Ronhamprod

Tom Horn (1980)
Dir: William Wiard
Stars: Steve McQueen, Linda Evans, Richard Farnsworth and Geoffrey Lewis

I read a book on Orson Welles once that had an interesting theory: it said part of why Citizen Kane was such a success was that Orson saw a great deal of himself, his own character within Charles Foster Kane – and the man he was based on, William Randolf Hurst.  I mention this only because I think it would be easy to argue that Mr. McQueen similarly saw a lot of himself in the American West icon, Tom Horn.  Here’s a historical figure who was never fenced in, who explored the old west by his own rules and died with no apologies.  Kinda like McQueen, right?  At least playing by his own rules and dying unapologetic…

McQueen plays the title character effortlessly, like he does in many of his other pictures.  By the time Horn was made, this movie star was aging, evidenced by the wrinkles in his face and the funny way he runs in the movie.  He’s no longer got the smooth run he had in Bullitt or the looks he flashed in The Magnificent Seven.  That said, this is one of those roles where you keep catching yourself saying, “I can’t believe that’s McQueen!”  From the silhouettes the star pitches against the morning sun around a campfire (accompanied only by his horse, which Horn never takes the trouble to name) to how he handles his monstrous buffalo rifle, to the way he ambles down the filthy street with that “I just got off a horse I been riding 14 hours” walk, McQueen deserves the poster’s claim that he “is Tom Horn”.  And I had no idea how well he could ride a horse…

The story concerns Horn’s drifting into Wyoming Territory late in his life, already having captured the legendary Geronimo, worked for the Pinkerton’s and established himself as one of the greatest trackers that ever tracked (I know, that sounds weird – like a Looney Toons line).  There are plenty of suspicions that Horn was little more than a hired assassin, but these accusations are countered by other claims of his heroism, crediting him as one of the many characters that helped conquer the west and make it suitable for settlement.  To me, part of what makes a movie great is that it does such a nice job of presenting the story, I am compelled to look up details on its character(s)! 

Regardless of who he actually was, the Horn depicted in the film was a guy who couldn’t live without freedom.  In the opening scenes, Horn has been roaming the countryside.  He hits a town to get his fill of whisky and grub, and almost immediately gets into trouble.    However, people knew his name: as soon as Horn gets himself beaten to within an inch of his life, a cattleman played by Richard Farnsworth (the quintessential supporting actor) commissions him to help with his rustling troubles.

From here, the story takes its time establishing that whatever job you gave Horn, he would carry it out to a T (for Tom, get it? Sorry.)  I was terrified and impressed with the explosive violence.  Take, for example, the scene in which a rustler surprises Horn and in the process, shoots the hero’s horse!  Let me say this: woe be to you if you harm Horn’s horse…  The director, William Wiard, does a splendid job of distracting you with the beautiful Wyoming landscapes and screentime to travel distances.  Before you know it, Horn has closed in on more rustlers, and a shootout surprises you with what I would call “appropriate violence”.  See an upcoming chat on Basic Instinct for more on that subject, dear Reader.  For now, just know that the story required violence and it was presented well, without it distracting from the story or theme.

The closing “chapters” of the film concern the true story of Horn’s indictment and conviction for the murder of a teenager.  I was reminded of The Wild Bunch in the last third of the film, with the themes of aging and our inability to evolve closing in on us.  Dare I say that Horn staring out towards the mountains during the trial (which was held under a tent outside to accomodate all the people) reminded me of a cheetah enclosed in the zoo?

Zodiac (2007)
Dir: David Fincher
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards and Chloe Sevigny

For those of you who have seen David Fincher’s Seven, I think it’s safe to say that when you see his name amongst the credits, some hairs go up on the back of your neck.  Particularly related to Zodiac, a film about a serial killer, you’re thinking, “OK, how nutso will the violence be?” and, “Do I feel like sleep is important this evening or not?”  This reaction to “A David Fincher film” amongst the credits is somewhat unfortunate when talking about Zodiac.  I found this dramatic period piece of a movie to be a hidden gem amongst the thriller/suspense films of the last five years. 

The film surrounds the true story of the Zodiac murders in and around the Bay area between 1968 and 1970, murders which were never solved.  During his spree, the killer sent messages to the San Francisco Chronicle and even went on air with a local news morning show.  These events are dramatized well in the film, without making them melodramatic like some true stories do.  In less professional hands, this tale might have easily been told as a slasher picture or a Dirty Harry type of action-adventure (the Clint Eastwood classic is even showcased in Zodiac for a moment).  But, between James Vanderbilt’s script, the talented cast – supported by intricate costuming and sets – and Fincher’s direction, Zodiac is a modern classic as I see it.  Why, you ask?  Glad you did!  Few thriller suspense pictures leave the viewer with such provacative questions while entertaining them for two and a half hours.  The questions raised are as follows –

First question: why didn’t the police departments cooperate more?  I think it’s appropriate to say that the film is an indictment of bureaucracy.  The murders occurred in Vallejo county, Napa county and within San Francisco city limits.  Watching the scene in which one of the S.F. Inspectors, played by Anthony Edwards, is trying to coordinate the evidence between the three departments is enough to make you jump up and down and stomp your feet while pulling your own hair.  None of the departments want to take responsibility for the evidence they possess, because the other departments didn’t share evidence with them first!  Is this a police investigation or a kindergarten playground???  Each Police Department wanted to be the one to catch the guy and the outlying county guys didn’t feel like the S.F.P.D. were giving them all the facts: so, the little guys withheld information that might have helped the investigation!  This fact is only found out years later as Gyllenhaal’s character, Robert Graysmith, conducts his own private investigation. 

Second question: what was the most appropriate way for the media to react to Zodiac?  Let’s pretend you’re editor-in-chief of the Chronicle, and some nutball sends a message saying he’s the guy who has been killing people in the area – and more mayhem is to come if he doesn’t see his letter published.  What would you do?  Same question applies to the station manager of KGO, the local station that actually aired the killer talking to defense attorney Melvin Belli (played by Brian Cox in the film with his usual professional penache).  I think this is a great philosophical question to ponder as to weighing the potential for further loss of life, which the killer is threatening, against the precedent that other muderers and thrill seekers may see this as a way of exploiting the media and putting fear into the masses. 

Third question: when tackling an immense project for your career, how far is too far?  I had seen the film before, but what I had forgotten is how engrossed the Graysmith character becomes in solving the Zodiac murders.  I am a huge proponent of victim’s rights, I don’t mind saying that: but I’m once again impressed with the film putting the question of “Did Graysmith really go too far personally”?  The scenes of Graysmith showing up at Detective Toschi’s (see note 1) house in the middle of the night and his wife leaving him are all much more intense than you might think.  It’s easy to point at the Gyllenhaal character and say, “boy was that guy nuts!”  But at the same time, it’s kind of eerie how relatable his obsession is.

Fourth question: how can we prevent some of the 1970s fashions from ever returning to the mainstream? OK, this one is up to one’s own tastes, but come on!  Bell bottoms and curly afros and colossal shirt collars need not return any time soon.  At least that’s the way I feel about it.

Note 1:Toschi was a real life San Francisco Inspector for years, and is portrayed expertly in Zodiac by Mark Ruffalo.  However, what I didn’t know was that Toschi is the cop upon whom Steve McQueen based some of his Bullitt performance, including the upside down wearing of his shoulder holster…  We’ll get to Bullitt soon, dear Reader.

Inside Job (2010)
Dir: Charles Ferguson
Narrated by: Matt Damon

Inside Job – Trailer

You know, I was going to make this another chapter in, “Why I Love Film” and chat about documentaries.  But, that’ll have to wait: this film has me so pissed off I can barely type reasonably.  The title of this entry is a tribute to all the villains, the criminals, the curs interviewed in this film who were confronted with facts and truth and invariably, at one point or another during their interview, would pinch their face and say, “Well, ya know, it’s a complicated issue…” or, “Well, you see, this is a very granular process requiring a lot of research, which I don’t have in front of me, so…”  I loved how during one of the interviews, the film maker himself said, “You’ve got to be kidding me: if you’d looked, you’d have seen how wrong this was!”

If you watch none of the other films I’ve suggested on this blog thus far (and note, I haven’t yet reviewed the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Heat, It’s a Wonderful Life or L.A. Confidential) please watch this one.  Start by having a look at the trailer I inserted above.

Did you watch it?  OK.  Let’s agree that if I come into your house and I sell you a weed whacker and the thing falls apart on you – or better yet, you never receive it – the next time you see me, I catch a beating, right?  Well, in the modern world of high finance, not only do these salesmen never catch a beating, never are they arrested, they receive millions and millions of dollars in bonuses.  How did this process of unregulated financial dealing begin?  This movie explains it to you.  The best analogy I can quote from the film is a huge oil tanker with nine separate compartments.  You fill all of these individual compartments with a bunch of oil – or at least SEVERAL of the compartments – and you keep them separate to avoid capsizing the ship.  The financial industry is literally no different: but today, there are NO COMPARTMENTS.  One word: capsize.  You saw it happen, I saw it happen, watch this film.

The hypocrisy captured in this film will absolutely shock you: take the interview of the madam who explains how her biggest clients were multi-millionaire investors and the brokers investing their money.  These “clients” would screw prostitutes and do cocaine all night long and then hit the trading floor hours later.  However, the courts very rarely allow any of these folks “personal activities” as evidence into court.  This makes no sense: if a drug addict robs a convenience store and is arrested and this is his fourth offence, wouldn’t his drug habit be relevant to the case and admitted into evidence?

And along the same lines, let me tell you NO ONE is safe from this film maker.  How about the Deans of Harvard, Columbia and other Ivy League schools?  Ferguson illustrates how the very teaching of economics in this country has gone to waste because these professors make thousands, nay millions a year as guest speakers and consultants to the very Banking firms that capsized the ship.  In one analogy, he asks the editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review, wouldn’t it be appropriate for a Doctor to site his sources and explain why Drug A will cure Disease B?  Why don’t we do the same thing in explaining various economic policies?  Not to mention the conflict of interest when the economics professor in question is a former board member at Morgan Stanley!!  Boy, this movie pissed me off….

Of course there’s George Bush bashing – how could there not be in a documentary?  But there’s Clinton skewering.  There is Reagan mauling.  And in the big finale, the film maker illustrates how, despite Mr. Obama’s insistence in change on Wall Street during his 2008 campaign speeches, the President has appointed to his administration the very same villains who capsized the ship.  He has made no attempt at regulating the industry, at “re-compartmentalizing the ship”, if you will.

Final Note: before I go do some pushups, I was very impressed with the even, neutral and calm narration from Mr. Matt Damon.  I have to confess my immense adoration of Mr. Damon: any A-list actor who takes the time to involve himself in a little documentary project like this has my glowing respect.  I even saw Damon on a public service message on hungry Americans recently – the guy is everywhere!!

Good afternoon!  Just wanted to briefly post a couple of trailers that have me really excited.  The first is called Immortals, from Tarsem Singh.  This is the same director of that creepy thriller with Jennifer Lopez, The Cell and the visually amazing and thought provoking treat, The Fall, not to mention literally hundreds of music videos!  Have a peek here at his take on Titans, Gods, Mortals and the epic, ancient Greek battles:

Trailer – Immortals

Immortals hits theaters on 11.11.2011 – neato!  And the very next week, I’ll be headed to the theater AGAIN to see the John LeCarre classic, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, starring none other than Gary Bloody Oldman as George Smiley!  You know who played master British espionage agent Smiley in the past?  None other than Alec Guiness!  This new version of the novel also stars Mark Strong, Tom Hardy and Colin Firth… Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Trailer – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Mind you, Tinker is not a James Bond-esque type of story: in reading LeCarre’s novels, there is a realism that makes your hairs stand on end as you ask yourself, “It’s fiction, right?  Heh heh!  This… this isn’t TRUE, right?”  The film version looks to extend that feeling to the screen…

Enjoy these trailers – and have a swell 4th of July holiday!!

Middle Men (2010)
Dir: George Gallo
Stars: Luke Wilson, Giovanni Ribisi, Gabriel Macht, Laura Ramsey (see Note 1), James Caan and Kevin Pollock

This film may not be for you if A) you don’t like stories that spiral out of control or B) you have no interest in knowing about how online adult entertainment came to be so accessible.  What drew me to this film was its bizzarre marketing campaign, its preview and its diverse casting.  In the end, I was rather entertained, surprised, interested – particularly in the Russian criminal element – and more than a little appalled by its subject matter – I mean it!  I think the reason I’m recommending it so highly is that it thoroughly communicates its theme, “Money doesn’t buy everything”, and does it against a time & place that only “insiders” have access to.

The story starts with a couple of knuckleheads played by Ribisi and Macht: Ribisi’s character is Wayne Beering, who when we meet him is smoking cigarette after cigarette and doing lines of coke.  So, clearly an upstanding citizen.  His knucklehead partner is Buck Dolby, a genius who got fired from working at NASA because he was coming in on weekends to ride the wind machine (the one that fires a bunch of air out of the floor at you to the point you can float).  And apparently, it’s these two that had the idea to put adult photos and videos online and charge a fee for them: not sure how much of it is true, and to me, it’s irrelevant.  What I mean is, these two characters fit this story, and the scene which shows them starting to make money online made me feel – dare I say it – kinda patriotic in a tarnished and disappointed way.

The story from here involves a patched quilt of characters, most of them seedy and downright dangerous.  They range from filthy lawyers to mob assassins, from FBI counter-terrorism agents to entrepreneurial fathers who never thought they’d be “working in porn”.  Frankly, I don’t want to give too much of this title away in case you do decide to catch it.  The storyline took me places I didn’t expect and kept me guessing.  While I could’ve done with much less voice-over in the film, I had very few complaints. 

And once again, my interest in a huge cast pays off!  I mean, not only do you get to see Kevin Pollock doing his thing, you get a scene or two with Kelsey Grammer, the always fun Rade Serbedzija (from The Saint, Snatch and any other film requiring an authentic Russian gangster) and even Robert Forester…  Middle Men was a pleasant surprise for an intense drama: dare I say it reminded me of Social Network?

Note 1: I’m just saying that I think Laura Ramsey is one talented actress and that she’s headed for greatness.  Earlier in the week, I saw her in a small role in Kill the Irishman, and I really thought I remembered her from elsewhere, too – sure enough, she had a small but important role in Mad Men one season!  Anyhow, hopefully you read the prediction regarding Miss Ramsey here first…

Kill the Irishman (2011)
Dir: Jonathan Hensleigh
Stars: Ray Stevenson, Vincent D’Onofrio, Linda Cardellini, Laura Ramsey and Christopher… WALKEN

I feel guilty for missing this title in the theaters: had its opening weekend on my calendar, had the best intentions of going, but in the end, I missed it.  I mean, this is my kind of movie.  It’s my kind of film not only because of its true story, violent nature, great performances and involvement of Christopher… WALK-en, but also because it’s the little guy.  The medium film trying to compete against the big fellas: I’m sorry I missed it in theaters, because this was an action-drama well worth the price of admission.

Kill the Irishman is the true story of Danny Greene, a Cleveland native who started out working the docks and had a lifelong career in the local criminal culture of the town.  Played by Ray Stevenson (HBO’s Rome, The Other Guys), Danny is a proud Irishman who honestly believes he has warrior Celtic blood running through his veins.  He quickly rises to power within the Cleveland union: the scene in Act 1 showing his “change of power” with the current union boss is immensely entertaining (see note 1).  From there, Greene led the union not only to the delight of his men, but also to the satisfaction of the local mafia boss. 

However, as Greene’s power grew, the police started looking at him as a person of interest: when he was eventually arrested for related shenanigans, he did what he had to do for his family and agreed to report to the FBI anything that might be of interest as he went back working for the mob.  The “family” set him up as a racketeer for the garbage hauling business: they wanted him to help consolidate it within their ranks.  This part of his career led him to Shondor Birns – played by good ol’ Walken, in an always welcome cameo role.  Birns is a restauranteur cozy with the mob, willing to help Greene get his own restaurant set up.

This part of the story is where the trouble started to brew: in a crazy circumstance, the $70,000 that Birns borrows from the New York mob is seized by the authorities when they arrest the courier who was to deliver it.  And still, the “family” says Greene owes them for it!  To Greene, with all of his pride and Celtic warrior blood, this outrageous demand is too much.  He essentially tells the mob and Birns to, ahem, “go away” in a very eloquent array of profanity that would make the father from A Christmas Story proud.  Thus begins a summer of car bombings – true story – throughout the Cleveland area that has become legendary. 

I love it when a movie entertains me to the point I want to look up more about its subject.  For example, the following are facts that the movie touches on: Birns did hire a hit man (or team of thugs) to kill Greene.  This team failed, which emboldened Greene.  He started muscling in on the mafia’s control of vending machine business and gambling in Northeast Ohio.  A whole team of ATF agents were called in because of the increase in bombings, which totaled 36 in the summer of 1976.  There were eight failed attempts on Greene’s life.  And finally, he really truly did have a television interview with a Cleveland station in which he showed where he lived and said, “I’m not a hard guy to find.” 

The cast of the film is fun as hell to watch as well: I could go on and on but I have other entries to get to – add Irishman to the cue!

Note 1: The union boss is played by Bob Gunton, who you’ll no doubt recognize as the warden from Shawshank Redemption: he’s one of those character actors I really enjoy watching, but that supporting role in Shawshank has got to be somewhat of a curse, because I have trouble seeing Gunton without immediately remembering that character in that role!

The Pianist (2002)
Dir: Roman Polanski (See Note 1)
Stars: Adrian Brody, Emilia Fox, Ed Stoppard and Jessica Kate Meyer

The Pianist is one of those titles that I had seen only once, but I remembered as a great film. I was eager to watch it again once I recorded it with my DVR, and over the weekend, I watched it beginning to end.  Upon a second viewing, I feel like this title is one of the essential WWII films you should see, and I’ll explain why.

The story concerns Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Polish concert pianist extraordinaire: the opening frame on this character reveals a skinny man in a tailored suit, concentrating on the piano concerto he’s playing within the sound booth of a Warsaw radio station.  In the distance, we can hear bombs bursting and buildings exploding.  These explosions get progressively closer… and closer until we see the sound technicians in the recording booth urgently talking to each other, then motioning for Szpilman to stop.  Then, we see Szpilman’s annoyed shaking of the head back at them – and then the sound technicians leave the booth!  Szpilman, perfectionist that he is, continues: and then the wall explodes and showers his sound booth with glass.

This opening scene sets the tone of the entire picture.  This is only 1939 when we first meet Szpilman.  From here on, there is no guarantee of safety.  There is no promise that Szpilman or the person walking next to him will live to see tomorrow.  There’s nothing to assure him or his friends of seeing their families again.  Things just don’t make sense!  And this was Szpilman’s daily reality for more than six years as the Nazis invaded, occupied and destroyed his home town. 

Since we all know the history, I will tell you about the unique elements of The Pianist that separate it from other WWII epics, making it a very niche and educational tale (you’ll note I hesitate to call it entertaining).  Let’s start with the unbelievable resolve amongst the Szpilman family to stay put.  It was as if the family was collectively saying, “Leave Warsaw?  Our home?  Never!”  The family didn’t give a damn how many Nazi thugs smacked them on the way home from work, evicted them from their home, shoved them in a forced ghetto, made them wear insignia on their arms or whatever.  Warsaw was home to the Szpilmans and as portrayed in this film, it was never, ever an option to leave.  I found this upsetting at first: “go to New York, for crying out loud!”, I yelled at the screen.  But, they didn’t.  I didn’t understand this kind of resolve watching the film and I’m at a loss to understand staying in harm’s way now (even in reflecting on the film): however, I sure respect the familys’ decision to do so.

The handling of violence in the film is more than noteworthy; it’s an announcement made on a bullhorn to all film makers to please, please, please research your subject matter and ensure the violence depicted in your story fits the theme and feeling you’re trying to portray overall.  Let me provide an example: imagine a view of a Warsaw street from four floors up in an apartment building.  There is a German hospital immediately across the street with a few guards armed with rifles: Szpilman is living in this building at one point in the story because, as one of the people hiding him says, “you’re safest in the lion’s den since it’s the last place they’ll look.”  Anyhow, in this scene, we’re looking outside for a long moment before we see three or four guys in trenchcoats round the corner, then reveal “burp” machine guns and mow down the German guards!  Then, there’s a bazooka shot from somewhere within our building right into the hospital, followed by a huge explosion! 

Two points here: first, all of this action is shown in long shot, as in you’re constantly leaning towards the screen while watching the film as if to say, “What just happened?”  Second, all of the violence explodes and then is over – and you’re just left to digest it like poor Szpilman!  I was impressed that much of the terror that Szpilman witnessed seemed to indeed be from his perspective, in long shot, from where he was sitting, which many times made it all the more horrific.

On this note of perspective, let’s talk about Production Design (capitalized intentionally) for a moment, shall we?  (See Note 2)  There are infinite scenes in this film with Szpilman, his family, his friends and sometimes his enemies shot in the foreground: but it’s the backgrounds that make The Pianist so authentic, and raise that feeling of uneasiness you’re constantly feeling as a viewer from Act 2 onward.  There were several times during the course of the film where I thought to myself, “Is that a corpose in the background?”  The setting of this movie, the “background artists” as “extras” are sometimes called, the attention to detail of the trains, the Nazi costumes and weapons, the blown-to-bits buildings, the empty 1930s era suitcases, ET CETERA, really blew me away.

I’ve described how The Pianist kind of makes you feel anxious as you watch it, as in you don’t know which character is going to be lost or shot or beaten next: I think this is a really valuable film because it’s so different from other WWII epics in its setting.  This is the story of how civilians were left to deal with Nazi occupation and abuse the likes of which I can’t imagine.  I think you’ll agree that many WWII stories deal with soldiers in the field, their training, the battles and the shock of returning to civilian life.  What separates The Pianist from the others is it forces you to think about yourself, the peace loving citizen… what if tanks and armed troops rolled down your street?

Note 1: I am not going to discuss Mr. Polanski personally, nor his winning the Best Director Oscar for 2002.

Note 2: I see the nominees for Art Direction in 2002 were Frida, Gangs of New York, Chicago, Road to Perdition and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers…  Uh huh.  Frida?  Great film.  Not taking anything away from it.  Loved the passion that Ms. Hayek put into it.  However, THIS film, The Pianist had some Art Direction that was essential to telling the story from Szpilman’s perspective, was enormous in scope and was detailed to the nth degree.  Frida for Best Art Direction.  Let the head scratching over Oscar nominees continue.

A Bronx Tale – Bar Scene

A Bronx Tale (1993)
*** Burke Favorite Scene ***
Dir: Robert De Niro
Stars: Robert De Niro, Chazz Palminteri, Lillo Brancato and Joe Pesci

A Bronx Tale is one of the many classic coming of age stories, told within the setting of the famous New York neighborhood and boasting a colorful cast of Italian-Americans.  Some of these characters are on the up and up: others of them are less than legitimate.  The film also possesses a very appropriate and intruiging poster, which helps advise the theater-goer what the film is about.  Take a look: doesn’t it look like these guys are negotiating over the fate of the kid running beneath them?

On the poster, we have “the kid” played by Lillo Brancato (see Note 1), running near the bottom of the foreground.  “C”, which is short for Calogoro, loves his Dad, but is tempted and seduced by the respect and fear commanded by the local mafia chieftain.  The father figure (on the left of the poster, in close up) is played by DeNiro: he’s the guy trying to teach his son the legitimate way of living your life, even if it is driving a bus for more than 20 years.  There’s the neighborhood wiseguy, the chief, the boss, the man (placed on the right of the poster, in close up): in Palminteri, we have a more wealthy, more respected and more feared advisor, who (allegedly) treats the boy as his own son.  A Bronx Tale essentially tells the story of the power struggle between these two influences on “the kid” as he grows up.  If you haven’t seen it, to the top of your Netflix cue it should go!

However, I’m writing this entry because I wanted to discuss one special scene within the movie, which occurs around the midway point.  This scene is crucial to the rest of the story.  Sonny, the mafia chief, is answering some very difficult and philosophical questions that C puts to him, such as “is it better to be loved or feared”.  Their discussion is interrupted by a cacophony of sound from a biker gang: this being the late 1960s, C has admitted in voice over that while the world had been changing, his neighborhood had remained exactly the same.  Sonny gets up to have a look out the bar window at the gang, which is clearly being disrespectful to the neighborhood.  In fact, did one of the bikers wave to the Catholic church down the street? 

We then have a smash cut to later that day.  Sonny is walking back up the street and into his bar, along with C: the cut comes perfectly placed with the opening of The Beatles’ great track, Come Together.  It’s only later that we understand the bikers have played this song on the bar’s jukebox.  Regardless, the song continues to play throughout the scene, and puts a nice underscore to the entire question of conflict related to why this scene is even in the movie: in other words, which crew – the bikers or the mobsters – will “come together” more effectively?  And what’s more, how will this experience effect C?

As Sonny enters the bar, one of his associates, Jimmy Whispers (all of Sonny’s crew have crazy names like this), is explaining to the bikers that they have to leave because they’re not properly dressed.  Sonny asks what the problem is, and the lead biker says they just want a couple of beers, no trouble, their money’s green, then they’ll be on their way.  Sonny, acting casually and remaining calm, clearly doesn’t believe the guy: but after a pause, he says, “You spoke like a gentleman, give ’em the beers.”

As the barman distributes beers to all the bikers, Sonny and C go outside to continue their discussion.  The lead biker proposes a toast “to their host, in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost” and proceeds to lead the whole gang in spraying the bar and bartender with beer from their bottles.  Sonny, still outside, hits the roof.  But… he remains totally calm as he comes back in the bar and barks “Hey!” to the leader.  Unimpressed, the leader says, “Aw, you again…”  But keep looking at Sonny: he’s calm, as if he’s ordering a plate of veal!  He says, “That wasn’t very nice.  Now, you gotta leave.”  The biker leader says, “I’ll tell you when the fuck we leave…”

Sonny, staying as cool as he’s been throughout the scene, heads outside, looks around a little bit, then closes the front door to the bar and locks it.  Suddenly, the bikers are very quiet.  He kind of tosses up his hands and says, “Now, youse can’t leave.”  A very subtle and important piece of action to note within these few seconds is what Sonny does with C.  Now, C is this kid he claims to “treat like [his] own son”, right?  Does he lead C out by the neck?  No!  He lightly presses on his chest as if to say, “don’t move”, then locks C in too…  Why does he do this?  My suspicion is that Sonny really is a good guy at heart: those of you who have seen A Bronx Tale, you may have a different interpretation, but that’s what I think.  He wants to really, truly answer C’s question, “is it better to be loved or feared?”  Sonny genuinely wants C to see what it’s like to be a gangster.  To keep the action going and the tension level high, DeNiro (as director) does not cut to a close up of Sonny saying  a line or two to C, or there being any trite wink or something between them.  Sonny just gently pushes C on the chest.  On a personal note, I have to say that after watching this scene more than a few times, I have no interest in becoming a mobster.  I suppose I’m a little late to start anyhow, huh?

Of course, a huge brawl ensues with the mobsters on the winning side.  Stands to reason they’d win with the number of guys, guns, bats and sticks they bring with them into the bar.  Highlights of the fight include Sonny walking straight up to the leader of the gang and punching him right in the jaw to start the fight.  The hugely obese member of the mobsters, Jojo the Whale, hits a biker so hard he skips “Come Together” right off the jukebox.  Then there’s a biker ripping the toupee off of the bartender’s head, only to have the bartender’s hand reach over from underneath the bar and grab the toupee several cuts later.  There is Sonny, dragging the leader out, screaming at his gang to “drag ’em the fuck outta here!”  There’s the mobsters taking bats and sticks to the bikers’ rides.  And of course, there’s the one poor biker who attempts to run away before all of the kids in the Bronx catch him and kick the living crap out of him.  In the big finale, Sonny grabs the leader by the hair and says, “I’m the one who did this to you: remember me.” 

While this is a terribly violent and horrifying scene, I still say it’s essential to the film and not a throwaway clip of “violence for the sake of violence”.  It’s kind of the highlight of Sonny treating C like a man.  It’s as if he’s asking the kid, “You want to be a gangster?  Really?  After all I’ve told you??  Fine!  Have a peek at this, kid.”  I’m sure most of us would agree this is not the optimal way to teach a kid this lesson of staying away from a life of crime: and surely DeNiro’s father character would’ve had a coniption fit if he found out C had been in the bar at the time of the fight.  But regardless, Sonny is a consistent character, and he taught C the cost of violence first hand and the best way he knew how.

Note 1: in a most unfortunate update, I see from Lillo Brancato’s imdb.com biography that he is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence for murdering an off duty New York City policeman during an attempted robbery.  Talk about a total travesty…

The Dilemma (2011)
Dir: Ron Howard (this is not a typo)
Stars: Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Jennifer Connelly, Winona Ryder and Queen Latifah

So, the only reason I moved this title into my Netflix cue at all was on the high and repeated recommendations of a gent whose movie opinion is usually rather valid.  Usually.  I can understand why he wanted me to see it based on the first scene and how it relates to a project I’m working.  But man, B.D… this could have been covered in a quick chat, right?  I will get you for this recommendation.  I will!

Do not see this picture.  See Apollo 13 again.  Go get Ransom, or Frost/Nixon or that great biography movie you never saw starring Russell Crowe, Cinderella Man.  Or Backdraft, why don’t you???  Ron Howard is an exceptional director, I don’t think that can be argued.  But whatever you do, don’t waste your time with this alleged romantic comedy. 

Romantic comedy.  Those two words have never been more misused in describing a title.  I felt the same way watching this as I did The Kids Are All Right – as in, the advertising for this film completely lied to me.  Every single bit of comedy is included in the trailer and TV spots.  Instead of a sirloin of comedy peppered with drama, I got a burnt little fatty burger of serious, ugly subject matter (infidelity, lying, adultery), lightly covered in stale seasoning with Vince Vaughn being Vince Vaughn.  Vince Vaughn’s character name in this film could of and should have been simply Vince Vaughn.

I can’t ruin this one scene for you, since A) you’ll trust this entry and never see The Dilemma and B) it’s already covered in the trailer!  The scene consists of Vaughn giving a toast at his girlfriend’s parents’ 40th wedding anniversary.  Is your stomach already turning over?  It should be.  I wouldn’t want Vince in the same STATE as me on any special day.  Regardless, he goes on and on and on some more and then even a little more and on even more… I was fast forwarding through this scene and it took me several minutes to get through it!  What the hell was supposed to be funny about this?  And where was his so called “best friend” (played by Kevin James) not physically taking him out of the room?  And riddle me this: why oh why oh why would Jennifer CONNELLY (SEE PICTURE) ever go for a guy like this? 

My apologies to all involved in the making of The Dilemma for the harsh criticism: I know how difficult it is to simply get a film made these days.  However…. I don’t think I’ve been this riled up since the Crystal Skull entry.

Knowing (2009)
Dir: Alex Proyas
Stars: Nicolas Cage, Rose Bryne, and

This title shares a unique quality with several others I’ve seen lately: I can’t believe how long it took me to see it!  Knowing is a phenomenal, fun, thought provoking, outrageous science-fiction/action-adventure.  It’s as good as some of Proyas’ other work, like Dark City, and even better than others in his filmography, like I, Robot.  I will cover some of the negative reviews this title received a little later.  But all in all, I feel like everything I’ve read on this movie is merely an opportunity to pick on Nicolas Cage… why?

Knowing is about a prophecy.  That’s really all it’s about.  The story starts in 1959 at an elementary school, with all of the fixings of a traditional, American school in the late 50s, meaning soft light, uniformed school children and exceptional teachers.  Of course, there is also a troubled young girl named Lucinda (see note 1).  In the first few minutes of the film when we meet Lucinda, she seems to be hearing voices.  Then, she’s staring at a creepy tall guy in a trenchcoat staring back at her across the playground.  Hmmm.  Um, where exactly are we going here, Mr. Proyas?  Later that afternoon, all the other kids are drawing pictures for a time capsule, which the school is going to put in the ground to open in 50 years.  But, instead of drawing rocket ships and stuff, Lucinda spends all of that time filling out both sides of an 8×12 piece of paper with very small numbers.  Hmmmm again.

Still in Act 1 (or, the first 25 minutes of the film), we go 50 years into the future, to 2009.  Recently widowed astro-physics professor and father of one, John Koestler, played by Nicolas Cage, is giving a lecture to his class at MIT.  Ah, the old MIT campus in autumn: I miss it so.  Just kidding!  Anyhow, the substance of the lecture is a suggestion towards the term paper: Koestler encourages his students to explore whether or not the universe is driven with purpose, or is designed completely by random.  This question is not nearly as bizzarre as you might think as its nestled in the story very well by Act 3.

In the very next scene, we’re still in Act 1: it’s really quite the set up this movie provides us.  Koestler is taking his son to the same elementary school to have the same time capsule opened up that was put in the ground in the opening scenes.  Of course, we’re already circling back to that, “is it with purpose or is it random” question when Koestler’s boy receives the envelope with Lucinda’s numbers on it.  Oh, dear.  And sure enough, the boy starts hearing the same voices Lucinda did 50 years ago!  Ho boy. 

Come to find out that night once Koestler puts his boy to bed and places his Scotch glass right on the middle of the sheet of numbers that they do mean something.  In fact, these numbers account for not only the date of world disasters over the past 50 years, but also the exact number of casualties!  There are also some unaccounted numbers, which contain important information saved for later.  However, the big hook that leads us into Act 2 is that there are only three unaccounted numbers, which are unfortunatley predicting the future.  Ruh roh, Professor!

I was very aggravated to see that this script wasn’t nominated for an Oscar.  Think about it: on page 25 of this script, we have interesting and diverse major players introduced.  We have plenty of  intriguing bits of mystery that need solving: who are the creepy guys watching the kids, what do the voices mean, will the Professor be able to bend time and avoid catastorphes, when will we be introduced to the beautiful Rose Bryne?  And we have a very philosophical question that fuels the fire of this story.  Great stuff! 

Now a couple of comments outside the film itself: first off, this is definitely a movie that works better WITHOUT having seen the preview or any TV spots.  Coming in completely fresh will really help your viewing experience.  I mainly covered the opening “act” of this film because I don’t want to give away any of its surprises, of which there are many.

And at last, I come to the critical mass’ opinion of Knowing: they hated it based on the old Rotten Tomatoes score of only 33%, which I find completely unacceptable.  While my boy Ebert and Todd McCarthy from Variety dug it, A.O. Scott of the NY Times wasn’t alone in bashing this title as a convoluted mess: were you guys even paying attention?  Too many screenings that week?  And aren’t these the same soap box screamers claiming that “Hollywood is all sequels and product placement and no original ideas”?  For crying out loud, you can’t get any more original than this.  And one more thing: quit picking on Nicolas Cage!  Let me ask you this, genius: how would YOU react if you were playing a Professor who ran across a bunch of numbers like he does?  Or your kid was in immense danger from strange, mysterious trench-coat wearing weirdos?  Much like my commentary on Jackie Brown, I have to advise those critical of Cage that he can’t act as he did in Leaving Las Vegas in every movie.  That’s why they entitled this film Knowing, so you’d know it wasn’t Leaving Las Vegas you were watching.  I think it’s safe to say all actors make some odd choices in material that interests them: but this was not that movie for Cage.

Note 1: Only if you’ve seen the movie, read on… 

I thought it was a fascinating and bold choice by director Alex Proyas to cast young Lara Robinson in not only the role of the troubled Lucinda – the girl in the 1950s who writes out the numbers based on what the “others” are whispering to her – but also Lucinda’s grand-child, Abby – the girl who gets to go with the aliens in the end!  I certainly didn’t recognize the young actress in the role of Abby… it was just interesting and I can’t think of another movie that had a casting choice like this.