The usual, tired Jurassic formula of kids in jeopardy from dinosaurs and the grownups trying to save them and everyone else while some bad guy interferes. Chris Pratt is likable but one dimensional. He's the tough, fearless, no-nonsense hero throughout the film and we know little else about him. Vincent D'Onofrio, usually a very good actor, seems to be channeling Brian Dennehy as the predicable, one dimensional villain making a bad situation worse. Bryce Dallas Howard has the best part as a career company shill for JW, who never even got to know her nephews but must now risk her life to save them at the expense of the park she was so devoted to. The movie is pretty much non-stop dinosaurs fighting people and each other. With modern special effects being what they are these days, even that is becoming routine and not enough to save the stale story line. The movie can be mindless fun but nothing more.
Reviews
19 Reviews
The Shootist
(1976)
Great film
4 June 2011
This could have been a mediocre film about a dying gunfighter trying to go out in style. But John Wayne's performance elevated the script into something very special. For most of his career, Wayne played the same character in every movie. The names changed but the characters were always the same. But later in his his career, Wayne began to show that he had far more range than most movie fans knew. The Cowboys stands out as a breakout role for him. True Grit was Wayne as we had never seen him before. But I think he saved the best for last.
In The Shootist, Wayne is vulnerable, charismatic and touching. And while True Grit was a great role that demanded an over-the-top performance, The Shootist required a very understated performance of Wayne. Given his history of films, understatement would not seem to be in his repertoire. But he certainly pulled it off.
The film is much more of a character study than an action film. Once you accept that, the movie is riveting. The script is good, the veteran cast is accomplished. Ron Howard does a credible job, especially when he pulls the trigger at the end with the same steely-eyed look that Wayne's character had previously told him set shooters apart from killers. And when the film is over, you realize that you've just seen a remarkable acting job from someone who made a career out of being more of an icon that an actor. He wasn't even nominated, but I believe Wayne's performance was worthy of the Oscar for The Shootist.
For decades, we saw John Wayne as a Western film icon. But at the end, he left no doubt that he was a first-class actor whose skills took a back seat to no one.
In The Shootist, Wayne is vulnerable, charismatic and touching. And while True Grit was a great role that demanded an over-the-top performance, The Shootist required a very understated performance of Wayne. Given his history of films, understatement would not seem to be in his repertoire. But he certainly pulled it off.
The film is much more of a character study than an action film. Once you accept that, the movie is riveting. The script is good, the veteran cast is accomplished. Ron Howard does a credible job, especially when he pulls the trigger at the end with the same steely-eyed look that Wayne's character had previously told him set shooters apart from killers. And when the film is over, you realize that you've just seen a remarkable acting job from someone who made a career out of being more of an icon that an actor. He wasn't even nominated, but I believe Wayne's performance was worthy of the Oscar for The Shootist.
For decades, we saw John Wayne as a Western film icon. But at the end, he left no doubt that he was a first-class actor whose skills took a back seat to no one.
The Cowboy Way
(1994)
Worse than awful.
22 February 2009
This movie was so bad that by the time it was over I felt angry. The "good ol' country boys one-upping the city slickers" theme has been done so much that I guess there were no more intelligent ways to do it. So they came up with The Cowboy Way.
I generally like both Woody Harrelson and Kiefer Sutherland. And despite the weak plot, Sutherland does a good job with his role. But Harrelson employs every good ol' boy cliché ever imagined. Right down to the overbearing mush-mouthed twang in every word he utters.
The plot has our two good ol' countrified cowpokes going to NY City to rescue a girl from the big bad city slicker bad guys. In the process, Harrelson ends up at a posh fashion party. Naturally, the hostess is so overwhelmed by the charm of this rube that she hangs all over him while ignoring the rest of her well-to-do guests.
Of course, the good ol' cowpokes have a big ol' gunfight with the city slicker bad guys. And there are no legal ramifications. Ernie Hudson plays a mounted NY City cop. He is so enamored of the good ol' cowpokes that he abandons his patrol area to follow Harrelson through town on horseback. Later, he rides his horse INTO the police station shouting some blather about forming a posse. Later still, he gives away his horse and a horse of a fellow officer to the cowpokes so that we viewers can be treated to the sight of our good ol' boys galloping through NY City in pursuit of a train carrying the city slicker bad guys. Incredibly, after galloping all over town, the horses still have enough left to overtake the train. Also, incredibly, Hudson's cop is not fired for his bizarre and irresponsible actions.
And just to make sure the point is hammered home that the good ol' countrified cowboy way is superior to the city slicker way, our cowpokes save the day by employing their rope tricks.
This movie is so unbelievable that it seems better suited to a cartoon. Maybe a Heckle and Jeckle plot. If you're the type that just has to have that notion validated that the good ol' boys are always better than the city slickers regardless of how absurd the story is, then this one's for you. Otherwise, you'll find better entertainment in Heckle and Jeckle.
I generally like both Woody Harrelson and Kiefer Sutherland. And despite the weak plot, Sutherland does a good job with his role. But Harrelson employs every good ol' boy cliché ever imagined. Right down to the overbearing mush-mouthed twang in every word he utters.
The plot has our two good ol' countrified cowpokes going to NY City to rescue a girl from the big bad city slicker bad guys. In the process, Harrelson ends up at a posh fashion party. Naturally, the hostess is so overwhelmed by the charm of this rube that she hangs all over him while ignoring the rest of her well-to-do guests.
Of course, the good ol' cowpokes have a big ol' gunfight with the city slicker bad guys. And there are no legal ramifications. Ernie Hudson plays a mounted NY City cop. He is so enamored of the good ol' cowpokes that he abandons his patrol area to follow Harrelson through town on horseback. Later, he rides his horse INTO the police station shouting some blather about forming a posse. Later still, he gives away his horse and a horse of a fellow officer to the cowpokes so that we viewers can be treated to the sight of our good ol' boys galloping through NY City in pursuit of a train carrying the city slicker bad guys. Incredibly, after galloping all over town, the horses still have enough left to overtake the train. Also, incredibly, Hudson's cop is not fired for his bizarre and irresponsible actions.
And just to make sure the point is hammered home that the good ol' countrified cowboy way is superior to the city slicker way, our cowpokes save the day by employing their rope tricks.
This movie is so unbelievable that it seems better suited to a cartoon. Maybe a Heckle and Jeckle plot. If you're the type that just has to have that notion validated that the good ol' boys are always better than the city slickers regardless of how absurd the story is, then this one's for you. Otherwise, you'll find better entertainment in Heckle and Jeckle.
Get Smart
(2008)
Very disappointing
16 November 2008
Having been a great fan of the Get Smart series, I had high expectations for the movie. I could not have been more disappointed. The director and writers completely missed the point. They could have made a movie about a new and naive secret agent and it might have been amusing. But if they wanted do make a movie specifically based on the Get Smart series, they needed to build on the premise that it was a farce about an idiotic agent who somehow always prevails against equally idiotic villains.
That's not the Get Smart movie. The movie is about a fact-driven analyst who finally gets his chance to be a field agent. Agent Smart is naive and inexperienced but not played as a fool. He is not the silly, idiotic agent that Don Adams wonderfully portrayed. Steve Carell's Smart is not a fool, just new, inexperienced, clumsy and naive.
Don Adams was hilarious as Smart, who was anything but smart. He'd say, "Would you believe this building is surrounded by 100 Control agents?" When told his foe found that hard to believe, Adams' Smart systematically reduced the threat to something like "Would you believe 3 boys scouts and a guard dog?" And he would say it with such earnestness that it made clear just how foolish he was, actually thinking he could change his story and still hope to be believed. When Carell's Smart pulls the same gag, it feels totally out of character. His Smart is no fool and would never say such an idiotic thing. So it makes no sense, other than the writers wanting to get in a gag from the series while changing the lead character so that the gag no longer makes sense.
The movie includes the cone of silence but, frankly, it was done much funnier in the series. There are brief scenes showing Hymie the robot, the red car, and the phone booth. But that's just to remind us that this is the Get Smart movie.
The series was laugh-out-loud funny about a goofy, stupid agent against stupid enemies. It was a wonderful farce spoofing the secret agent genre. The movie is a mildly amusing story about an inexperienced agent. It missed the mark by a million miles. If you want to laugh out loud, watch the old series and forget the movie.
That's not the Get Smart movie. The movie is about a fact-driven analyst who finally gets his chance to be a field agent. Agent Smart is naive and inexperienced but not played as a fool. He is not the silly, idiotic agent that Don Adams wonderfully portrayed. Steve Carell's Smart is not a fool, just new, inexperienced, clumsy and naive.
Don Adams was hilarious as Smart, who was anything but smart. He'd say, "Would you believe this building is surrounded by 100 Control agents?" When told his foe found that hard to believe, Adams' Smart systematically reduced the threat to something like "Would you believe 3 boys scouts and a guard dog?" And he would say it with such earnestness that it made clear just how foolish he was, actually thinking he could change his story and still hope to be believed. When Carell's Smart pulls the same gag, it feels totally out of character. His Smart is no fool and would never say such an idiotic thing. So it makes no sense, other than the writers wanting to get in a gag from the series while changing the lead character so that the gag no longer makes sense.
The movie includes the cone of silence but, frankly, it was done much funnier in the series. There are brief scenes showing Hymie the robot, the red car, and the phone booth. But that's just to remind us that this is the Get Smart movie.
The series was laugh-out-loud funny about a goofy, stupid agent against stupid enemies. It was a wonderful farce spoofing the secret agent genre. The movie is a mildly amusing story about an inexperienced agent. It missed the mark by a million miles. If you want to laugh out loud, watch the old series and forget the movie.
Chato's Land
(1972)
A unique type of film.
6 April 2008
I enjoy this movie. In 1971, director Michael Winner and writer Gerald Wilson combined for Lawman, in which Burt Lancaster's Marshal Maddox hunts down a group of men. In 1972, Winner and Wilson again paired for Chato's Land, in which Charles Bronson's Chato hunts down a group of men. Ralph Waite, Richard Jordan and William Watson were among the unfortunates in both films.
Both are good films. But what is unique about Chato's Land is that the movie is carried almost entirely by the supporting cast. Though billed as a Charles Bronson movie, Bronson's role is actually quite small. He has very few lines and is seldom even seen. We know the posse is being stalked by a generally unseen Apache. In the few scenes where that Apache is on camera, it is Bronson. But that role could even have been played by an unknown actor without affecting the quality of the movie.
In actuality, the movie is about the posse. The lead roles are Jack Palance and Simon Oakland. The principal supporting roles are played by Ralph Waite, James Whitmore, and Richard Jordan. The posse also includes familiar faces in Richard Basehart and Victor French. The personalities of the posse are well drawn out. The movie is essentially about what happens to them as they go from hunters to hunted. The actions of some of the posse members when they attack a woman are horrible. The others are at fault for not stopping it, even though it disgusted them. All paid a price.
Some are evil, some are noble, some are weak. Palance's character is interesting. He is a respected former confederate officer who assumes command of the posse but slowly comes to realize he has no control over these civilians and watches helplessly as things disintegrate around him. Oakland's character is the most vile, violent of the group. He seems to endorse Palance as the posse's leader only as long as things are done as he wants. And it is interesting when Palance quietly realizes that it is actually Oakland, and not himself, who is the real leader of the posse, at which time he avoids a confrontation and continues to act as the posse's leader by doing what he knows Oakland wants him to do. It is a well crafted script.
Bronson is on screen only enough to remind us that he is in the film. Had the movie been accurately billed as a film starring Jack Palance and Simon Oakland, with Bronson in a small role, few would have paid to see it. Which would have been unfortunate because it's a good movie.
Both are good films. But what is unique about Chato's Land is that the movie is carried almost entirely by the supporting cast. Though billed as a Charles Bronson movie, Bronson's role is actually quite small. He has very few lines and is seldom even seen. We know the posse is being stalked by a generally unseen Apache. In the few scenes where that Apache is on camera, it is Bronson. But that role could even have been played by an unknown actor without affecting the quality of the movie.
In actuality, the movie is about the posse. The lead roles are Jack Palance and Simon Oakland. The principal supporting roles are played by Ralph Waite, James Whitmore, and Richard Jordan. The posse also includes familiar faces in Richard Basehart and Victor French. The personalities of the posse are well drawn out. The movie is essentially about what happens to them as they go from hunters to hunted. The actions of some of the posse members when they attack a woman are horrible. The others are at fault for not stopping it, even though it disgusted them. All paid a price.
Some are evil, some are noble, some are weak. Palance's character is interesting. He is a respected former confederate officer who assumes command of the posse but slowly comes to realize he has no control over these civilians and watches helplessly as things disintegrate around him. Oakland's character is the most vile, violent of the group. He seems to endorse Palance as the posse's leader only as long as things are done as he wants. And it is interesting when Palance quietly realizes that it is actually Oakland, and not himself, who is the real leader of the posse, at which time he avoids a confrontation and continues to act as the posse's leader by doing what he knows Oakland wants him to do. It is a well crafted script.
Bronson is on screen only enough to remind us that he is in the film. Had the movie been accurately billed as a film starring Jack Palance and Simon Oakland, with Bronson in a small role, few would have paid to see it. Which would have been unfortunate because it's a good movie.
Farewell to the King
(1989)
Nolte is awful.
22 December 2006
The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.
Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.
There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.
Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.
What a waste.
Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.
There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.
Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.
What a waste.
The Magnificent Seven
(1960)
Outstanding western!!!
16 December 2006
Wanna watch a western? This is about as good as it gets. As the opening credits roll and the Mexican bandits ride into the village, Elmer Bernstein's remarkable musical score (remember the Marlboro theme?) sets the stage for an exciting series of events. The music keeps the movie at an upbeat pace from beginning to end.
Yes, it's a remake of The Seven Samarai. But who cares. That one was a classic. But it didn't involve gunfighters and Mexican bandits. Which makes Magnificent Seven different enough to stand as a classic in its own right.
Yul Brynner was a huge star in 1960. Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn were not. Robert Vaughn was not yet known as Napoleon Solo. German actor Horst Buchholz made an unlikely Mexican but was charismatic nonetheless. And Eli Wallach was outstanding as the Mexican bandit leader. Only Brad Dexter fails to impress among the Seven.
The story is well known. Seven gunfighters accept a job defending a Mexican village against a band of roughly 40 Mexican bandits. As Bronson says upon being recruited by Brynner, "I admire your notion of fair odds." The gunfighters have various motives for taking the assignment. Brynner and McQueen are desperate gunfighters with nothing else to do in a changing west. Dexter is an old friend of Brynner's and assumes Brynner wouldn't take such a job unless the village had hidden treasure. Coburn is aces with a knife or gun and looks for a challenge. Bronson is a penniless mercenary and needs what little money the job pays. Vaughn is a gunslinger on the lam and sees the job as a chance to hide out from his enemies. Buchholz is a rebellious Mexican farmer looking to trade his farming skills for the life of a gunslinger.
There are numerous unforgettable scenes in the film: Brynner and McQueen defy bullets as they ride a hearse to Boot Hill to bury a body no one wants buried there. Coburn accepts a challenge to duel with his knife against a gun. McQueen gets overcome with adrenaline as he hops on his horse and singlehandedly pursues 20-30 Mexican bandits after a battle. When faced with insurmountable odds and given the chance by the bandits to leave with their lives, Coburn is the first of the seven to announce he won't run ("Nobody hands me my guns and tells me to go"). Without knowing what the other six will do, it's a suicide mission for the man still seeking the ultimate challenge. But McQueen (who previously had second thoughts about staying) promptly steps up to join him. As do Brynner, Bronson and Buchholz. Dexter tells them they are crazy and prepares to leave with Vaughn. Until Vaughn, heretofore too afraid to draw his gun against the Mexicans, decides it's time to ante up.
Very subtly, this is one of the major moments of the film. Vaughn's character had been using the village as a hideout from those who would kill him back in the States. His only instinct was for his own survival and he was yet to draw his gun against the Mexican bandits. But faced with the decision to stay or run, "Lee" decides it's time to fight. And for the first time, the Mexicans are about to see just what a killer Lee can be. As the gunfighters counter attack, things are going badly for them until Robert Vaughn's "Lee" smoothly dispatches three bandits guarding the villagers. With the villagers thus free to aid the gunfighters, the battle turns in favor of the Seven.
Most of the seven don't make it through the final battle, which makes their decision to fight all the more valiant. The gunfighters are admirably portrayed with emotions ranging from steadfast duty (Brynner) to uncertainty (McQueen) to compassion (Bronson) to cowardice (Vaughn). The bandits are portrayed as desperate men with needs of their own. The villagers are portrayed as men caught between caring for the welfare of their families, their desire to fight their enemies and their fear of fighting as farmers against bloodthirsty bandits.
Magnificent Seven is a classic western. Great story, great cast, great music. If it's not the greatest western ever made, it sure isn't far from the top of the list. It's one hell of a movie.
Yes, it's a remake of The Seven Samarai. But who cares. That one was a classic. But it didn't involve gunfighters and Mexican bandits. Which makes Magnificent Seven different enough to stand as a classic in its own right.
Yul Brynner was a huge star in 1960. Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn were not. Robert Vaughn was not yet known as Napoleon Solo. German actor Horst Buchholz made an unlikely Mexican but was charismatic nonetheless. And Eli Wallach was outstanding as the Mexican bandit leader. Only Brad Dexter fails to impress among the Seven.
The story is well known. Seven gunfighters accept a job defending a Mexican village against a band of roughly 40 Mexican bandits. As Bronson says upon being recruited by Brynner, "I admire your notion of fair odds." The gunfighters have various motives for taking the assignment. Brynner and McQueen are desperate gunfighters with nothing else to do in a changing west. Dexter is an old friend of Brynner's and assumes Brynner wouldn't take such a job unless the village had hidden treasure. Coburn is aces with a knife or gun and looks for a challenge. Bronson is a penniless mercenary and needs what little money the job pays. Vaughn is a gunslinger on the lam and sees the job as a chance to hide out from his enemies. Buchholz is a rebellious Mexican farmer looking to trade his farming skills for the life of a gunslinger.
There are numerous unforgettable scenes in the film: Brynner and McQueen defy bullets as they ride a hearse to Boot Hill to bury a body no one wants buried there. Coburn accepts a challenge to duel with his knife against a gun. McQueen gets overcome with adrenaline as he hops on his horse and singlehandedly pursues 20-30 Mexican bandits after a battle. When faced with insurmountable odds and given the chance by the bandits to leave with their lives, Coburn is the first of the seven to announce he won't run ("Nobody hands me my guns and tells me to go"). Without knowing what the other six will do, it's a suicide mission for the man still seeking the ultimate challenge. But McQueen (who previously had second thoughts about staying) promptly steps up to join him. As do Brynner, Bronson and Buchholz. Dexter tells them they are crazy and prepares to leave with Vaughn. Until Vaughn, heretofore too afraid to draw his gun against the Mexicans, decides it's time to ante up.
Very subtly, this is one of the major moments of the film. Vaughn's character had been using the village as a hideout from those who would kill him back in the States. His only instinct was for his own survival and he was yet to draw his gun against the Mexican bandits. But faced with the decision to stay or run, "Lee" decides it's time to fight. And for the first time, the Mexicans are about to see just what a killer Lee can be. As the gunfighters counter attack, things are going badly for them until Robert Vaughn's "Lee" smoothly dispatches three bandits guarding the villagers. With the villagers thus free to aid the gunfighters, the battle turns in favor of the Seven.
Most of the seven don't make it through the final battle, which makes their decision to fight all the more valiant. The gunfighters are admirably portrayed with emotions ranging from steadfast duty (Brynner) to uncertainty (McQueen) to compassion (Bronson) to cowardice (Vaughn). The bandits are portrayed as desperate men with needs of their own. The villagers are portrayed as men caught between caring for the welfare of their families, their desire to fight their enemies and their fear of fighting as farmers against bloodthirsty bandits.
Magnificent Seven is a classic western. Great story, great cast, great music. If it's not the greatest western ever made, it sure isn't far from the top of the list. It's one hell of a movie.
Cocktail
(1988)
Decent movie except for Tom Cruise.
20 July 2006
The plot of Cocktail is fairly interesting. Young guy trying to make it in the business world, getting sidetracked as an ace bartender and learning about relationships. The acting is good, especially Bryan Browne. But what ruins this movie for me is Tom Cruise. I'm just not a fan of his acting style.
In Cocktail, Cruise plays an arrogant bartender, so sure of himself that he seems to ooze smarminess. Very much like his portrayal of the arrogant pilot in Top Gun, or the arrogant pool player in the Color of Money, or the arrogant fighter in Far an Away, or the arrogant vampire in Interview with the Vampire, or the arrogant agent in Jerry Maguire.
I'm sensing a pattern here. And his arrogant interview, as himself, when questioned by Matt Lauer on Today, seems to suggest that Cruise wasn't really acting in those films, he was just being himself. So I am turned off by any film that features Tom Cruise. Folks who like him will love Cocktail. Folks who are not impressed by his arrogance will hate it.
One side note about Cocktail: we see Cruise and Browne as bartenders in a trendy club, packed with patrons who are lined up 3 or 4 deep all around the bar as the sound system blares tunes. I can only imagine how long it would take to get your drink with only those 2 bartenders working. And that's if they were quick about it. But Cruise and Browne make the drinks while engaged in synchronized dance-type movements, tossing the glasses and the bottles in the air and to each other. I figure it would take about 3 minutes (the average length of the songs they were "performing" to) for each drink to be served. So quite a few of those patrons lined up around the bar would be waiting at least a half hour or more before they got their drink. I'd rather have a less entertaining bartender who could serve the drinks quickly. Also interesting is that in the scene when Cruise takes a swing at Browne behind the bar, in the midst of all those people, the entire club immediately falls so quiet you could hear a pin drop, so that there is no noise other than Cruise talking to Browne. What happened to the music? There was no band to stop playing. So why did the sound system cut out at that precise moment? Cocktail would have been a much better movie without Tom Cruise.
In Cocktail, Cruise plays an arrogant bartender, so sure of himself that he seems to ooze smarminess. Very much like his portrayal of the arrogant pilot in Top Gun, or the arrogant pool player in the Color of Money, or the arrogant fighter in Far an Away, or the arrogant vampire in Interview with the Vampire, or the arrogant agent in Jerry Maguire.
I'm sensing a pattern here. And his arrogant interview, as himself, when questioned by Matt Lauer on Today, seems to suggest that Cruise wasn't really acting in those films, he was just being himself. So I am turned off by any film that features Tom Cruise. Folks who like him will love Cocktail. Folks who are not impressed by his arrogance will hate it.
One side note about Cocktail: we see Cruise and Browne as bartenders in a trendy club, packed with patrons who are lined up 3 or 4 deep all around the bar as the sound system blares tunes. I can only imagine how long it would take to get your drink with only those 2 bartenders working. And that's if they were quick about it. But Cruise and Browne make the drinks while engaged in synchronized dance-type movements, tossing the glasses and the bottles in the air and to each other. I figure it would take about 3 minutes (the average length of the songs they were "performing" to) for each drink to be served. So quite a few of those patrons lined up around the bar would be waiting at least a half hour or more before they got their drink. I'd rather have a less entertaining bartender who could serve the drinks quickly. Also interesting is that in the scene when Cruise takes a swing at Browne behind the bar, in the midst of all those people, the entire club immediately falls so quiet you could hear a pin drop, so that there is no noise other than Cruise talking to Browne. What happened to the music? There was no band to stop playing. So why did the sound system cut out at that precise moment? Cocktail would have been a much better movie without Tom Cruise.
National Treasure
(2004)
Tedious
3 July 2006
Maybe I expected too much. I was all set for a thrilling adventure movie. About halfway through, I was waiting for it to get thrilling. After awhile, I was just anxiously waiting for it to end.
There's a lot of "let's go here, let's go there" stuff as the good guys try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. But where Indiana Jones had vast expanses of interesting territories in which to chase and be chased, Nicholas Cage and friends are essentially limited to Washington DC and downtown Philadelphia. Sort of an urban Indiana Jones semi-adventure.
The movie kept delivering about 50 percent of what I expected. Finally, I just didn't care about the resolution of the plot; I just wanted the movie to be over. If you go into it expecting nothing, you may be pleased that it's "just okay." But if you expect anything more than that, you may be disappointed.
There's a lot of "let's go here, let's go there" stuff as the good guys try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. But where Indiana Jones had vast expanses of interesting territories in which to chase and be chased, Nicholas Cage and friends are essentially limited to Washington DC and downtown Philadelphia. Sort of an urban Indiana Jones semi-adventure.
The movie kept delivering about 50 percent of what I expected. Finally, I just didn't care about the resolution of the plot; I just wanted the movie to be over. If you go into it expecting nothing, you may be pleased that it's "just okay." But if you expect anything more than that, you may be disappointed.
Sahara
(1995 TV Movie)
Why???
5 September 2005
Sahara is a good enough movie. Very clichéd. A little too symbolic with the good guys being just too varied a mixture of nationalities. But the story holds your interest. The question though, is who needs it? It's a remake of the classic Humphrey Bogert "Sahara" of 1943. Bogart had a mesmerizing screen presence whenever he was on film. There's no explanation for it, but he did indeed have it. Maybe it was that voice. Or that cool "I'll kick your butt if I need to" attitude he always seemed to convey. But Bogart was impossible to ignore. And he made Sahara in the midst of WWII. No one knew how the war would turn out in 1943. So it was essentially a propaganda film, encouraging the audience with the bravery and never-say-die attitude of the Americans and their allies (hence the convenient mixture of nationalities in Bogart's little group of fighting men). The film served a purpose in 1943 to entertain as well as to give hope to a country involved in a world war.
If the movie was to be remade, it should have been with an all-star cast or at least with a major star in the Bogart role. Or maybe to enhance the film with modern film-making techniques. Instead, what we got was practically a carbon copy of the original with a "B" movie actor (James Belushi) in the Bogart role. America needed this movie in 1943. But not in 1991. And for those who still like to watch it, the remake did nothing more than colorize it and substitute a decidedly less gifted actor in the lead role. The rest of the parts were all played by unknowns (at least to this reviewer). At least the original had quality costars in Bruce Bennett, Dan Duryea, Lloyd Bridges and J. Carrol Naish.
So if Belushi's Sahara was the one and only version, it would be a decent enough movie. But since it is a cheap, lower quality version of the original classic, why bother?
If the movie was to be remade, it should have been with an all-star cast or at least with a major star in the Bogart role. Or maybe to enhance the film with modern film-making techniques. Instead, what we got was practically a carbon copy of the original with a "B" movie actor (James Belushi) in the Bogart role. America needed this movie in 1943. But not in 1991. And for those who still like to watch it, the remake did nothing more than colorize it and substitute a decidedly less gifted actor in the lead role. The rest of the parts were all played by unknowns (at least to this reviewer). At least the original had quality costars in Bruce Bennett, Dan Duryea, Lloyd Bridges and J. Carrol Naish.
So if Belushi's Sahara was the one and only version, it would be a decent enough movie. But since it is a cheap, lower quality version of the original classic, why bother?
The original "Alien" is outdated, silly, but fun.
26 June 2005
As others have noted, this was the original "Alien." Same plot, but done as a cheap black and white 1950s sci-fi film.
It's a short film, 70 minutes, so it's worth sitting thru for laughs. The crewmen sit around the meal table patiently waiting for the female doctor and nurse to serve them. The monster is a goofy looking costumed man with big hands and feet who walks awkwardly. The monster is impervious to pistols, hand grenades, tear gas, bazookas and radiation. But he is kept at bay by a trapped crewman who keeps putting a blowtorch to the monster's eyes. Yet no one ever thinks of shooting him in the eyes, since that appears to be his only vulnerable area.
And I had to ask myself, why did these astronauts take pistols, hand grenades, tear gas and a bazooka with them to Mars? And why were they so quick to use them INSIDE the spaceship? And how was it that no damage was done to the ship by all those bullets and explosions from within? The film shows how far movie making has progressed since then. We didn't ask such questions when "It" was made. In "Alien," we could understand the reactions of the characters in that situation. Everyone was afraid. Skipper Dallas (Tom Skerrit) went into the air ducts looking for the alien but was going to abandon the effort when he knew the monster was getting close. Not heroic but seemingly realistic. But in "It," we are left scratching our heads as the crew decides that exploding a series of hand grenades in the ship might do the trick. Or firing a bazooka. You want to yell, "Hey guys, don't you think you'd be safer with the monster than with your own ideas on how to destroy it?" But "It" is a fun movie to relax and watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon. They don't make them like that anymore.
It's a short film, 70 minutes, so it's worth sitting thru for laughs. The crewmen sit around the meal table patiently waiting for the female doctor and nurse to serve them. The monster is a goofy looking costumed man with big hands and feet who walks awkwardly. The monster is impervious to pistols, hand grenades, tear gas, bazookas and radiation. But he is kept at bay by a trapped crewman who keeps putting a blowtorch to the monster's eyes. Yet no one ever thinks of shooting him in the eyes, since that appears to be his only vulnerable area.
And I had to ask myself, why did these astronauts take pistols, hand grenades, tear gas and a bazooka with them to Mars? And why were they so quick to use them INSIDE the spaceship? And how was it that no damage was done to the ship by all those bullets and explosions from within? The film shows how far movie making has progressed since then. We didn't ask such questions when "It" was made. In "Alien," we could understand the reactions of the characters in that situation. Everyone was afraid. Skipper Dallas (Tom Skerrit) went into the air ducts looking for the alien but was going to abandon the effort when he knew the monster was getting close. Not heroic but seemingly realistic. But in "It," we are left scratching our heads as the crew decides that exploding a series of hand grenades in the ship might do the trick. Or firing a bazooka. You want to yell, "Hey guys, don't you think you'd be safer with the monster than with your own ideas on how to destroy it?" But "It" is a fun movie to relax and watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon. They don't make them like that anymore.
Open Range
(2003)
Nice and understated.
28 March 2005
Westerns have a way of hitting the viewer over the head with heroism and villainy. And while there's plenty of both here, it's done in a refreshingly understated way. The dialog feels very natural, as does the way Costner and Duvall play off one another.
The story is well-told. You can see why some of the local ranchers wouldn't want free-grazers like Duvall's Boss Spearman to bring a herd through. But they go too far in opposing Spearman. Duvall and Costner are so good in their roles that you can feel their anger. The gunfight seems disjointed. It starts. It slows down. Then it picks up again. Not your Randolph Scott type fight. But probably more like an old west gunfight really was.
And there are a lot of little subtleties that add a nice touch to the film. You can see the affection Spearman and Costner's Charley Waite have for dogs. And for chocolate. And Waite's embarrassment over breaking something valuable and his effort to replace it. And there's a scene in the gunfight when Waite is standing only a few feet away from a foe who angered him by endangering the woman he loved. Waite doesn't just shoot the fellow. He thrusts his revolver toward the guy with each shot as if shooting him wasn't enough. It was if he practically wanted to poke the man with the gun with each shot. Thus, while it can be seen merely as part of the gunfight, that scene beautifully and subtly captures the feelings Waite has for Annette Benings' Sue Barlow. Because by endangering her, the man had made it personal and Waite's wrath was clearly evident. That scene is particularly meaningful because the dialog between Waite and Barlow expresses their affection for one another in very minimal terms.
Open Range is an interesting story and fine character study that looks and feels real. Very well made and very entertaining.
The story is well-told. You can see why some of the local ranchers wouldn't want free-grazers like Duvall's Boss Spearman to bring a herd through. But they go too far in opposing Spearman. Duvall and Costner are so good in their roles that you can feel their anger. The gunfight seems disjointed. It starts. It slows down. Then it picks up again. Not your Randolph Scott type fight. But probably more like an old west gunfight really was.
And there are a lot of little subtleties that add a nice touch to the film. You can see the affection Spearman and Costner's Charley Waite have for dogs. And for chocolate. And Waite's embarrassment over breaking something valuable and his effort to replace it. And there's a scene in the gunfight when Waite is standing only a few feet away from a foe who angered him by endangering the woman he loved. Waite doesn't just shoot the fellow. He thrusts his revolver toward the guy with each shot as if shooting him wasn't enough. It was if he practically wanted to poke the man with the gun with each shot. Thus, while it can be seen merely as part of the gunfight, that scene beautifully and subtly captures the feelings Waite has for Annette Benings' Sue Barlow. Because by endangering her, the man had made it personal and Waite's wrath was clearly evident. That scene is particularly meaningful because the dialog between Waite and Barlow expresses their affection for one another in very minimal terms.
Open Range is an interesting story and fine character study that looks and feels real. Very well made and very entertaining.
Oleanna
(1994)
Is it over yet?
27 March 2005
Macy is good. That's about it. I found the story both boring and unfulfilling. After already having invested too much time in it, I thought I should see it through to the end in hopes that I would be rewarded with some sort of satisfying ending. But no. They just go on and on at each other and then it's over. Nothing is resolved. No lesson is learned.
Neither character is sympathetic. John is a pompous, self-absorbed bore. Carol is put off by his personality flaws and makes it her business to try to ruin him by making extremely serious accusations when we have already seen that virtually nothing had happened. John is unlikeable but he doesn't deserve the one-woman crusade to destroy his life and career mounted against him by the obsessed Carol. After all, she could have simply dropped out of his class if she detested him so much. So she becomes even more unlikeable than John.
The dialog is very heavy and not at all the way people really speak to one another. Macy delivers his lines as it he's doing Shakespeare. But that works for his character and helps establish his feeling of superiority. After all, he is a professor, a communicator, and his tool is language. And being the pompous egotist that he is, he can't just converse like a normal person. But Debra Eisenstadt delivers her lines in the same manner. This greatly undermines the fact that her character is supposed to be the antithesis of Macy's. When she speaks, she sounds just as pompous as him instead of sounding down to earth.
This is the kind of little, artsy movie a director prides himself on but bores the crap out of an audience.
Neither character is sympathetic. John is a pompous, self-absorbed bore. Carol is put off by his personality flaws and makes it her business to try to ruin him by making extremely serious accusations when we have already seen that virtually nothing had happened. John is unlikeable but he doesn't deserve the one-woman crusade to destroy his life and career mounted against him by the obsessed Carol. After all, she could have simply dropped out of his class if she detested him so much. So she becomes even more unlikeable than John.
The dialog is very heavy and not at all the way people really speak to one another. Macy delivers his lines as it he's doing Shakespeare. But that works for his character and helps establish his feeling of superiority. After all, he is a professor, a communicator, and his tool is language. And being the pompous egotist that he is, he can't just converse like a normal person. But Debra Eisenstadt delivers her lines in the same manner. This greatly undermines the fact that her character is supposed to be the antithesis of Macy's. When she speaks, she sounds just as pompous as him instead of sounding down to earth.
This is the kind of little, artsy movie a director prides himself on but bores the crap out of an audience.
Son of the Morning Star
(1991)
Best Custer movie yet.
26 March 2005
I generally find Gary Cole rather uninteresting as an actor. But he does a good job in edgy roles, like Jeffrey MacDonald in "Fatal Vision" and George A. Custer in "Son of the Morningstar." The movie has its flaws. It takes too long to get going and I found the Indian narrative tiresome.
But it provides the most accurate Hollywood depiction of the events leading up to Custer's last battle and of the battle itself. Cole portrays Custer as a driven man, but not the madman of "Little Big Man" or the saint of "They died with Their Boots On." And it accurately captures the scenery of the Little Big Horn, not the bizarre desert setting of "Custer of the West." Most details, some not so well known, are handled accurately. Custer's men did not have sabers with them (little did Errol Flynn know). Custer refused gatling guns because they were too cumbersome to haul over the hilly areas the cavalry was expected to cover quickly. Custer couldn't see the Indian village from a distance when it was pointed out to him by his scouts. Custer hastily made his plan of battle after being informed Indians had taken some lost supplies and, thus, discovered his whereabouts. All of this comes out in the movie, so that we don't just get the standard Hollywood Custer-as-egotistical-glory-seeker story. The real story was far more involved than most people realize, and this film portrays most of those events. The film also shows that Custer's Last Stand was a combination of orderly resistance and chaos, as Indian witnesses contended.
The film also does a good job with some of the other characters; Crazy Horse, Tom Custer, Major Reno, Captain Benteen and Captain Weir. Where the film misses out, in my opinion, is its failure to adequately depict the events involving Reno and Benteen during the battle. The film does an excellent job with Reno's charge, dismount and retreat to the bluffs, and with Weir's attempt to rescue Custer. But it should have gone further. The film has Weir's company merely returning to the reinforced bluffs. What we don't see is that Reno and Benteen actually mounted a slow moving trek following Weir's path, and all were forced to retreat to their original position where they fought valiantly into the night, while some soldiers who were left behind in Reno's retreat rejoined them after some harrowing moments hiding from the Indians. This portion of the battle has never been accurately portrayed on film (although "The Glory Guys" does a reasonably good job of it). And Morningstar squanders a great deal of time on far less interesting scenes instead of devoting time to this portion of the fight.
So, while far from perfect, this is very much the best Custer movie ever made and highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about what really happened. I keep hoping that one more major Custer movie will get made and finally get it all right.
But it provides the most accurate Hollywood depiction of the events leading up to Custer's last battle and of the battle itself. Cole portrays Custer as a driven man, but not the madman of "Little Big Man" or the saint of "They died with Their Boots On." And it accurately captures the scenery of the Little Big Horn, not the bizarre desert setting of "Custer of the West." Most details, some not so well known, are handled accurately. Custer's men did not have sabers with them (little did Errol Flynn know). Custer refused gatling guns because they were too cumbersome to haul over the hilly areas the cavalry was expected to cover quickly. Custer couldn't see the Indian village from a distance when it was pointed out to him by his scouts. Custer hastily made his plan of battle after being informed Indians had taken some lost supplies and, thus, discovered his whereabouts. All of this comes out in the movie, so that we don't just get the standard Hollywood Custer-as-egotistical-glory-seeker story. The real story was far more involved than most people realize, and this film portrays most of those events. The film also shows that Custer's Last Stand was a combination of orderly resistance and chaos, as Indian witnesses contended.
The film also does a good job with some of the other characters; Crazy Horse, Tom Custer, Major Reno, Captain Benteen and Captain Weir. Where the film misses out, in my opinion, is its failure to adequately depict the events involving Reno and Benteen during the battle. The film does an excellent job with Reno's charge, dismount and retreat to the bluffs, and with Weir's attempt to rescue Custer. But it should have gone further. The film has Weir's company merely returning to the reinforced bluffs. What we don't see is that Reno and Benteen actually mounted a slow moving trek following Weir's path, and all were forced to retreat to their original position where they fought valiantly into the night, while some soldiers who were left behind in Reno's retreat rejoined them after some harrowing moments hiding from the Indians. This portion of the battle has never been accurately portrayed on film (although "The Glory Guys" does a reasonably good job of it). And Morningstar squanders a great deal of time on far less interesting scenes instead of devoting time to this portion of the fight.
So, while far from perfect, this is very much the best Custer movie ever made and highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about what really happened. I keep hoping that one more major Custer movie will get made and finally get it all right.
The Undefeated
(1969)
Ho hum.
14 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Typical John Wayne formula except for the presence of another big star in Rock Hudson. The usual familiar faces are all present. There's the usual subplot involving the young, good-looking couple. Wayne is the larger than life hero.
A key battle with Mexican (or were they French?) forces near the end of the film is poorly filmed. At some points, it looks like the soldiers have turned Wayne's horse herd. At other times, the herd is plowing through them. All of Wayne's men have repeating rifles which existed, but were still fairly rare at the end of the civil war. Since these were recently mustered out union soldiers, it would be more realistic that a lot, if not most of them, would have single shot rifles. But John Wayne movies always loved those Winchesters or Henrys regardless of the era they were supposed to be in. Heck, in the Comancheros, a fairly young widow tells Wayne that her husband died at the Alamo. But the guns in that movie are the usual for a Wayne film, which would have put them about 30 years or more after the Alamo fell in 1836.
And in the Undefeated, when all the conflict is resolved, Wayne, Hudson and the Mexican leader all share a friendly chat and a toast. No one seems particularly upset that the Mexican has been threatening to murder all of Hudson's people unless his demands were met.
The movie seems silly and contrived. Nothing more than a vehicle for its two stars. They should have given them a better script. Or a better movie.
A key battle with Mexican (or were they French?) forces near the end of the film is poorly filmed. At some points, it looks like the soldiers have turned Wayne's horse herd. At other times, the herd is plowing through them. All of Wayne's men have repeating rifles which existed, but were still fairly rare at the end of the civil war. Since these were recently mustered out union soldiers, it would be more realistic that a lot, if not most of them, would have single shot rifles. But John Wayne movies always loved those Winchesters or Henrys regardless of the era they were supposed to be in. Heck, in the Comancheros, a fairly young widow tells Wayne that her husband died at the Alamo. But the guns in that movie are the usual for a Wayne film, which would have put them about 30 years or more after the Alamo fell in 1836.
And in the Undefeated, when all the conflict is resolved, Wayne, Hudson and the Mexican leader all share a friendly chat and a toast. No one seems particularly upset that the Mexican has been threatening to murder all of Hudson's people unless his demands were met.
The movie seems silly and contrived. Nothing more than a vehicle for its two stars. They should have given them a better script. Or a better movie.
Johnson County War
(2002– )
Entertaining but not accurate.
30 December 2004
I enjoyed the movie for its entertainment value. But a movie titled The Johnson County War should endeavor to tell the story of its namesake. Especially since it is not a well known event and viewers are likely to accept the movie as historically accurate.
The basics are intact. The cattle barons declared war on the small ranchers over the issue of open range. The small ranchers were liberally declared rustlers in order to justify prosecuting them with extreme prejudice. A small army of mercenaries was hired to do the dirty work. Those familiar with the history of the Johnson County War know that a rancher named Nate Champion stood off the mercenary army in his cabin for a considerable length of time.
The movie takes that event and fictionalizes it with Tom Berenger's Cain Hammett making that stand instead of Nate Champion. The details of that fight are fairly accurate. But Berenger's character is fictitious, with subplots about brothers and spouses. It is not Nate Champion by another name. So it makes little sense to me to make a movie about a historical event and pretend that it happened to someone different. Kind of like Custer's Last Stand with some fictitious guy named Clyde Smith as the leader of the Cavalry instead of Custer.
The movie makes for a good western. But Nate Champion's story is entertaining in itself. Christopher Walken portrayed him in Heaven's Gate, which is also about the Johnson County War. But in that movie, director Michael Cimino took the names of Jim Averill and Ella Watson, two small ranchers hanged early in the dispute, and assigned them to the Marshall portrayed by Kris Kristofferson and the prostitute portrayed by Isabelle Huppert.
The Johnson County War is a little known and interesting part of American history. Too bad that movie makers play so fast and loose with the facts.
The basics are intact. The cattle barons declared war on the small ranchers over the issue of open range. The small ranchers were liberally declared rustlers in order to justify prosecuting them with extreme prejudice. A small army of mercenaries was hired to do the dirty work. Those familiar with the history of the Johnson County War know that a rancher named Nate Champion stood off the mercenary army in his cabin for a considerable length of time.
The movie takes that event and fictionalizes it with Tom Berenger's Cain Hammett making that stand instead of Nate Champion. The details of that fight are fairly accurate. But Berenger's character is fictitious, with subplots about brothers and spouses. It is not Nate Champion by another name. So it makes little sense to me to make a movie about a historical event and pretend that it happened to someone different. Kind of like Custer's Last Stand with some fictitious guy named Clyde Smith as the leader of the Cavalry instead of Custer.
The movie makes for a good western. But Nate Champion's story is entertaining in itself. Christopher Walken portrayed him in Heaven's Gate, which is also about the Johnson County War. But in that movie, director Michael Cimino took the names of Jim Averill and Ella Watson, two small ranchers hanged early in the dispute, and assigned them to the Marshall portrayed by Kris Kristofferson and the prostitute portrayed by Isabelle Huppert.
The Johnson County War is a little known and interesting part of American history. Too bad that movie makers play so fast and loose with the facts.
House of Sand and Fog
(2003)
Well acted story of misery.
27 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
House of Fog and Sand is superbly acted by every member of the cast. That's the good news. As a form of entertainment, well...let's just say it's too bad the movie title "Misery" was already used. I appreciate good acting. But my idea of being entertained is not watching every major character in the movie be in complete misery from the first to the last moment of the film. A good drama can be a great form of entertainment. But most good dramas include enough light moments to offer some counterpoint to the more dramatic scenes.
The director of House of Fog and Sand wasted no scenes on lighter moments. What you get is a film that begins on a low note and gets progressively lower. It certainly captures the nature of misery and tragedy. Nothing light about that whatsoever. But as a movie that patrons will devote 2 hours to watching, it's value as entertainment is highly suspect.
There is also a plot device in what is otherwise a very well-crafted film that left me scratching my head. Jennifer Connelly is a recovering alcoholic in the film, but her return to drinking is crucial to the plot. So how do they work this into the story? They have her dining at a nice restaurant where her date--fully aware that she is on the wagon--has a full bottle of wine chilling at the table, apparently for his own consumption. Of course, Jennifer's character is distracted by the inviting sight of that bottle on ice and can't resist having a drink, and the rest is history. But knowing her situation, isn't it more likely her date, a police officer at that, would have ordered simply a glass of wine for himself, if any at all? Are we to believe he actually decided he had to drink an entire bottle of wine in front of the recovering alcoholic? And at the end of the film, I'm thinking back on how that bottle of wine changed the lives of everyone in the movie.
And after watching all that misery, I was ready for a bottle of wine myself.
The director of House of Fog and Sand wasted no scenes on lighter moments. What you get is a film that begins on a low note and gets progressively lower. It certainly captures the nature of misery and tragedy. Nothing light about that whatsoever. But as a movie that patrons will devote 2 hours to watching, it's value as entertainment is highly suspect.
There is also a plot device in what is otherwise a very well-crafted film that left me scratching my head. Jennifer Connelly is a recovering alcoholic in the film, but her return to drinking is crucial to the plot. So how do they work this into the story? They have her dining at a nice restaurant where her date--fully aware that she is on the wagon--has a full bottle of wine chilling at the table, apparently for his own consumption. Of course, Jennifer's character is distracted by the inviting sight of that bottle on ice and can't resist having a drink, and the rest is history. But knowing her situation, isn't it more likely her date, a police officer at that, would have ordered simply a glass of wine for himself, if any at all? Are we to believe he actually decided he had to drink an entire bottle of wine in front of the recovering alcoholic? And at the end of the film, I'm thinking back on how that bottle of wine changed the lives of everyone in the movie.
And after watching all that misery, I was ready for a bottle of wine myself.
Memento
(2000)
Ingenious story-telling.
6 April 2002
How do you tell the story of a man with absolutely no memory who is trying to solve a mystery by obtaining information he can't even remember? You do it by putting the audience in the exact same situation as the character.
Guy Pierce's Leonard is sure only that an assault resulted in the murder of his wife and a head injury that robbed him of his short-term memory. And he is obsessed with finding her killer. But an inability to remember events from even 5 minutes ago is the ultimate monkey wrench in the works. So Leonard documents his search for clues with photos and scribbled notes, realizing that in a few minutes, he won't even remember what they mean.
We see everything from Leonard's perspective: photos, notes and people that mean little to us until we-and Leonard-receive more information that we can remember but he can't. Constant flashbacks reveal the significance of the clues that Leonard carries with him. Where we differ with Leonard is that we can slowly piece everything together by the accumulation of facts that literally seem to go in one ear and out the other for Leonard. The search for clues and the meaning behind them becomes as fascinating for the viewer as it is frustrating for Leonard. A very unique, very-interesting story.
Guy Pierce's Leonard is sure only that an assault resulted in the murder of his wife and a head injury that robbed him of his short-term memory. And he is obsessed with finding her killer. But an inability to remember events from even 5 minutes ago is the ultimate monkey wrench in the works. So Leonard documents his search for clues with photos and scribbled notes, realizing that in a few minutes, he won't even remember what they mean.
We see everything from Leonard's perspective: photos, notes and people that mean little to us until we-and Leonard-receive more information that we can remember but he can't. Constant flashbacks reveal the significance of the clues that Leonard carries with him. Where we differ with Leonard is that we can slowly piece everything together by the accumulation of facts that literally seem to go in one ear and out the other for Leonard. The search for clues and the meaning behind them becomes as fascinating for the viewer as it is frustrating for Leonard. A very unique, very-interesting story.
To Live and Die in L.A.
(1985)
Loved it!
6 April 2002
I'm not easily impressed with movies. I like a good, suspenseful, well-acted story. And this was it. From the film's first moments, William Petersen appears to be a super Secret Service agent. But as the story progresses, the chinks in his armor slowly emerge until his quest to bring justice to Ric Masters, Willam Defoe's well-crafted villain, takes him out of control.
The film contains a memorable car chase sequence. I don't like car chases for the sake of car chases. But this one is not at all superfluous. The chase scene reveals the desperation and confusion of the "good guys" better than any dialogue could have. Petersen is very convincing as the ever-effective, ever self-confident agent who ultimately finds himself in way over his head against a villain who seems to have covered every base. And Defoe portrays Masters as a 3-dimensional character, not a caricature of evil, as the part might so easily have been done by a less talented actor. John Turturro is great (when isn't he?) as one of Master's lackeys, and John Pankow does a good job as a fellow agent who sees getting involved in the Masters case as good career move--until things start to go wrong.
What I think sets this movie apart from other crime dramas is the issue of control. We usually see crime dramas in which the villain appears to have everything in control, then the hero does, then the hero loses control and regains it. In "To Live and Die in LA," everything is out of control. Ric Masters has his problems. William Petersen's Richard Chance gets in over his head and drags John Pankow into a messy situation that he (Pankow) doesn't know how to deal with.
It creates a feeling that the viewer is watching a totally unpredictable situation--not a formula movie in which you can be pretty sure of the outcome. Oh yeah, and those people who said the music added to the film were right. This movie has one of the best soundtracks ever. Wang Chung was a flash in the pan as a musical group. But this film is their legacy. Don't miss it.
The film contains a memorable car chase sequence. I don't like car chases for the sake of car chases. But this one is not at all superfluous. The chase scene reveals the desperation and confusion of the "good guys" better than any dialogue could have. Petersen is very convincing as the ever-effective, ever self-confident agent who ultimately finds himself in way over his head against a villain who seems to have covered every base. And Defoe portrays Masters as a 3-dimensional character, not a caricature of evil, as the part might so easily have been done by a less talented actor. John Turturro is great (when isn't he?) as one of Master's lackeys, and John Pankow does a good job as a fellow agent who sees getting involved in the Masters case as good career move--until things start to go wrong.
What I think sets this movie apart from other crime dramas is the issue of control. We usually see crime dramas in which the villain appears to have everything in control, then the hero does, then the hero loses control and regains it. In "To Live and Die in LA," everything is out of control. Ric Masters has his problems. William Petersen's Richard Chance gets in over his head and drags John Pankow into a messy situation that he (Pankow) doesn't know how to deal with.
It creates a feeling that the viewer is watching a totally unpredictable situation--not a formula movie in which you can be pretty sure of the outcome. Oh yeah, and those people who said the music added to the film were right. This movie has one of the best soundtracks ever. Wang Chung was a flash in the pan as a musical group. But this film is their legacy. Don't miss it.
Tell Your Friends