronny Cox (Lieutenant Andrew Bogomil), Steven Berkoff (Victor Maitland), James Russo (Mikey Tandino), Stephen Elliott (Chief Hubbard), Paul Reiser (Jeffrey), Jonathan Banks (Zack), Gil Hill (Inspector Douglas Todd), and Bronson Pinchot (Serge) Directed by Martin Brest.

Review: 

"In reality, all men are sculptors, constantly chipping away the unwanted parts of their lives, trying to create their idea of their masterpiece."

In the 1980s, Eddie Murphy was a comedy star like no other. Inspired by comedians such as Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, and Peter Sellers, Murphy started a career in comedy at the age of 15, going from talent shows to Saturday Night Live in a period of four years, with his four year run on the show being a tremendous success that soon led to film opportunities, with 48 Hrs (1982) and Trading Places (1983) proving successful for Murphy. This was his fourth film (the cash grab appearance in Best Defense was his other film of his in 1984) and first film with just him as the primary star. Strangely enough, this was actually not intended as a star vehicle for him at first - it was actually intended to star Sylvester Stallone. In fact, some of the revisions that he had tried to make to the screenplay would actually be used in Cobra (1986), since he did not feel right for comedy. Even having a star in place didn't keep everything in place, since there was plenty of improvisation done throughout filming (the screenplay was credited to Daniel Petrie Jr, who also co-wrote the story with Danilo Bach). The film was a blessing to its director as well. Martin Brest (who had debuted with Going in Style five years prior) had been fired from WarGames the previous year and rejected doing the film on numerous occasions before an ultimate decision on the basis of a coin flip. Two sequels were made after the film's release (both with Murphy, Reinhold, and Hill), but neither reached the heights of the original.

What can one say about a buddy cop classic other then the fact that it makes for a pretty good time? Murphy seems completely at ease here, one suited to generating charm and laughter through a frenzy of one-liners and impersonations with a quickdraw focus. He is a show of force that works handily whenever paired with someone on screen (whether for interaction or some sort of bright gag). The others aren't easy to be overshadowed, however. Reinhold and Ashton prove to be an amusing team together, filled with a few snipes that make for riveting chemistry at times. Eilbacher proves adequate, while actor/musician Cox proves a breakthrough in stern enjoyability (the same also can be applied to actual Detroit cop-turned-actor Hill in the first few minutes). Berkoff proves a capable adversary to sneer with, and others make their impressions in small doses like Russo and Pinchot. There is a fair balance of comedy and action within 105 minutes that succeeds more so in the former category than the latter (the gunfights prove okay at best), with Murphy and company driving things around making amusement out of its fish-out-of-water story that makes for a worthwhile time, with the music being bright and catchy (Harold Faltermeyer's "Axel F" was a theme I listened to quite a bit before I even watched the film). It is a good comedy for those who prefer to see Murphy in action with zip and charm to spare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Amadeus.

Review #1473: Amadeus.

Cast:
F. Murray Abraham (Antonio Salieri), Tom Hulce (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), Elizabeth Berridge (Constanze Mozart), Roy Dotrice (Leopold Mozart), Simon Callow (Emanuel Schikaneder), Christine Ebersole (Caterina Cavalieri), Jeffrey Jones (Emperor Joseph II), Charles Kay (Count Orsini-Rosenberg), Kenneth McMillan (Michael Schlumberg), Kenny Baker (Parody Commendatore), Lisabeth Bartlett (Papagena), and Richard Frank (Father Vogler) Directed by Miloš Forman (#1164 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

Review:
"Director is little bit of everything, little bit of the writer, little bit of an actor, little bit of an editor, little bit of a costume designer. Good director is the director who chooses for this profession people who are better than he is."

Milos Forman directed twelve films (and one documentary segment) in his life, one comprised of life in Czechoslovakia and abroad in the United States, recieving stature in both places through his interesting films, which started with Black Peter (1964) after years spent studying at the Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague alongside writing work in Czech comedies, which served as his genre for the three films he made in his native country (with The Firemen's Ball (1967), the last before he left the country, being considered a key piece of the Czechoslovak New Wave) before he left in 1968 due to changes in the country. His films in America were a mix of adaptations of numerous media or biographical in nature (with measured success), which resulted in successes such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), this film, and Man on the Moon (1999).

The film is adapted from the play of the same name by Peter Shaffer (an English playwright behind works such as Equus that served as writer for the film), which had first been performed in 1979 in London (with a Broadway production in 1980). The play took artistic licence in its depiction of Mozart and Salieri, describing the work as "fantasia on the theme of Mozart and Salieri". This was not the first play to push forward the myth (or to be more blunt, a lie) involving Salieri having a hand in the death of his supposed rival Mozart (with one key point of anger being at Mozart's boorish behavior while being a genius), with famed Russian poet Alexander Pushkin having composed the play Mozart and Salieri in 1830 (with an opera being done by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov 67 years later). The idea that the two composers were such rivals to the point that one of them may very well have wanted to kill the other is absurd, full stop (I am not a history buff by any means, but anything that resembles the reek of conspiracy theory is suspicious). This fundamental point is the first and really only hurdle that stops it from being considered a great film for me. It does have a great design to it in terms of costume design, alongside a great appreciation for music (with Neville Marriner serving as music conductor and supervisor for the Academy of St Martin in the Fields orchestra) and a fairly well-rounded cast to go alongside everything (including natural light and location shooting in Prague, most notably in the Count Nositz Theatre, where Mozart had performed in) that is delivered with precision by Forman to make a mostly successful curiousity on the nature of talent and genius. There exists two versions of the film: the original 161 minute film (rated PG) and a three hour (R-rated) version released in 2002 as a Director's Cut that restored scenes cut originally due to not wanting to test the audience's patience too far in run-time (for a project that was hard enough to finance about a period drama).

It proves fitting to have Abraham and Hulce as the leads (as opposed to any of the stars from the play adaptations, which included Ian McKellen and Tim Curry - Forman wanted American leads for the two roles), since they each had experience in the theater just as much as in film. Abraham proves a tremendous presence, one wracked with desire and regret as a self-described "patron saint of mediocrity" that we can all see a little bit in ourselves that makes the most of his time count with gravitas. Hulce (and his occasional dreadful laugh) does just fine with capturing the complciated essence of a troubled genius, eccentric but captivating to see in a pursuit of greatness with tinges of hedonism along the way. Berridge (who won the role after Meg Tilly injured her way out) makes for a quietly driving force to follow along with at times with Hulce with bright spirit. The others in the cast, such as Doctrice and Jones, make for fair impressions in rounding out a period drama with a good deal of importance and distinct pleasure that retains one's attention just as much as when not on Salieri and Mozart alone. On the whole, the film moves at a careful pace within a curious starting point to generate a fairly interesting look upon music and human nature (namely, ambition) that will keep attention for what is needed with music and a game cast and design to make a mix of history and fiction that makes a solid film for its time of over three decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Stranger Than Paradise.

Review #1472: Stranger Than Paradise.

Cast:
John Lurie (Willie), Eszter Balint (Eva), Richard Edson (Eddie), Cecillia Stark (Aunt Lotte), Danny Rosen (Billy), Rammellzee (Man With Money), and Tom DiCillo (Airline Agent) Written and Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

Review: 
"I have no desire to make films for any kind of specific audience. What I want to do is make films that... tell stories, but somehow in an new way, not in a predictable form, not in the usual manipulative way that films seem to on their audiences."

Regardless of how a film turns out, it generally to be a good idea to try and reach as many distinct voices of film as possible, and this can prove especially true for certain directors. For independent cinema, it certainly never hurts to think about Jim Jarmusch as a key figure for his transgressive work as a director who focuses on mood with characters in minimalist tone rather than narrative structure, having done fifteen feature films in four decades with a described goal to "approximate real time for the audience", who had shifted his focus from literature and music to film. There were a few inspirations that led Jarmusch on the way to inspiration in film, with the first film he has a vivid memory of being Thunder Road (1958). Key figures included people such as the director Nicholas Ray, who Jarmusch became a teaching assistant for while at the New York University Tisch School of the Arts. He would be a crewman on Ray's last film (a collaboration with Wim Wenders) with Lightning Over Water (1980), a documentary about Ray's last years. In the same year of its release, he directed his first film in Permanent Vacation (which had a premiere but no theatrical release), which was done just after leaving the Tisch School. The film is comprised of single-shot scenes (for which Jarmusch edited along with Melody London) that was done a budget of $125,000, arising from a short subject film that he had done in 1982 that was originally 30 minutes long (having being granted leftover film stock from Wim Winders).

One can certainly appreciate the time and effort made in doing a film with a distinct style that dares to be something different. This is a film of the arthouse, one with a jazz singer, a violinist and a drummer to comprise a main trio (with Lurie being the only one having acted before and composing the music). If one wants to sit through somethign different for 89 minutes, all power to you. However, I simply just could not find myself liking this film, a supposed absurdist comedy that drives one numb to the point of exhaustion of how middling it is. If one takes films as escapism, this might be an example of one that makes you never want to leave home again, where presenting location shots of New York, Cleveland, and Florida all muddles together as one for others to be bored with (personally, only the middle one of those three sounds like it could turn out fine). It may very well prove a divine experience in boredom, and while one might say that is the point, that doesn't make it something I actually enjoy. I can respect Jarmusch for sticking to what he believes in when it comes to fierce independence that eschews the Hollywood system while having resemblance to types of world cinema, for which one could likely use as a way to recommend it to others. But it felt dull average to me, where the resistance to sleep nearly fell under itself in watching folks that are only barely interesting when not bored like hipsters (which I loathe at times). Balint proves to be the favorite, one wrapped with charm as a curiosity of circumstance for a film that mumbles about and about. Honestly, this is a frustrating film to think about because of how hard it is to really crack open and do proper justice in talking about it without just saying I didn't like it (it's a road movie of sorts with worse luck for its characters than I ever had on the road with incidentally just about as much as reaching humor as a growing hipster). The best thing I can say is that common sense rules the day for attempting to check this film out: if you are into what Jarmusch is selling with his style of filmmaking, then you will find something worth a curiosity as opposed to my general understanding of disappointment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Scarface (1983)

Review #1471: Scarface.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony Montana), Steven Bauer (Manny Ray), Michelle Pfeiffer (Elvira), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Robert Loggia (Frank Lopez), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Alejandro Sosa), Harris Yulin (Bernstein), and Angel Salazar (Chi Chi) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible and #1230 - Carrie)

Review:
"I have a reputation as an action director because I know how to kill, how to shoot people, how to spill blood."

For such a popular film of its era, there are two things that stick out really particularly well about it to note. The first is the fact that the inspiration for the film came from the desire of Al Pacino to want to do a remake of the original Scarface (1932), which Pacino loved as a "model for all gangster pictures." He approached his manager and producer Martin Bregman to do a film and had asked Oliver Stone (who had just won an Academy Award for his screenplay in Midnight Express in 1978) to do the screenplay, although he initially rejected doing it (noting his dislike of the original). An eventual shift from doing a period piece to one set in the present day led to Sidney Lumet being brought in as director. It was he would suggested that it would be set in Miami, with the region having seen a mass emigration of Cubans just three years prior (referred to as the Mariel boatlift). Stone found this premise intriguing enough to sign on to write the film, although Lumet would soon bow out due to creative differences. The director brought in to take on the film was Brian De Palma, a director associated as a figure of the New Hollywood movement of the previous decade that had gone from being inspired to do films in college to doing his own modest works in the late 1960s to his first prime hit in Carrie (1976). Influenced by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma is known for his highly stylized films that typically fall within the suspense and crime genres.

What's the second fact you might ask? This was actually not well-liked upon original release. It proved a lightning rod for critics of those who found it excessive in violence and language (you don't say?) or too stereotypical (it isn't like there was a disclaimer at the end about the "dedication, vitality, and enterprise" of Cuban Americans - oops, never mind), and there was a considerable fight over the rating (which was deemed to be X by the MPAA before eventually being rated R). To that I say: what the hell did you expect, a walk in the park with gangsters who deal in cocaine? Loud, provocative, and unrelenting in what it wants to be in content, it deserves its reputation of respect as a film for that era of weird excess with no problem as an imperfect show for its makers. It is a film that intimidates you with excess to the limit because it knows exactly what it is doing about its tale of the dark side of the American Dream that attracted a great deal of people that liked what they saw play out on screen (such as with hip hop and countless references and imitations of quotes from the film). It shouldn't prove surprising that I found the film pretty well done as a film of excess that looks upon the abyss of what it means to rise to the top and the pitfalls that come in trying to stay there. De Palma makes the best of his cast and scope of 170 minutes in delivering entertainment that shocks its viewer with a tremendous burst of energy. Pacino shines with energy, raw and focused in his pursuits and appetites like a lion that make a captivating watch, with plenty of scenes one could highlight, such as the dinner sequence about "saying goodnight to the bad guy" or the tense would-be assassination scene, or the climax (involving that often repeated line involving a "little friend") and so on. Bauer follows along with just as well as a figure along for the ride of mayhem with charm, while Pfeiffer (in a breakthrough part) proves just as alluring in curiosity in her presence. The rest prove just as well in presence, such as a dedicated Mastrantonio and Colon or a smarmy Loggia and refined sleaze in Shenar. Regardless of how much one knows about the film or its lines, one will find themselves in for quite a ride with this film, a stroke of excess and sleaze to make a interesting crime film for its age that lands most of its punches and earns its reputation with stature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Terms of Endearment.

Review #1470: Terms of Endearment.

Cast:
Shirley MacLaine (Aurora Greenway), Debra Winger (Emma Greenway-Horton), Jack Nicholson (Garrett Breedlove), Danny DeVito (Vernon Dalhart), Jeff Daniels (Flap Horton), John Lithgow (Sam Burns), Lisa Hart Carroll (Patsy Clark), Huckleberry Fox (Ted "Teddy" Horton), and Troy Bishop (Tom "Tommy" Horton) Directed by James L. Brooks.

Review: 
"While you're doing it, it is sort of a lonely kind of feeing, even though you are surrounded by so many people giving beyond the call. That's generally true of movies, there's a sense of urgency, people risking their tail, people woking past exhaustion. That's what moviemaking is."

Some films just have all the right pieces go into the right places, one where talented people can be led by talented directors to make a talented comedy-drama, which is proven tremendously so with this film. At the helm at director was James L. Brooks, who would serve as producer and adapted the screenplay from the 1975 novel of the same name by Larry McMurty (who you may recognize as the writer of novels such as Horseman, Pass By and The Last Picture Show), which was the first of two novels involving the character of Aurora (with The Evening Star turned into a film of its own thirteen years later). It was the first film for the 43-year old Brooks, who had forged a long road from a rough childhood to work at CBS as a host-turned-copywriter to work in television writing. through the help of Allan Burns. It was in 1969 that he helped create his first television series - the groundbreaking Room 222, one of the first shows with a black lead character (played by Lloyd Haynes). The following year proved just as beneficial, since Brooks and Burns were brought on by Grant Tinker to help develop a show for Tinker's wife, which resulted in the enormous hit The Mary Tyler Moore Show and subsequent spinoff classics in Rhoda and Lou Grant, and he soon added film to his lineup with writing and co-producing in Starting Over (1978). The chance to do a film of his own came not long after, although it would take a few years to develop into full. The original actress intended for the main role of Aurora was Jennifer Jones, since she and her husband had the rights to the book and had sent the book to Brooks as a vehicle for her. However, while he liked the book, he wanted to do on his terms without it being a vehicle for a certain actress, which led to him getting Paramount to get involved and do the film themselves. MacLaine was picked because Brooks felt that she was the only one who saw it as a comedy, while Sissy Spacek soon left for Winger to enter. The third key piece to the film is Nicholson, who came into the film because of the rejection of another actor for a role that was written into the film independent of the book: Burt Reynolds (an actor I love to see in films that unfortunately honored his commitment to Stroker Ace). Sure, others did decline the role before Nicholson signed on (including Paul Newman), but I think we both know how much a tremendous presence Nicholson proved to be, who wanted to play a middle-aged character without the requisite crisis that came with it for those type of character while taking inspiration from an astronaut friend and a relative of his.

It is evident pretty quickly how the film operates as a comedy-drama: a curious movie with a balnce of laughs and tears that earns most of its moments on screen in coming to terms about what family means as things continually change for both parent and child. We care to see these characters because we believe in these folks and their struggle - whether it involves fussy squabbles or squabbles of the heart. It is smart enough to maintain its 132 minute pace with meaningful foundation and sentiment without becoming a manipulated parody of itself, since there is so much great chemistry between its main trio that never seems sacrificed for any sort of cheap joke or sob-story moment (alongside the fact that I don't take manipulation arguments seriously for films like this that are too competent to be labeled as such). MacLaine and Winger might've had a strange time filming together, but they sure make for a great mother-daughter team on screen. MacLaine bursts with a great understanding of what is needed from the material, hovering over things with pathos and attention to all that matters in chemistry with her on-screen daughter and her on-screen lover with Nicholson, which serves well for inquisitive excitement. Winger proves just as well in delivering a captivating performance filled with smart independent charm and timing for interaction with the situations that require it, evolving with the times in how she is with others like Daniels (a good immature performance for someone in their second film role). If the film just had those two, that would probably be enough, but having Nicholson in the mix pushes it into the stratosphere with his presence, because he is such a force of nature even when having just a portion of time to really spring your attention for his interesting appetite for life. Others, like DeVito, Daniels, and Lithgow prove well in filling in the counterparts to the main duo when it comes to trying to define some sort of "love". On the whole, the film moves from place to place that makes the time go by carefully while getting to its wrenching climax with focus.

For the fourth time in the history of the Academy Awards, a director would win an award for their directorial debut (Delbert Mann, Jerome Robbins, and Robert Redford), and Brooks gained a further distinction as one of a select group of folks (twelve as of 2020) to win three Oscars for one film, since the film also won for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. It is evident to see why the film attracted so much attention, because it is a tremendously well-made film that tugs at the heart with wit and tragedy that make for a prime film to watch of its era for its stars and direction.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Outsiders.

Review #1469: The Outsiders.

Cast:
C. Thomas Howell (Ponyboy Curtis), Matt Dillon (Dallas "Dally" Winston), Ralph Macchio (Johnny Cade), Patrick Swayze (Darrel "Darry" Curtis), Rob Lowe (Sodapop Curtis), Emilio Estevez (Keith "Two-Bit" Matthews), Tom Cruise (Steve Randle), Glenn Withrow (Tim Shepard), Diane Lane (Sherri "Cherry" Valance), and Leif Garrett (Robert "Bob" Sheldon) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, and #1460 - Apocalypse Now)

Review: 
"I used to be a great camp counselor, and the idea of being with half a dozen kids in the country and making a movie seemed like being a camp counselor again. It would be a breath of fresh air. I'd forget my troubles and have some laughs again." 

The 1980s were an interesting time for coming-of-age dramas along with Francis Ford Coppola. It was the busiest decade of his career, if not the most difficult. Having reached a peak with Apocalypse Now (1979), he tried to further innovation in films with the music fantasy One from the Heart (1982), which proved a failure with audiences and wrecked his finances with Zoetrope Studio (now known as American Zoetrope). He would ultimately direct six further films in this decade (including a segment for New York Stories in 1989) while trying to get out of his debts, and two of his films were uniquely released in the same year that were adaptations of S.E. Hinton novels in Rumble Fish and this film (based on the 1967 novel of the same name). The inspiration for the film came from an interesting source: a petition on the behalf of middle school students of Lone Star Elementary School in Fresno, California by school librarian Jo Ellen Misakian, since the students felt that Coppola would be a great director to make a film out of such a key book of reading from the famed author in Hinton (who wrote it as a teenager inspired by rival gangs in her high school in Oklahoma, where the film would be shot). She was very involved with the making of the film, having numerous moments of enjoyment spent with the actors of the film. One can only imagine how much interest can be generated from a film with so many young and aspiring actors present in one film: Cruise (in the first of four key roles in a breakthrough year), Swayze (a talented dancer in his second film role), Dillon (a teen idol that starred in two other Hinton adaptations in Tex and Rumble Fish), Lane (making her transition into older roles after debuting in theater at age six and film at 14), Macchio, Lowe and Estevez (with this being a breakthrough for the latter three).

There exists two different versions of the film: The original version of the film ran for 91 minutes after Coppola edited it down from 133 minutes of shooting because of studio fears of it being too long. In 2005, he decided to do a new version of the film, inspired to do a version that restored the film to be more faithful to the book that his granddaughter could watch. The newest edition of the film, called "The Complete Novel" release, runs at 114 minutes, since Coppola re-incorporated 22 minutes of deleted footage while also taking out footage from before while also replacing most of Carmine Coppola's musical score with comtemporary 1960s music. Regardless of how one sees the film, there is a fine sense of craftsmanship in making a captivating coming-of-age story with touches of realism and style that reach most of what it desires to say about the nature of teenagers when it comes to class and adapting to the way one was raised by a family (whether the traditional one or not). Nothing comes easy in life, particularly when it comes to trying to belong in society - that applied in the 1960s and it applies just as much now more than ever, as trying to find a place to belong with others doesn't change the struggle within us no matter the supposed evolution of community over the years. With a young and hungry ensemble like this, there is plenty to generate interest in making things come alive. As our focus for a primary amount of time, Howell proves himself worthy of our attention, a complicated kid on the crossroads that we can buy into fairly well. It is Dillon who commands attention with an irresistible and irascible hardened spirit. Macchio follows along with well-done conviction to follow along with Howell, with a sequence involving the sunset being a key highlight for each in idealism that will inevitably clash with reality. Swayze (the oldest of an teenaged/twentysomething ensemble at 31) is a weary but worthwhile presence to see help lead his family of brothers and outsider brothers. The others in Lowe, Estevez, and Cruise make their own interesting impressions (the best likely being a short scene of Estevez waiting for a conversation to end with Howell and someone else by cracking wise), while Lane proves a steady counterpart of the other side of town, bright in conviction.

In the end, The Outsiders still manages to reach an audience today because of what it can say about youth on the fringes. By the time it reaches its rumble for the end, one can find themselves swept over whose actually fighting who, as if the lines of conflict can muddle between what really matters, as signified by its true ending (or at least in its burning sequence), poignant in hardened reality without drowning its viewer in what really matters - to belong. In that sense, I would say Coppola certainly made a film worth belonging to, which all came together from kids that wanted to see the folks try to "stay gold" on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Crystal.

Review #1468: The Dark Crystal.

Cast: 
Stephen Garlick (Jen [performed by Jim Henson]), Lisa Maxwell (Kira [performed by Kathryn Mullen]), Billie Whitelaw (Aughra [performed by Frank Oz]), Percy Edwards (Fizzgig [performed by Dave Goelz]), Barry Dennen (The Chamberlain - skekSil [performed by Frank Oz]), Michael Kilgarriff (The General - skekUng [performed by Dave Goelz]), Jerry Nelson (The Ritual-Master - skekZok) [performed by Jim Henson], Steve Whitmire (The Scientist - skekTek), Thick Wilson (The Gourmand - skekAyuk [performed by Louise Gold], Brian Muehl (The Ornamentalist - skekEkt), John Baddeley (The Scroll Keeper - skekOk [performed by Bob Payne]), David Buck (The Slave-Master - skekNa [performed by Mike Quinn], Charles Collingwood (The Treasurer - skekShod [performed by Tim Rose], and Sean Barrett (urZah/The Ritual-Guardian [performed by Brian Muehl]), with additional performances by Kiran Shah, Mike Edmonds, Peter Burroughs, Malcolm Dixon, Sadie Corre, Deep Roy, and Jack Purvis. Directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz (#521 - The Muppets Take Manhattan and #795 - Bowfinger)

Review: 
"My feeling about puppetry relates to stylization, simplicity, boiling down to - it's a wonderful form and I really love it. But with The Dark Crystal, instead of puppetry we're trying to go toward a sense of realism - toward a reality of creatures that are actually alive and we're mixing up puppetry and all kinds of other techniques."

Jim Henson, if you didn't already know, was a tremendous force in puppeteering and comedy. Born in Mississippi and raised in Maryland, Henson had his influences in what he saw on television and heard on radio with the work of ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and television puppetry of Burr Tillstrom among others. In 1955, along with fellow puppeteer (and future spouse) Jane Nebel, he formed The Muppets, which would be featured in Henson's 5-minute show for WRC-TV in Sam and Friends (1955-61) that led to his own company in 1958 (now known as The Jim Henson Company). He soon went to the University of Maryland and learned further in craft and textiles (which led to graduation in 1960). In the following two decades, he would spend time with his puppets in various forms of television that ranged from commercials to talk shows to educational shows, with highlights including Henson's directorial debut in the short Time Piece (1965) and Sesame Street (1969). It was producer Lew Grade and his ITC Entertainment company that proved important to Henson in subsequent years: he helped to co-produce The Muppet Show (1976-1981) that helped the Muppets reach a broader audience, and he was executive producer for this film.

The film had a story from Henson (who also co-produced the movie) and a screenplay from David Odell (who had written for The Muppet Show), while Henson would direct alongside longtime collaborator Frank Oz (in his directorial debut). Henson had been inspired to make a film that had the darkness of stories such as the original Grimms' Fairy Tales, which would have spiritual influences from New Age philosophy such as the Seth Material, and noted fantasy illustrator Brian Froud would do concept art for the film. Instead of human beings on screen, this is a fantasy film with a showcase of animatronic puppets, which had a mix of control with rods/cables, radio control and human performances (which were grueling for the Garthim performers, since they had to be hung up on a rack at times to rest). The final result is a captivating and interesting film to view, one that does wonders with telling a capable fantasy story with atmosphere that makes a solid 93 minute experience for everyone, since one needs something that veers a bit into the dark now and then (it was a moderate success with audiences of the time, although some were put off by the dark elements, because irony is dead, perhaps). The voice cast do a fine job with filling the fantasy requirements needed, such as Garlick and his growing presence of confidence or Maxwell's warmth and spirit or the biting charm of Whitelaw to counteract the devious pit of decadence of the others. It builds its tension with care and appreciation for making entertainment on its own terms for everyone, one that can invite plenty of imagination over its subject matter (a TV series set years prior was just released in 2019, for example), with a climax that seals its fate of understanding with care. It invites one into a story of destiny and shattered crystals with careful pacing and a wonderful execution in style, puppetry, and music from Trevor Jones that prove very much worth a curious choice among the work of Henson.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Countryman.

Review #1467: Countryman.

Cast: 
Countryman [Edwin Lothan], Hiram Keller (Bobby Lloyd), Carl Bradshaw (Capt. Benchley), Basil Keane (Colonel Sinclair), Freshey Richardson (Mosman), Kristina St. Clair (Beau Porter), Jahman (Jahman), Papa Threecards (Sadu Baba), Munair Zacca (Periera), Dee Anthony (Mr. Porter), and Ronnie McKay (Wax) Directed by Dickie Jobson.

Review: 
"[Jobson] always knew which way the wind was blowing, and was first on the scene when the dust settled. An original thinker, he brought warmth, humour and friendship to all who had the privilege to be in his presence."

Everybody deserves to have their story told or make a film about something they feel deserves to be put on screen, no matter what the conditions are in making something worthy of an audience to be curious about. The ones responsible for helping to bring the film to production was Island Records, a British-Jamaican record label that had been founded in 1959 by Chris Blackwell (who one year prior had been saved by Rasta fisherman on the coast), Graeme Goodall, and Leslie Kong that was credited for helping to bring reggae and ska music to the mainstream. One notable group they brought attention to was Bob Marley & The Wailers, as Blackwell had given money to the group to fund their first album with Island. This was not the first film of Jamaica (which had gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1962) to reach some sort of prominence, nor was it the first to have funding from Island Records, as they had helped give financing to Perry Henzell's The Harder They Come (1972), which had proved a hit in the country along with some success abroad (such as midnight showings). Helming the film as director was Jobson, a friend and business associate of Blackwell that had managed Marley's group for a time, with their music being featured in this film (with a dedication to Marley, who died the previous year). The film features a man known primarily as Countryman (both Edwin Lothan, who lived from 1946 to 2016), who had first been covered by Rolling Stone (referred to as Cunchyman) in their 1973 article "The Wild Side of Paradise". He was a real-life fisherman of Indian and African descent (coincidentally, he was to have a part in Henzell's No Place Like Home (1973), although the print was apparently lost for years).

Although it is an English-language film, this seemed like an appropriate film to fit in the world cinema label because of its interesting place as an adventure film with reggae touches and a near-mythic quality to its main focus. It has a strange mix of adventure and exploitation to it at times, and it doesn't quite live up to its thin story, but there is something worthy about the curiosity that this film brings to the table that makes it different from the usual fare. It may not have anything in terms of great acting, but there is certainly an appeal in seeing our title star engage with his world and the situations that can arise from it, such as dealing with alligators or with the wilderness at large that make for an interesting time to feel play out without needing so many details for 102 minutes. There really isn't that many things to highlight that don't involve our star, mostly because characters come and go as they please in a plot that somehow involves fabrications involving the CIA and smugglers in an election. It isn't exactly a winner, but it certainly seems to belong as a cult classic in its own certain way, for which one can seek it out on the Internet if one desires to do so. For those who have the curiosity for something around the bend with its view of mysticism and a distinct man to go with a blend of fine landscapes, this may prove worth it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Secret of NIMH.

Review #1466: The Secret of NIMH.

Cast: 
Elizabeth Hartman (Mrs. Brisby), Derek Jacobi (Nicodemus), Hermione Baddeley (Auntie Shrew), John Carradine (The Great Owl), Dom DeLuise (Jeremy the Crow), Arthur Malet (Mr. Ages), Peter Strauss (Justin), Paul Shenar (Jenner), Aldo Ray (Sullivan), Shannen Doherty (Teresa Brisby), Wil Wheaton (Martin Brisby), Ian Fried (Timothy "Timmy" Brisby), Jodi Hicks (Cynthia Brisby), Edie McClurg (Miss Right), and Tom Hatten (Farmer Fitzgibbon) Directed by Don Bluth.

Review: 
"I prefer that animation reach into places where live action doesn't go, and it seems like all of animation nowadays is trying to go where live action is."

It takes some sort of courage to set forth and make your own film, particularly when it comes to one you could be proud to say could rival the pros of the day. In this case, this is one that came from defectors of Walt Disney Productions that tried to keep the spirit of traditional animation films alive with a meaningful story and values that they believed had decreased from the company in recent years. The group, headed by animators such as Don Bluth, John Pomeroy, and Gary Goldman, had spent over four years animating a prior short in the 27-minute Banjo the Woodpile Cat (1979), which was looked upon with apathy when they asked Disney about their interest in buying the film. Bluth had developed an interest in Disney from a young age, which led to two separate stints with the company (starting with Sleeping Beauty (1955) as an assistant and closing with his abrupt exit during The Fox and the Hound (1981) with the others), with notable work including The Rescuers and Pete's Dragon (1977). It was artist Ken Anderson who sparked interest in doing a film of the Robert C. O'Brien book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH (rejected by Disney when offered the book because they had "already got a mouse...and we've done a mouse movie."), who gave the book for Bluth to read that was later given to others to read that led to interest in doing a film. It would become a reality with another ex-Disney group in James L. Stewart's Aurora Productions, under the terms of a $5.7 million budget and 30 months to make the film, with long hours for the animators and staff (with 110 hour weeks near the end of production). The film made just around $15 million upon release, but it eventually developed a following of its own that gave it a tremendous reputation among animation films, and Bluth would go on to do nine further films as a director in the next two decades (with varying success and failure).

The film had four credited writers in Bluth, Goldman, Pomeroy, and Will Finn while Steven Barnes was a creative consultant for his initial draft (which had focused more on the rats of NIMH like the book that was revised later to focus on Brisby). What a marvelous little film, one might say when it comes to an experience like this. It can't be denied that there is plenty of striking color and technique to achieve a wonderful mythic tale with plenty of craftsmanship that springs from utilizing ideas such as rotoscoping (live action footage traced over into animation) or backlit animation (in an attempt to recreate artificial light/fire). It is the kind of film that you show to others as an example of what one might want from "mature" animated films for everyone, where it doesn't talk down to either the young or older audience that looks upon the experience - they will find a bunch to adore with its ambitious animation and attempts at a dark story with a suitable path for a fantasy experience and a game cast. This is an interesting cast to highlight, since the voices and abilities of those actors were deemed crucial to matching who they were going to play, finding people to cast based on previous work that they liked, such as Hartman (a troubled but talented actress who had made her debut with A Patch of Blue seventeen years prior), DeLuise (for his work in The End (1978) of all things) or Jacobi and Strauss from their work in miniseries (I, Claudius and Rich Man, Poor Man, respectively). It obviously paid off well, since everyone seems to fit well with who they are meant to be playing, which springs to life with our focus in Hartman (in her last role before her suicide five years later), a sensitive but soothing presence that we appreciate in seeing her courage play out to us. Jacobi serves the film well with a mystical and alluring presence that makes every little sentence count, starting with the opening. Others such as Baddeley (in her final role before her death in 1986) and DeLuise do well with a light hand to connect with Hartman and give the film space to breathe in its initial moments and further. Carradine (in his fourth and last animated role), appearing in one sequence with his distinct voice is recognizably capable for what is needed. Shenar makes his time count as the main threat behind things, while Malet and Strauss fill out the rest with fine spirit. In the long run, the films works out for 82 minutes with quick pacing and a reliable foundation to go with diverting animation to make a worthwhile adventure worth checking out for all ages as a great achievement for Bluth and his animators in a decade that could offer plenty of entertainment for audiences that needed a right touch for everyone to enjoy meaningfully.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Original image:

An American Werewolf in London.

Review #1465: An American Werewolf in London.

Cast: 

David Naughton (David Kessler), Jenny Agutter (Nurse Alex Price), Griffin Dunne (Jack Goodman), John Woodvine (Dr J. S. Hirsch), Don McKillop (Inspector Villiers), Brian Glover (Chess Player), David Schofield (Dart Player), and Lila Kaye (Barmaid) Written and Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, and #1462 - The Blues Brothers)

Review: 

"What no one understands, ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea has no real value. It's all about the execution of the idea."

"The thing that I find so fulfilling about my job is I like the fact that you start with something that's just an idea in your head. You read the script and right away you visualize something and you see that thing that at one point was just an idea in your head looking real and alive. It's exciting and is a little bit like being Dr. Frankenstein. I want to scream "It's alive!"

John Landis was a tremendous showman director for his time, one that generally knew how to reach his audience with humor for a career that started with such modesty. He was inspired to be involved in films from a young age, citing The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) as a key influence. He subsequently worked his way up in film production, starting as a mailboy before taking other parts such as stunt double and dialogue coach. After getting the chance to be an assistant director for Kelly's Heroes (1970), he found inspiration for what would become this film from a chance viewing of a gypsy ritual (while in Yugoslavia) being done in a burial in which they tried to make sure the body wouldn't rise from the grave). At the age of 21, he began production on his first directorial effort in Schlock, which was released two years later in 1973 with him in the title role alongside writer-director. It was his first work with a young makeup artist in Rick Baker. Baker was in his third ever assignment in film with makeup, having started his career with costume work on Octaman (1971). The highlight of the film was done from Baker, who became the first winner of an Academy Award for Best Makeup (several people had been given honorary awards for effects in the past before a formal category was created), and he would win six more in a career that has spanned over four decades.

The film languished for a decade because of the perception that it was either too scary to be comedy or too funny to be a horror film, with Landis stating that "People keep calling it a comedy, it's very funny I hope, but it is a horror film." It is a fairly morbid film at times, taking inspiration from the classic Universal horror films with clear interest in making a London film with atmosphere, complete with plenty of moon songs that set the film well (or whatever one feels about the choice of "Blue Moon" after a swift finale) that makes a well-earned classic for the night as one of the higher-achieving werewolf films. Landis stages a fine film well, and Baker makes it all worthwhile with the special effects utilized to depict the werewolf that proved to be a tremendous highlight for practical effects in a decade fitting for it, even if it took plenty of makeup and time to make it all come out right (the transformation scene took nearly a week to finish due to all the time spent on getting the makeup on and off), utilizing its real and unreal elements such as fake patch of skin and hair and robotics to make for an iconic moment for effects.

One watches the film to see the transformation sequence come out in the midst of a 97 minute film with care to build its creeping humor in its look upon the wolf of the night and the curse of the undead that come from it. In this case, our main trio is fair game to go with that horror challenge. Naughton (picked because of his four year work with Dr Pepper and their "Be a Pepper" ad campaign by Landis) does a fine job with being our person of interest, a take on the anguished man in despair over potentially being a wolf and a killer, approaching the material with care and fine timing without needing being overshadowed completely by effects or gags. Agutter (known for her television and film work in Britain and abroad) makes a sensible pairing to all the fuss, calm but attentive to the last. Dunne proves amusing while spending a good deal of time on screen in makeup, which makes him a charmer to see on screen with Naughton, such as with the scene in the theater confronting what to do about trying to end the curse (and the methods one could do it with, suggested by the several dead folk). On the whole, the film builds itself fine with playing with the horror genre with some creepy imagery and useful makeup and effects, and while it could've had a stronger climax, it ultimately does prove worth it in the long run, a casual classic worth a watch for those who appreciate craftsmanship done the natural way and those looking for a chill.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Chariots of Fire.

Review #1464: Chariots of Fire.

Cast:
Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), Ian Charleson (Eric Liddell), Nicholas Farrell (Aubrey Montague), Nigel Havers (Lord Andrew Lindsay), Ian Holm (Sam Mussabini), John Gielgud (Master of Trinity College), Lindsay Anderson (Master of Caius College), Cheryl Campbell (Jennie Liddell), Alice Krige (Sybil Gordon), Struan Rodger (Sandy McGrath), Nigel Davenport (Lord Birkenhead), and Patrick Magee (Lord Cadogan) Directed by Hugh Hudson.

Review: 
"The artist is a credulous animal. He is often a dreamer. And if he finds someone who appears to share his dream, or, even better, someone with the means to realize that dream, then that artist tends to believe in Santa Claus."

Sometimes you just need a film about the will to win. I suppose if anyone had to try and make a sports film about the triumph of victory with perseverance and faith, it might as well be one from the British about something historical. Whether that makes for a true classic or not is up to the viewer, who no doubt will have heard that one tune from Vangelis that starts the film up, one that is inspirational and all the jazz. This was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox (international) that was spearheaded by British producer David Puttnam, having been behind films such as Bugsy Malone (1976) and Midnight Express (1978) that wanted to do a film in the mold of A Man for All Seasons (1966) - where one had to follow their conscience, which just happened to fit the mold of the story of the 1924 Olympics that was written by actor-turned-writer Colin Welland. The director tasked to do the film was Hugh Hudson, a first-time film director mostly known for advertising and documentaries. If they managed to accomplish an accurate film, let them enjoy the fruits of said attention, even if there had to be certain liberties taken to get to this point: One can't really be serious to believe a runner wouldn't know about a heat being on Sunday right before going on a trip to compete in the Olympics. Two characters are based on folks that refused permission to have their real names to being used, while a romance for one of the leads is actually ten years too early. There is a mix of established and young faces, with Cross, Charleson, Farrell, and Havers being backed up by Holm, Gielgud, and Anderson. The sentiment must have paid off, since the film won four Academy Awards (one each for Puttnam Vangelis, and Welland), including Best Picture (over films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Reds - a punchline in it of itself).

If one really gets a tremendous inspiration from the story of two runners making their mark on the world through their faith and courage, go right on ahead. It has all the things one could for appeal for the traditionalists (with a modern electronic music touch) that goes for the inspirational without leaning on extreme sentiment or anything with too much contrivances - entertainment or otherwise. And yet, here I am, trying to figure out why it proves so average in my experience - a picture of illusion and platitudes that nearly choke out the air of actually finding something to really say anything meaningful about liking it. In other words, it feels like someone pulled over a bag over my head and somehow got me to the market while I only saw a bunch of decent images in the bag. We are talking about a "sports film" of running, after all. It seems like the kind of film people rush to elevate on a pedestal when trying to make a "prestige picture" that only just balances its story of Liddell and Abrahams to where I appreciate the effort and some of its aspects that go with it while not really reaching a high point. David Watkin does well with the cinematography, and Cross and Charleson are at least calm enough to make their struggle one to care for. Gielgud and Richardson are exactly what you could expect from the college angle, dignified and with reason even when doing a scene about expressing certain doubts about Charleson and his methods to glory. Holm proves to be most enterprising of the bunch, endearing in steadfast conviction that we care to see for what we see spliced in from time to time in teaching to victory without falling to all the clichés. In the end, it just depends on what one really sees the film in the prism of entertainment. Some people really get swept up in a film that is all about conviction and country - I just see it as not too far removed from other "sports films" that have their own little foundation of courage for the underdog, where you might as well call it Rocky (1976) for British people and running. If you are into a film of the stiff upper lip in the face of adversity for 124 minutes, this may very well be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Raging Bull.

Review #1463: Raging Bull.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Jake LaMotta), Cathy Moriarty (Vickie LaMotta), Joe Pesci (Joey LaMotta), Frank Vincent (Salvy Batts), Nicholas Colasanto (Tommy Como), Theresa Saldana (Lenore LaMotta), Mario Gallo (Mario), Frank Adonis (Patsy), Joseph Bono (Guido), Frank Topham (Toppy), and Lori Anne Flax (Irma LaMotta) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy, and #1276 - Mean Streets)

Review: 
"Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our life time, we need to keep them alive."

"I just can't fake acting. I know movies are an illusion, and maybe the first rule is to fake it, but not for me. I'm too curious. I want to deal with all the facts of the character, thin or fat."

It should only figure that one of the best films of the 1980s came about as a chance for Martin Scorsese to save his life and career and for Robert De Niro to have a soulfully devastating performance to lead a film of tremendous quality in their fourth collaboration together. This was the seventh film directed by Scorsese, with his previous effort in New York, New York (1977, a tribute to classic musicals) having been a failure with audiences that had led him to depression and an addiction to cocaine, which nearly led to his death. It was De Niro who had pushed for Scorsese to try and make a film about Jake LaMotta, who had written an memoir in 1970 called Raging Bull: My Story (which he said had a lot of heart despite not being a great book), which had depicted the noted rough fighter's life from youth to the end of fame that was comprised of moments such as his troubled childhood and struggles with the mafia and his own demons outside the ring. De Niro spent years trying to convince Scorsese to take up the project, since he was not a fan of boxing (or sports in general). Scorsese treated this film as if it could have been his last, and it would not prove to be the easiest of shoots for anyone, not particularly for its star or director. It's interesting to note the boxing sequences, which only last a fraction of time in a two-hour film and the fact that they were shot first over a period of ten weeks (having been designed on paper first and meant to be done over three weeks). The film was written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, which went through a number of re-writes, with Scorsese and De Niro being soon tasked to do re-writes that were quite significant in molding the film's content, such as eliminating the depiction of LaMotta's father (it should be noted that Schrader's initial re-write, though thought to be potentially X-rated, was the one that had added Joey to the script) alongside the calm re-enactment sequence at the end from On the Waterfront. One great technique that helps in making this such a distinct boxing film is the way those scenes are shot - inside the ring, with distinct sounds that make for a raw and intense experience to view, particularly since the editing (done by Thelma Schoonmaker) cuts everything together with finesse to where one never gets lost in seeing this descent for 129 minutes.

For an actor who is tasked to play such a tormented man over the span of several years, De Niro sinks right into the part with no difficulty at all in an electrifying performance of the soul. This plays out whether when in the ring (having been trained by LaMotta and actually participating in three matches) or when confronting the people that know and love him with his jealousy and self-destructive tendencies as the film goes on and as he starts to wither down and grow old (having gained 60 pounds for the last half of the film) and he has to face his toughest opponent - trying to find redemption. One can't take their eyes off him and his seething performance that beats at you with a tremendous punch every step of the way. Pesci (known by Scorsese and De Niro because of his debut performance in The Death Collector four years prior) proves to be just as great in following along the action as one with plenty of raw spirit in keeping up with De Niro (with occasional confrontation) that make for captivating scenes, particularly with their last one together, where one tries to do a reconciliation, filled with quiet awkwardness to brilliance. Moriarty, making her film debut (thanks to Pesci), proves just as capable in her role, resourceful and knowing as the time goes by for the film. The rest of the cast prove just as well in filling the grimy world around the film, one that dares you in with a stark look from Michael Chapman in cinematography to go alongside tremendous ambition from Scorsese to show a man on the edge without any false sentiment or step. It seems obvious now to call it a masterpiece, although it had a gradual rise in reputation (having proved a fair hit with audiences) that is now considered one of Scorsese's best films (along with one of De Niro's best). With a stark devastating look and feel and a great director and trio at hand, you can't go wrong with this film, one that lands its punches everywhere in emotion.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Blues Brothers.

Review #1462: The Blues Brothers.

Cast: 
John Belushi ("Joliet" Jake Blues), Dan Aykroyd (Elwood Blues), featuring James Brown (Reverend Cleophus James), Cab Calloway (Curtis), Ray Charles (Ray), Aretha Franklin (Mrs. Murphy), Steve "the Colonel" Cropper (Lead guitar), Donald "Duck" Dunn (bass guitar), Murphy Dunne (keyboards), Willie "Too Big" Hall (drums), Tom "Bones" Malone (trombone), Lou "Blue Lou" Marini (saxophone), Matt "Guitar" Murphy (lead guitar), "Mr. Fabulous" Alan Rubin (trumpet), with Carrie Fisher (Mystery Woman), Henry Gibson (The Head Nazi), John Candy (Burton Mercer), John Lee Hooker (Street Slim), and Kathleen Freeman (Sister Mary Stigmata) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, and #513 - Spies Like Us, and #1114 - Animal House)

Review: 
"...A good man, but a bad boy." 

Every decade had plenty of entertainment to spare, and the 1980s was certainly a decade among itself in trying to reach audiences every which way it could, for better or worse. A newly forged era of studio films with the stars came about in this decade that emphasized high-concept ideas for films to go along with the freshly-devised blockbuster (an old term in the 1940s that came back into prominence with the release of films like Jaws and Star Wars). One film to represent a high point in comedy to start the decade off is this film, directed by a newly-honed showman director in John Landis and talents in John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd. They had met while each were performing in The Second City comedy troupe in 1973 (Aykroyd initially joined the Toronto troupe before being part of the Chicago group). Both were original members of the television series Saturday Night Live when it began in 1975, and they both had developed interest in music from a young age, with Aykroyd being interested in the blues while growing up near a blues/jazz club in Ottawa and Belushi having formed his own band while growing up in Chicago lasted for exactly one single (where he played drums and sang). In 1978, they formed The Blues Brothers, which turned from a musical sketch on SNL to an actual band that had Belushi as vocalist and Aykroyd as harmonica/vocalist while being accompanied by musicians of the time such as Paul Shaffer for their debut album in Briefcase Full of Blues (with Cropper, Dunn, Murphy, Malone, Marini, Rubin participating in both the album and the film), which did covers of blues and soul songs that ranged from "Soul Man" to "Groove Me".

This was the second of three collaborations in film that they would do after leaving SNL and having their own band (the other films being 1941 and Neighbors). The script for this film was originally done by Aykroyd, who wrote over 300 pages. Obviously this couldn't work for just one film, so it fell to Landis to help cut the script down over the course of a couple of week (it did not stop the film from possibly being too long, since the first cut of the film was actually two-and-a-half fours long). We are talking about a film that involves folks on the run from the police, Illinois Nazis, and country singers, after all. The film had its share of production issues, such as the budget, which Universal had actually settled to initially make for $17.5 million that went to over $30 million at the end along with trying to keep Belushi away from going over on his addiction to cocaine, but it all eventually worked out for a tremendous success in the end. There aren't that many comedies that can also be thought of as a musical (or at least that what Landis said to the crew), especially one that presents musical greats and gives them each a chance to sing a number, whether it is Calloway singing his classic "Minnie the Moocher" with a big band behind him once again or an energetic Brown (as if one expects anything different from the "Godfather of Soul"), and so on and so on - with the Blues Brothers following right behind in doing entertaining covers of songs to go with it ("Theme from Rawhide" was a song I head long before I saw this film, but it doesn't make it any less charming). Simply put, Belushi and Aykroyd are a dream team of energy and deadpan that makes for a mostly successful ballad of humor and songs in a manic state that holds up well after four decades. This is the kind of film where a stroll through the mall with cars is only just the first layer of the spectacle cake that makes for silly fun to go with a fair supporting group to go alongside our main duo (such as a jilted would-be assassin played by Fisher) and a sneaky Gibson. On the whole, this 133-minute package of music and comedy might go over the top in chaos, but it has a cast and director that make the best of it with success more often than not to make a worthy film to represent a decade with.


Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
Now then, let me announce the films slated for review in July. It was a list worked over to try and fit the best possible representations of the decade without going completely overboard - despite that, there are 32 slated reviews, with several films that didn't make the shortlist that could be done at a later time. Although I do wish there was a special review for Canada Day or Independence Day, I do hope that this month will prove satisfactory for some fun reviews of interesting movies, both with new and old faces.