Ronhamprod

Unstoppable (2010)
Director: Tony Scott
Stars: Chris Pine, Denzel Washington, Kevin Dunn, Kevin Corrigan and Rosario Dawson

Let me try and review the set up of Unstoppable for you.  You’ve got Chris Pine’s character, Will, sleeping on his brother’s couch.  His wife (or girlfriend?) won’t take his calls after she puts what must be their son on the morning bus to school.  So, despondent, Chris pours himself into his work clothes and reports for work at the rail yards of Stanton, PA.  He’s the proverbial “new guy”, you see, and he’s reporting for his first day of work as a conductor on the rail lines.  Already the veteran workers don’t like him because he’s young, handsome and shares the last name of one of the company’s VPs.  Of course, the company is on the shit list of all these old timers because it’s cutting corners by literally shaving all of them into early retirement to save a few bucks on the bottom line.  Corporations seem to make such great movie villains, don’t they?

I can just hear the producer’s discussion with Mr. Scott about the other main character.  “OK, we need a foil for this guy… let’s see… she can’t be too pretty.  Actually, I think a woman on the rail lines is out totally, right?  Women have no place on the rail lines!  HA HA!!  OK, I jest, um, how about… Russ Crowe?  Perfect!  Nope – he’s donning the green tights in Europe for Robin Hood…  Then, hmmm, Hugh Jackman?  Nah!  There’s no claws needed on a train, come on.  I have it!  Your long time collaborator – DENZEL!”  And so we have Mr. Washington cast as Chris Pine’s trainer.  He is the yin to Pine’s yang, the trainer to the trainee, the veteran railroader to the guy that just wants to do “something different” with his career…  It’s not a bad set up, I have to say.  But the thing that jump starts their action packed story is just a small bit of human error.  Some how, some way, a rather lazy and “portly” employee succeeds in bypassing all of the safety features of this huge locomotive and starts this behemoth up – unmanned, mind you – cruising by itself with power through the Pennsylvania countryside!  It is this lack of negligence that I’m referring to in my subject for this entry – whose fault is it exactly?  

Think of how unique it is to have a film with no human villain, no aliens, no inexplicable disaster heading our way in a matter of hours to crush us all!  It’s just an unmanned train topping speeds of 70mph, which will potentially murder thousands of civilians if it is to crash due to its toxic cargo.  The question you’re asking – and I’m not ruining anything here, this part is actually clear from the preview (see note 1) – is “how did this thing HAPPEN???”  Is it the employee’s fault?  Sure!  But isn’t it his supervisor’s fault too?  Isn’t it the company’s fault for treating these people so terribly and exploiting them in the first place?  How about the safety designers, aren’t they to blame?  I think all of these questions are part 1 of 2 of why Unstoppable is such a swell picture.  But part 2 of 2 of why this movie succeeds is its technically expert production: everything from the photography to the special effects, the sound design to the authentic sets convince you you’re watching this thing unfold as if you were at home watching CNN.  That level of detail is easy to take for granted!  Bottom line – your money will be well spent on this one at the Cineplex this weekend…

Note 1: the preview for Unstoppable does a pretty good job of giving the audience information as to exactly what they’re getting into – with the exception of one clever bit of editing that I think inadvertently “ups the ante”.  I’m still deciding if I felt cheated by this bit of media savvy, but I don’t want to elaborate for those of you who haven’t seen this picture yet.  I bring this up only because I’m fascinated by how some expectations can be raised in the viewing of a preview, only to have the audience member say as they leave the theater, “Hey!  What happened to that one scene?  It wasn’t even in the movie!”

Final Note: For comparison sake, it might be interesting to watch Scott’s 2009 summer action/adventure re-make, The Taking of Pelham 123.  First, I thought Unstoppable was immensely better and would like to discuss with whoever is game.  Second, Mr. Scott and Mr. Washington must really like rail vehicles, huh?

Matewan (1987)
Director: John Sayles
Stars: Chris Cooper, Mary McDonnell, David Strathairn, James Earl Jones and Bob Gunton

I DVR’ed this one from Encore a couple weeks ago, and after seeing Sayles’ Eight Men Out, I was excited to see it.  Matewan, which is pronounced “MATE-eh-wan”, is the name of a small West Virginian town.     It’s little more than a train stop populated by folks who work exclusively at the local coal mine, which is owned by “the company”.  This film concerns a 1920 labor strike in Matewan and the attempt by the coal company to put it down.  The workers, boy, these are some salt of the earth kind of people, and they come across as slaves to this company in the early, Act I scenes of the film.  You start to despise the evil company from the get-go, as their bored executive is bothered to explain the “rules” to new workers.  It seems getting a shovel will cost new workers X amount from their pay check and only two people – including children – can live in a tent at one time.  You are rooting for these coal miners to somehow get ahead!  But how… 

And then Chris Cooper’s character comes to town.  Joe Kenehan’s his name, and simplicity seems to be his game.  His clothes are basic and functional.  He carries only one bag.  He’s polite as he gets directions from the local, flirtatious lady who relaxes by the train depot all day.  And he doesn’t let the lady who runs the boarding house, Widow Radner (played by Sayles usual, Mary McDonnell, who you’ll probably recognize from Dances with Wolves) get to him.  So, what is it with this guy?  What’s he want?  Why is he in town?  He’s in town to get a union started. 

Now, I have neglected to introduce all of the supporting characters, assuming that Cooper’s Kenehan is to be the main character.  Talk about a film loaded to the hilt with character actors – and each performance besting the next.  You have David Strathairn as the town sheriff: he HATES the company and the guy who runs it.  You’ve got Bob Gunton – most easily recognized as the warden in Shawshank Redemption – who runs the local chapter of the union on the down low.  Then there’s Kevin Tighe (on ABC’s Lost – he was Locke’s father, that sonovabitch) and Gordon Clapp (best known for Metavoy on ABC’S NYPD Blue) who come in as Pinkerton-type men who want nothing more than to cave some heads in as a convincer to get these people to work!  Clearly this situation is a well thought out conflict, a text book example of “something’s gotta give”.  I will merely tell you this regarding the film’s climax: I had no clue it was going to go the way it did…

NOTE: Long and short of this discussion – I appreciate all of the actors involved in this film even more having seen this little-known gem.  I don’t know if you’ll have a chance to catch it on cable, or if it’s maybe still around at your local Blockbuster (if you have a local Blockbuster), but I was regretful to see it’s not a title available yet on Netflix…  Now, I’m not sure which Sayles movie I’m going to do next, but I can readily recommend another one to you right now: Lone Star, with Chris Cooper, Kris Kristofferson and even Matthew McConaughey.  Just get it, believe me.  Top of the queue, I tell you!

FINAL NOTE: I’m not sure if film makers actually have regular meetings with each other in super-secret locations like in kids cartoons from the 1980s?  Like an underground lair where Copolla, Soderbergh, Scott Bros, Scorsese and others gather on a quarterly basis?  I have to say films like Matewan definitely get me thinking of these meetings as a realistic possibility.  There were scenes in this movie that made me think, “Man, I wonder if the Coen Bros have seen this one?”  And other scenes made me say, “Dude!  Do you think Sayles consulted Alan Parker regarding how to cast authentic extras?”

Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Stars: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong and 106 year old Max von Sydow
 
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
Director: Kevin Reynolds
Stars: Kevin Costner, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Alan “Hans Gruber” Rickman and Christian Slater
 
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Director: Michael Curtiz and William Keighley
Stars: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Claude Raines and a bunch of merry cast-members
 
I have a beef with the film snobs out there.  I do indeed have a bone to pick.  To put it another way, the proverbial glove has been removed and I slap the snobs’ faces, all of them…  Robin Hood, which frankly looked tremendous to me from the previews and pre-opening buzz, opened in theaters in May of this year.  Now, at the time, all I heard from the film snobs was the following –
·         Tsk, sigh… just whatever you do, don’t expect too much…
·         Eye roll, big shrug… it’s just so-ooo lo-ooong…
·         Frown, folded arms… Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe are so 2000 – hello? this is 2010?
·         Tsk, sigh, eye roll, folded arms… this story’s been so done before!
 
Got two words for you – so, what?  To all variations of commentary and opinions and reviews of the flavor described above, I say baloney.  As the title of this entry asks, “what movie did you THINK you were going to see?”  It isn’t as if you bought your ticket to Robin Hood and then the cinema usher, snickering and holding his hand over his mouth as he showed you to your seat, left you in the theater for Sex & the City 2, is it?  I shouldn’t “expect so much”?  Well, I wasn’t exactly expecting Lawrence of Arabia to begin with, Ace.  The movie’s “long”, is it, eh?  You’re too rushed to look at the run-time of the bloody film before you buy your ticket, is that the story you’re selling me?  What’s the matter, you can’t sit still for more than 90 minutes anymore?  Scott and Crowe are “boring” to you?  Then why did you go see the damned movie?!?!  What’s your problem, Chief?  The story’s been done before?  Well I fold my arms at YOU, how ‘bout that???

Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, let’s stop talking about the film snobs’ opinion and focus up here, shall we?  I think one of the things that makes the Robin Hood story so cool is that it’s not exactly accurate.  I was reading some of his history and there are conflicting portions to the legend, differing interpretations, inaccurate time lines… In short, it’s one of those legends that lends itself to a director’s interpretation and vision for the character.  What do we really know about this guy?  He robs from the rich and gives the loot to the poor: so far, I’m in.  He’s a jolly fellow with a whole “band of merry outlaws” and they all live in a kind of secret camp in the woods: tell me more, good sir! How about the fact he’s an expert archer and swordsman?  So far, I’ve got no complaints with this guy!  Oh, one more thing – he gets the girl!  How much for the ticket, again?

So, in the 1930s, we had grinning Errol Flynn running around a movie set in Hollywood clad in the iconic green tights.  So be it!  In that era, movies were all about having a good time and smooching the princess and “ha ha!” fencing with the evil Sheriff.  And it worked for that era, I thought.  In the ‘90s, we had Kevin Costner and his unlikely Moorish sidekick played by Morgan Freeman kicking the hell out of the Sheriff’s bad guys in a dirtier, but more music-video-ish set.  The costumes and the action were a bit more authentic and grungy, but didn’t detract from Costner’s late ‘80s/early ‘90s weave reminiscent of Rod Stewart.  And this year, we got a Gladiator-meets-Robin Hood prequel to the legend starring that manly man Russell Crowe.  It contained an engaging story – which had not been told yet – and presented a different take on Hood and his merry band of outlaws.  The bad guy was there, it just wasn’t the bad guy we expected.  But again, I ask the film snobs, what exactly was the problem?!?

Was this latest Robin Hood without fault?  Absolutely not.  In fact, here’s two points of criticism against it, starting with the lull in the middle of the story.  I think this lull is indicative of the Robin Hood legend.  I mean, once we have met Robin and his merry band and we’ve introduced all the characters, they have to kind of drink and be merry, and the Sheriff has to brood and then Robin has to woo Marian a bit – all of this results in a lull!  And all three of the films had it, but the latest version had perhaps the most serious break in the action.  The biggest complaint I had about Scott’s version was the bloody advertising campaign: you cannot and should not have the evil king screaming, “I declare him to be an OUTLAW” in all the ads only to have that be revealed to the audience in the last thirty seconds of the film!  Come on, now!  Why didn’t they take the opportunity to communicate that this was a new, unique take on “ye olde legend” and go with the “Robin Hood as you’ve never seen him before” angle?  Mark Strong as the “new” villain Godfrey was great, the members in the merry band were indeed stronger, evoked more of a veteran feel in their fighting (they’d just finished with the third crusade, remember) and there was even a nod and wink to the historic Magna Carta – why not tell the audience how cool this “prequel” is instead of trying to convince them it’s the same legend?

NOTE: Thanks for bearing with me on this entry, because frankly, I had no idea how much aggravated energy I had to share with you on these films! As a thank you, and for your viewing pleasure, I submit to you the following clip from “ye olde YouTube”, which is yet another take on the legend from the Looney Toons.  I defy you NOT to laugh at it. 

Bugs Bunny in Rabbit Hood

The Informant! (2009)
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Stars: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale and many others…

You’re supposed to laugh at The Informant!  The director, Soderbergh (one of my favorites), is clear from the first superimposed words that this film is based on a true story, but some scenes and conversations have been changed to make it more enjoyable to you, the viewer.  Then, he puts, “So there” at the end of this notification!  Adding to this tongue in cheek presentation is the musical score they used.  However, about ten minutes into this satire from last year, I found myself almost distracted by the music.  Not sure if you’ll remember the “Gee, golly, wow” brand of music of the 1950s?  Basically, I’m referring to those tracks which usually played in “How to be a great housewife” films and any instructional vid, really, from the 1950s.  I guess the term I’m looking for to describe this music is somewhere between boisterous, easy-to-whistle-to, pleasant – and to use a 1950s term – gay (as in unquenchably happy).  Well, that’s the music that Soderbergh and his composer, Marvin Hamlisch used in The Informant!  So why was I having so much trouble laughing at this picture?

Probably because the subject matter is so difficult to laugh at…  The story concerns essentially a biopic of bold-faced liar Mark Whitacre.  The character is based on a true-life individual by the same name: but this wasn’t a documentary, it was a “dramedy”, I suppose?  A white-collar satire?  Whatever genre you want to classify it as, I think it’s a tough watch and here’s why:
1.       We get enough tales of corruption and white collar malfeasance (that’s right, I just used “malfeasance” in a sentence like Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life) in our daily newspaper and online news sources to be first in line to see such a film on Friday night of opening weekend.
2.       We all personally know or have known liars: dealing with them is not necessarily pleasant or funny.  I mean, even if a story involving a liar starts off funny, it usually ends anything but.
3.       Don’t mean to ruin anything for you in this movie, but the lies just keep on coming.  And coming.  And with each new truth that contradicts a Whitacre lie, the reactions of the lawyers and FBI personnel involved in the case continue to be funny; but you start to feel like taking a shower.

Like all Soderbergh pictures, from Out of Sight to Traffic (both of which will feature rather lengthy commentaries on this blog), The Informant! entertains and challenges you.  How would you deal with a Marc Whitacre if your lives crossed paths?  How are you dealing with “him” today?  Would you be in agreement if I shared with you that I really never, ever want to do business of any kind with the FBI?  Will I end this entry with a question?

NOTE: My thinking regarding why the title includes an exclamation point is as follows… have you ever read the comic strip “Dagwood and Blondie”?  Usually the last frame of the strip includes one character doing or saying something outrageous and another character reacting to the first – with an exclamation point above their head.  It’s as if the comic strip’s author is saying, “Hey look, this character is so shocked at the other character, all they can do is stare at them with an open mouth and an exclamation point above their head!”  So, if we apply the “Dagwood and Blondie” world to The Informant!, Soderbergh is kind of predicting his audience’s reaction to his story…  Makes total sense, right?

Crime Exists in Gray, Not Black & White

Frozen River (2008)
Director: Courtney Hunt
Stars: Melissa Leo, Misty Upham, Michael O’Keefe and Charlie McDermott

I tend to be more conservative in my views towards criminals: in other words, if I’m reading a criminal related story in the news and the perpetrator has been convicted, I usually fall on the side of “let’s hope (s)he gets the maximum penalty”.  Now, why would I bore you with this personal opinion?  Because I think it’s important in understanding why I was so impressed with this little independent film I saw over the weekend called Frozen River.  When a film entertains you while you’re watching it, you’re able to discuss it at length with your friends after you see it, and you probably even think about it the next day, I consider that to be a great movie.  But there are movies – like this one – that actually challenge my thoughts.  These special, thought provoking films that I’m referring to essentially force me to see things from a different perspective.  Now, these movies truly deserve a special spot on the library shelf.

Frozen River opens with appropriate and efficient establishing shots.  There is snow and ice all over the road.  We find ourselves in a small town.  OK, we’re going to go into this little neighborhood over here while the credits keep rolling.  A lot of ramshackle houses, the kind you just pass by while you’re on your way somewhere… Boy it looks cold out there.  Now we’re moving in on this woman in her mid-40s, smoking a cigarette outside of what looks like a trailer home.  Aw, man, she’s crying!  I hate it when women cry…  This establishing sequence prepares you for the entire storyline, which I can sum up in one word – STRUGGLE.  The crying woman, Ray Eddy has two boys and her husband has just disappeared (again) with the money she was to use to buy a “double wide home” – which is being delivered on a huge “wide load” truck today!  So, about fifteen minutes into the film, Courtney Hunt (the director) and her film production has convinced me that my “problems” are pretty much containable in the palm of my hand, while Ray Eddy’s problems are containable maybe in a bed sheet: to solve them she will have to STRUGGLE.  Incidentally, Ray is played by character actress Melissa Leo, a role for which she was most appropriately nominated for an Oscar.

A bizarre set of circumstances introduce us to the second major player in this film, Lila Littlewolf (Misty Upham), a direct descendant of the Mohawk Tribe.  Lila lives in an equally small and cold-looking dwelling.  It seems when Ray’s husband ran off, he left behind the family car, a Dodge Spirit (trust me, the make and model of the car become important).  Because the car was abandoned – and Lila has no transportation as she walks to and from the Bingo operation on the Mohawk Reservation where she works – Lila took the car!  When Ray finds this out and confronts Lila, Lila takes her on a little illegal smuggling run – across the frozen river from upstate New York to Canada.

And so, the opportunity presents itself for Ray to smuggle illegal aliens with Lila.  They escort these illegals from Canada to the Mohawk Reservation in New York where Customs and other U.S. law enforcement can’t go.  There is thousands upon thousands of dollars to be made.  Let’s remember a few things here.  Ray’s snotty little boss at work won’t allow her to increase her hours from part time to full time.  The rent-a-center is coming to take the television away.  Ray has one more chance to buy the double wide home from the pissed off salesman.  Christmas is coming and her youngest desperately wants that Hot Wheels set.  The husband is still nowhere to be found.  At a certain point in the film, I had to ask myself, “Burke, what would you have her do???”  I mean, would I consider this woman a criminal?  Absolutely not.  Does she deserve to be busted?  If I didn’t know her, I’d say “Hell yes!”  But once I got to know Ray Eddy, I was ready to take up night classes in law so I could eventually defend her…  The movie even entails a side story with Ray’s son also turning to petty crime, which only bolstered the theme of the film that not all criminals are what they seem.  In closing, just in case there was any confusion, I highly recommend you see this film.

Note 1: I could not, and can not believe that this is Ms. Courtney Hunt’s first film.  Ever.  She thought it up, made a short, shopped it around and got the funding for the full length feature.  Took it to Sundance in 2008.  There, she won the Grand Jury prize.  And she has yet to do anything since this film.  My head is getting sore from the scratching. 
 

Four Words for Anyone Speaking at a Wedding: It’s Not About You!
 
Rachel Getting Married (2008)
Director: Jonathan Demme
Stars: Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin and Debra Winger

In the first three minutes of Rachel Getting Married, we get some important facts: Anne Hathaway is playing Kym, the youngest daughter of the family.  She’s waiting on her Dad to pick her up from the rehab clinic where she’s currently living.  Her Dad is a hot mess because his oldest daughter, Rachel (oh, I see what they did with the title! OK…) is getting married this weekend.  And all of this is shown from a hand held, basic digital camera, the kind I own.   After three minutes, was I glad I hadn’t seen this title in theaters?  Oh, yes.  Whether it’s this title, Cloverfield or films like The Blair Witch Project or A Scanner Darkly that contain an overwhelming amount of hand held camera movement to add to the authenticity and documentary feel to the story, I’m always glad to see them on the smaller screen.  

But back to the movie – the story, as you no doubt have guessed, covers Rachel’s wedding weekend, complete with all the drama of the family’s past that comes up as it tends to when folks see family members that they don’t typically see anymore.  I think this is why holiday films and stories concerning weddings and funerals automatically come with a fun bit of drama attached to them (this is not meant to be an earth shattering comment).  As far as Rachel Getting Married is concerned, I’m not sure I’m recommending it.  I truly enjoyed some scenes of the film.  While I was entertained by it, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone from fast forwarding through some of the celebratory post-wedding footage: I felt like Demme was getting a little carried away? 

Now, as for the reason I entitled this entry”…It’s Not About You”: I know many of those who read this blog won’t see the titles I cover.  Regardless, I can bring the film’s theme to you, and that is a wedding is about two people: the bride and groom!  So please, for the love of God, do not use the opportunity – and privilege, mind you – of presenting a toast at a rehearsal dinner to advise the guests as to YOUR STORY.  In fact, no one cares about your story this weekend: they care about the bride and groom and how they influenced your life.  And maybe how you influenced theirs – but tread lightly, dammit!

And another thing… (NOTE): The soundtrack of the film is loaded – and I mean LOAD-ED – with music from this little band that walks around the wedding locale and practices in and around the bloody house where Rachel gets married… sometimes their stuff is really great!  Other times it’s downright distracting and I wanted to tackle them…  I am watching the last scene of the movie though, and here comes this phenomenal score with a violin, mandolin (I think) – just a great instrumental piece!  Is it available on the soundtrack?  No!  So, two questions: first, why would they wish to include the best piece of music in the whole damned film at the very end?  Second, why isn’t it made available?  I could find no suitable answers to these questions on that newfangled invention, the “intranets”.

And yet another thing… (NOTE): In relation to my point about the mistake of making wedding & rehearsal dinner speeches about YOU instead of the bride and groom, Richard Jeni, the late-great comic, had a phenomenal schtick about the Super Bowl referee.  Jeni described how he’s glad he will never be presented with the opportunity to officiate that game since he would probably have taken the first chance to make a call and done something like this with it – “So, folks, there was actually some holding on the previous play and I’m going to get to that, but first, let’s talk about me for a moment…(lies down on the field) I have this brother-in-law, you see, and he’s just a waste of space…”

Final NOTE: the editor of Rachel Getting Married also edited Robert Altman’s classic Gosford Park.  If you know that film, you’re aware of the myriad of characters involved in it – and this film definitely works on that plane with everyone really taking part in the whole production.

Valkyrie (2008)
Director: Bryan Singer
Stars: Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Bill “I feel it in my fingers” Nighy and Terrence Stamp

As I’ve mentioned with other entries to this blog, a big part of watching a film is your expectation going into it.  I missed Valkyrie in the theaters.  While I had seen previews and heard my pals’ general opinion of the film, I wasn’t overwhelmingly excited to see it… it was just one of those I finally got around to last night off of the ol’ Netflix cue.  I loaded it up (see Note 1) and settled in to watch.  About an hour into Valkyrie, I was as tense as some of the conspirators in the film!  I was damned interested in the story by the mid-way point.  Further, one of the best parts of the film was Cruise’s acting: I thought to myself, “Anyone who doesn’t think this gent can act should watch this, Collateral, Tropic Thunder and Jerry Maguire – they should NOT watch Vanilla Sky under any circumstances…”  That’s right: I thought all of that to myself.  But getting back to my point, I think I was enjoying it so much because I had no expectations.  I think you also get to a part of the film when you finally realize, hey, even if the “good guys” in this movie “lose”, they’re still bloody Germans in WWII!

Once I read some of the reviews and saw the box office collection this film pulled in, I realized that expectations for this latest Cruise-starring vehicle were somewhere in the stratosphere.  As a result, it was somewhat doomed from the get-go.  The film’s release date was pushed and then adjusted several times, which is always a telling sign.  The German people, who would be hosting the production as it was shot on location, were not particularly fond of Cruise’s affinity for scientology.  The production couldn’t get the rights to shoot at some of the authentic locations in some scenes, so the film started getting attacked for being “historically inaccurate”.  Tom Cruise jumped up and down on Oprah’s couch.  Then they firmly set the release date for Christmas Day 2008.  If you take all of these variables, stuff them in a blender and pour them out into a bowl, that bowl would yield exactly $83 Million worth of box office, which for a Tom-Cruise-starring-Bryan-Singer-directed movie, is apparently a gross disappointment.  

In the end, is Valkyrie a good picture?  Yes, definitely!  It’s a phenomenally fun thriller/suspense, and further, it succeeds in letting the audience in on a great historical secret.  People love secrets, particularly when they’re let in on what the secret is, who’s involved, how it’s going to unfold, etc.  Was Valkyrie successful?  Depends on who you talk to.  Industry types would scoff and call it a turd because it came in under the $100 Million mark.  I think when you consider the subject matter (Nazis), the release date (Christmas) and the publicity challenges facing Cruise at the time (Couch jumping fall out), this film did pretty damned well indeed.  At least now the title of this entry makes a little more sense? 

I’m going to digress here with something that entered by pea-brain after I watched this movie: the initial meeting between Bryan Singer and his producers.  This meet must have included Singer uttering a log line -that was no doubt very difficult to swallow for his producers – followed by a rather interesting pitch.  Allow me to caveat the following by saying I kinda got carried away with this…

Singer (pacing and jumping about the room throughout the scene): Guys listen – I’ve been doing some research, and it turns out that not all Germans in World War II were bad!
Producer 1: Ah, yeah, hmm… I’m probably gonna need to hear a little more, Bryan.
Producer 2: Make that two of us….  That seems contrary to a lot of people’s opinions and –
Singer: Of course!  No, but see, there was this German Colonel during WWII – Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg – and he really, really didn’t like Hitler.
Producer 1: Uh huh.
Producer 2: That doesn’t seem particularly odd to me…
Singer: Yeah! So, he decided to do something about it – almost like an American would.  He got in touch with a bunch of other dissenters and organized an assassination of Hitler!  Can ya believe it?
[Long pause: crickets can be heard outside.]
Producer 2: Well, as I’m sure we’re probably all aware… Hitler didn’t actually die until later –
Singer: No, I get that – I do!  But the suspense, the thrilling suspense we could portray as this crippled German navigates through the assassination attempt –
Producer 1: Wait, he’s crippled? 
Singer: Well… yeah!  He gets bombed to shit in the first scene – I’m gonna have some fun filming that, boy! – and he’s missing an eye… and some body parts! 
Producer 2: I have to ask: who’d you have in mind for this picture?
Singer: You haven’t guessed?  Tom Fucking Cruise, of course!  Met him at the Mission: Impossible premiere, and we been trying to do something ever since!(pause)  You look surprised…
Producer 2 (leans back in couch, rubs temple): Let me see if I’ve got this straight…  (looks at Producer 2) Actually, you wanna take a stab here?
Producer 1: If I’ve heard correctly so far – and it’s possible I haven’t – we’re going to cast one of the biggest names in Hollywood as a Nazi –
Singer: No, but see, he’s a GOOD German…
Producer 1: right, Bryan, a good German with only one eye and a few appendages left who tries to get a bunch of other Nazis –
Singer: Other good Germans – work with me here, now!
Producer 1: I stand corrected – and this group of good Germans is going to try and whack Hitler.
Producer 2: Yeah, I dunno…
Singer: And here’s the kicker: we release it… are you ready?  We release it on Christmas! 
Producer 1: Oh… my… goodness.  Brilliant!
Producer 2: You’re so right –  it’ll totally work!!
All 3 at once: Let’s do this thing!!!

Note 1: When I was growing up, after dinners on Friday and Saturday, we would all break.  Mom would start with the dishes, Drew and I would help or do something to help with our dog.  And Dad would go downstairs to “set up the VCR”.  It took us years to think about that before we finally challenged him with what exactly that meant.  What was he doing down there???  I mean, how long does it take to “set up” the bloody VCR?  Put the tape in.  Sit down.  The end!

“Why Don’t You Pass the Time by Playing a Little Solitaire?”
 
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
*** Burke Favorite ***
Director: John Frankenheimer
Stars: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury and Janet Leigh

Imagine a column of U.S. Army personnel sneaking around the countryside at night.  They’re led by this Korean guide named Chunjin.  All of this is in glorious black and white.  Moments later, the entire platoon is ambushed by another group of soldiers, put on helicopters and taken out of sight.  Skipping ahead a few months, one of the soldiers named Major Marco (Frank Sinatra) is back in Washington D.C.  He’s having terrible nightmares.  They involve a round table discussion between himself and several of those U.S. Army personnel that were kidnapped.  And they’re all talking to a Chinese doctor who looks like – these are Marco’s words – “Fu Manchu”.  During the discussion, the Chinese doc calmly and almost nonchalantly asks one of Marco’s men, Sergeant Shaw, to strangle a private in their platoon: Shaw does so without the private putting up a fight at all.  The dead private crumbles to the floor and Shaw sits back down, revealing a whole theater full of Communist personnel.

Such are the scenes that occupy The Manchurian Candidate, a political thriller that is hardly rivaled by any other paranoia story.  Based on the book by Richard Condon (which is also really, really good), Candidate covers the search that Major Marco undergoes to uncover just what the hell is going on with these dreams he’s having, and why several other men in the platoon are having exactly the same dream!  Further, whenever asked, these men all report that Raymond Shaw (the Sergeant who murdered the private for the entertainment of “Fu Manchu” and his audience) is “the kindest, bravest, warmest most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my whole life.”  Um, are ya sure? 

The Manchurian Candidate is an engrossing story because you’re constantly on the lookout for clues in the dialogue, background or flashbacks to tell you just what the hell is going on!  But I think a majority part of the movie’s success lies in the performances.  Sinatra had already won an Oscar for From Here to Eternity by the time he did Candidate.  Laurence Harvey completely exudes this broken machine of a man who is controlled either by his Mother or by his KGB handlers.  Janet Leigh is gorgeous, yes, but almost gives a creepy performance as Marco’s love interest, which only builds the suspense and tension: I mean, what kind of woman tells a guy she’s not married only to say later that “whoops, I’m engaged!”  You’ve got Henry Silva as Chunjin the Korean guide – and later Raymond Shaw’s butler: the fight scene in Shaw’s apartment between Chunjin and Marco is just classic (Sinatra using kung fu?  I’m in!).  There’s John McGiver as Senator Jordan, the political rival to “Iselin-ism” (read: McCarthyism) that is sweeping the country during the story.  And finally, you have sweet, dear old Angela Lansbury, who we all know from Murder She Wrote, right?  Uh, wrong!  Her performance as Raymond’s mother – aggressive, abusive, ambitious and murderous Mother – is in the top five of all female villain performances.  That’s right, I said that, I’ll stand by it.

It’s extremely difficult to toe the line between parody and drama, satire and political commentary: and yet, depending on how you’re feeling, you can view The Manchurian Candidate as a shining example of any of these flavors…  I’ve linked a couple of articles below that do a great job of discussing the little clues that Frankenheimer and the writers leave you as the story unfolds.  For those of you who’ve seen this picture, please read on with the links provided.  For those that haven’t seen The Manchurian Candidate, get thee to thy Netflix cue!

 
http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/11/02/popwatch-rewind-the-manchurian-candidate/
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031207/REVIEWS08/40802006/1023
 
A Quick Note: Was this movie remade a few years ago?  Sure was!  With the Iraq War as the backdrop this time, director Jonathan Demme, Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber and Meryl Streep all did an admirable job in the remake… but it doesn’t quite possess the thrilling aspects of the original in my opinion.  Perhaps the association with real-life Senator McCarthy was the missing link that put the 1962 version so over the top?  I don’t know for sure…

Last Note: It seems like every classic movie has a bit of a back story worth mentioning, doesn’t it?  This film is no exception.  While watching the DVD’s extras, I come to find out that one person owned the rights to this movie after its release – Frank Sinatra.  In other words, you could not see this film at all – in the theater, at home, anywhere – after its 1962 release until Sinatra finally decided to re-release it some time in the 80s.  Why?  Because Mr. Sinatra was so distraught over President Kennedy’s assassination – and the somewhat related assassination storyline of Candidate – that he couldn’t bear to see the film or allow it to be shown.  Needless to say, he finally came around, thank heavens.
  
Say It Ain’t So, Joe: How They Threw the Series in 1919
 
Eight Men Out (1988)
Director: John Sayles
Stars: John Cusack, David Strathairn, Michael Rooker, Christopher Lloyd – and many, many others…

One of the reviews I read of Eight Men Out was very astute in pointing out that the reporters in the film act as kind of a Greek Chorus, guiding us through the conspiracy of the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox” throwing the World Series as it unfolds.  The reporters, played by the director John Sayles and legendary writer Studs Turkel, stay with us from the introduction of the players in the first scene, through the games of the 1919 World Series and finally through Act 3, in which several of the players endure a trial.  I think it was a pretty clever plot device of Sayles to include himself and Studs Turkel as this “Greek Chorus”, previewing scenes, commenting on events as they unfolded and making sure that the audience is up to speed on what’s going on.  Sayles even has a scene in the middle of a crowded train car in which he none too subtly sings a song related to the team’s actions in the Series.

As I watched this title a couple of nights ago (I wasn’t about to watch Blackbeard the pirate – also known as Brian Wilson, closer for the S.F. Giants – toss the ball to close out the Series, no sir), I realized that Eight Men Out has a Cinema/Textbook example of “The Set Up”.  This portion of the script lives in Act 1: in this sequence of the screenplay, we should find out who’s the guy in the white cap, who’s the man dressed in black, who’s the girl tied to the tracks, and approximately how long till the train comes along to squash her?  This movie contains one of the most compact, efficient and entertaining Set Ups on film.  In this opening scene, a couple of kids run down the grimy streets of Chicago because the bigger of the two kids scored a dime and they can get bleacher seats to see the Sox win the pennant.  Re-read that sentence to see how much the game has changed from then to today.  Now that you’re with me again, the kids are at the game, and now they’re hustling the spectators, crying and carrying on until they’re given nickels to “shut the hell up”.  But as these two street urchins watch the game, they’re introducing us to a couple of players.  Then the owner, Charles Comiskey, introduces us to a few more players as he brags about the team he’s assembled, and how only a moron would bet against them in the Series.  Finally, you’ve to the Greek Chorus of reporters commenting on still more players.  By the end of the first 12 minutes of screen time, we know that Buck Weaver at third (John Cusack) hates, despises, can not BEAR to lose.  We understand that “Shoeless” Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney) in the outfield is an incredibly gifted star who can’t read.  We’re aware that Chick Gandil (brilliantly cast with Michael Rooker) at second base is a sneaky bastard who has no morality whatsoever.  We’re even in on the fact that veteran pitcher (often-used Sayles actor David Strathairn) Eddie Cicotte feels slighted by old man Comiskey’s cheap ways and reneging on bonuses.  Again, at the end of the opening 12 minutes, we are curious as all hell to know how this thing is going to unfold…

Eight Men Out has numerous other elements of brilliance.  There’s a scene at the midpoint in which different characters involved in this conspiracy to throw the Series raise the level of tension and propel the story further as they pass each other in the hallway of a hotel, going in and out of various rooms, almost like a Bugs Bunny scene.  Another scene concerns more of a philosophical discussion between a World Champion boxer and the professional gambler who made umpteen thousands of dollars off the Champ.  There is a very subtle and tragic dichotomy between the Joe Jackson character and Buck Williams.  And the conclusion of the film is as efficient and tragic as the rest of the film.  The ending invokes perhaps the superlative feeling of regret in the viewer: I know I thought to myself, “Gee, I wish these guys hadn’t acted this way.”  

I know I’m like a lot of people when I sometimes wish for the “good old days”, when “people were nicer, you didn’t have to lock your doors”, yadda yadda yadda.  Stories like Eight Men Out remind us that people have always been people.  There has always been temptation.  There has always been a desire to screw the boss, exploit the latest technology, “get fat with everybody else” and take that bonus whether you deserve it or not.  Watching this film gave me the same feeling I felt when I heard that one guy used steroids to win his Olympic sprint.

Zardoz (1974)
Dir: John Boorman
Stars: Sean Connery, Charlotte Rampling and a bunch of others I never heard of…

Zardoz Trailer

I was talking to a pal a few weeks back after he had read my Convoy entry: he was hoping I’d have more 70s movies that he never heard of to comment on.  M.M., this entry is directed at you!  Anyhow, when I was in high school, my brother got me a book covering all the films that Sean Connery had been in to date.  It’s a great book because it showcases what a diverse actor Connery is – particularly outside of the world of Bond.  One of the movies covered was this one, Zardoz.  Seeing the production photos from this film in the book, I was pretty intrigued.  But at the same time, it’s Connery in little more than Speedos and thigh high boots sporting a moustache and long braided hair.  So, this title didn’t exactly drift to the top of my list of Connery films to see.

But, I saw it was on Fox Movie Channel a few weeks back, so I TIVO’ed it.  I’ve been scrolling through the thirty or so movies I have sitting in my DVR’s memory for the last several weeks, and every time I scrolled through Zardoz, I thought, “Meh.  Not in the mood for that one.”  Welp, I got home on Friday night from a haunted hay ride (that’s another tale) and scrolled through the DVR once again and thought, “AH!  NOW I’m in the mood for this.”  Long story short (too late), Zardoz is a midnight movie: I know because it was well after midnight when I started it.  These movies require their audience to be extremely intellectual, high on something or inebriated – or perhaps a healthy mix of two or more of these elements for some audience members.  I’m not in any way suggesting that you run out and Netflix this title, grab a big bottle of your favorite poison and dig in.  In fact, I can’t think of one person I would actually recommend this title to, it’s that bloody bizarre of a movie.  However, that’s what makes it a midnight movie: those of us who have seen the faithful viewers of Rocky Horror Picture Show in action know what I’m talking about.  It’s the same type of folks that watch Clockwork Orange or Donnie Darko (stay tuned for reviews of these two) in their basement at 3am.  These films are made for a cult audience and are suited for late night viewing.

To John Boorman’s credit, Zardoz is a thought provoking picture.  It’s clear this guy knows what he’s doing with films like Deliverance, Point Blank and Excalibur to his credit.  Outside of the sincerely delivered expository dialogue, outrageous costuming and sets and hilarious – and I mean, HILARIOUS – special effects, there is some good food for thought presented in Zardoz: what if, two hundred years in the future, people were living so long it was like they were immortal?  As soon as someone told you, “you’re never going to die, never going to leave your human body”, wouldn’t you want to die?  So, yes, some interesting questions here.  But if you watch the trailer below, you’ve basically seen the film.  While Zardoz is an exemplary “midnight movie”, my recommendation is that you enjoy the trailer – and stop there.

In closing, I have to tell you that I am absolutely shocked – shocked, I tell you – regarding two elements to this film.  Number One – it stars Sean Connery.  I know I’ve already mentioned this, but when you see the trailer you’ll know what I mean – this is not exactly an “A-List star vehicle” to use industry terminology.  It’s a bizarre picture that I’m sure, had they read it, Paul Newman, Robert Redford and Al Pacino all would have passed on at the time!  Number Two – it is released by 20th Century Fox.  Not an independent studio, not an independent producer, not Roger Corman, but a major f’ing studio!?!?!  When I read Roger Ebert’s review of good ol’ Zardoz, he supposed the reason 20th released it was John Boorman’s capital at the time.  Having directed Deliverance to the utmost success, Boorman had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted.  Well, this certainly includes it all, doesn’t it?

Changeling (2008)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Stars: Angelina Jolie, Jeffrey Donovan, John Malkovich, Colm Feore, Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner

I am making it a special point to tell you that this film is very closely based on a true story.  Mr. Eastwood is very clear about this fact in the opening credits.  The reviews and background I’ve read about this film online make it obligatory for me to follow suit and point this out too.  Frankly, with this information in mind, the revelations and twists that this story takes as it unfolds makes it all the more jarring to the viewer.  The obvious parallel to my earlier entry on Taken is the storyline of child abduction: I promise I won’t make this my theme for October!

That said, I simply cannot imagine what my reaction might be to a family member (I’m not a dad, so I don’t have that perspective) disappearing without a word.  Try and put yourself in the shoes of Christine Collins in March of 1928.  When you return home from a Saturday shift you were obliged to take at the phone company, you discover your only son is missing!  The child has no father: it seems this dad ran off and away from “responsibility” as Collins explains it to her son.  At this point, we come to the first “I cannot believe it” moment in the story: the Los Angeles Police Department (see Note 1) will not help Ms. Collins.  I kid you not, the bored officer coldly explains their policy to Collins over the phone, that most kids “turn up” within the first 24 hours after they “supposedly” go missing.  Essentially, the L.A.P.D. doesn’t have the resources to start looking after everyone’s kids.  This is an incredibly difficult scene to watch, all the more because Angelina Jolie’s character is the only person in the frame and she’s simply reacting to the officer’s cold words regarding policy.  This scene speaks volumes about her acting ability, in my opinion: let’s just say that Jolie makes this role, like A Mighty Heart, easy to take for granted.  

The true crime nature of the story is just getting started, however.  I’m not ruining anything for you as I tell you that months later, the police receive a call from Illinois with word that the Collins boy has been found and they’re sending him back on the train!  Fantastic, right?  Well, not so much when the boy shows up – and it’s not Christine Collins’ son.  “Ruh roh,” says the L.A.P.D. Chief.  He wants the whole thing to go away because their finding the young lad has been the one thing the department HAS done right lately.  But the kid isn’t hers, not even close, as Ms. Collins discovers.  The boy they send home with her has shrunk while he was away based on the measurements Collins took with pencil on the kitchen wall.  There is another confirmation that I won’t reveal here: the point is that the L.A.P.D., led by Captain J.J. Jones (played with awesome ferocity by Jeffrey Donovan of TV’s Burn Notice), insists that Collins is a disturbed woman, an irresponsible mother and has no business bothering the very department that helped locate her son.  This Captain, friends, had brass cojones.  The story continues from here with two separate sub-plots that again, are too incredible to believe as true.  I think it’s better you go in not knowing what these sub-plots are.  I also think you can tell this film moved me.  Reading the paper each day and watching the news, I think it’s natural to think to yourself, “Man that’s tough that thing happened to that guy, but it would never happen to me!”  I felt like Changeling did a great job of challenging that very thought, and being thankful for one’s blessings.  

One of my first entries was on Unforgiven.  I think having seen this film, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, you’d be hard pressed to deny the fact that Eastwood is one of the best directors in film history.  His attention to detail without sacrificing the overall flexibility of the film is unparalleled.  Consider the performances he gets out of these character actors you might not have seen before – Michael Kelly as the Detective and Jason Butler Harner as a killer.  Consider the production design and energy it took to re-create late 20s Los Angeles, complete with red cars rolling up and down city streets!  Mr. Eastwood even composed the music to this drama.  In short, if we were playing the game in which you ask your pal, “Which five people – living or dead – would you like to have dinner with”, I’m pretty sure Clint would make my list.   

Note 1: I am not here to bash the L.A.P.D.  I live in L.A. and frankly, I’ve never had any first hand experience with this supposedly infamous police department.  I know from reading the L.A. Times that things have changed for the better in the department.  That said, I know from this true story that this Collins affair was not an exemplary chapter in the department’s history – that’s all I’m saying.
 
Note 2: About my title for this entry… have a look at the poster for this film.  It does NO GOOD for the movie!  You tell me with a straight face that it doesn’t look like Angelina is about to devour her son?!?!?  And if you didn’t know any better, what would you think this film is about?  A Grimm’s fairy tale?  A costume party?  Believe me when I say that every little ingredient either helps or hurts a film’s chances – the poster for Changeling… DID NOT HELP.

Good afternoon!
Please have a look at the following article, which is one of many found this afternoon resulting from a “Johnny Depp Thin Man” Google search –
 
http://cinemablend.com/new/Johnny-Depp-Wants-Rob-Marshall-To-Help-Him-Remake-The-Thin-Man-21313.html

I’m not sure if any of you have seen the original The Thin Man from the 1930s starring William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles, but the book by Dashiell Hammett ended up supplying the movies with a pair of characters worthy of six total films.  Nick was a private investigator until he retired from that life to marry Nora, manage her stake in her family’s mining business and live off of her money.  To say that Nora was wealthy would be a gross understatement.  To say that these two characters drink a lot of booze over the course of the story would be another immense understatement.

Let me try and provide an example of Nick’s drinking habit: in one of the five Thin Man sequels, Nick Charles is sitting on a park bench across the street from his apartment, watching his son play in the park with Asta, the family’s faithful and entertaining dog.  Across the street and nine floors up in the apartment, the Charles’ maid mixes a batch of brunch cocktails, then hurries to the balcony and looks for Nick in the park through some binoculars.  Sure enough, the maid sees Nick stop reading, look around, sniff the air and then motion for his son that it’s time to go home – supposedly because he can smell the drinks from across the street and nine floors down.  While this scene may be a little too cutesy for those unfamiliar with the series, let me just say that the first film is without doubt a classic and well worth a watch to see if you like these characters.

As an idea, I don’t really care for remakes.  I find that if the film was well made the first time around, I’m upset that they’re fouling a “classic” (see Vince Vaughn in Psycho as an example).  If Hollywood remakes a terrible movie, I often think “won’t it be hard to improve upon an inherently bad idea?” (see the late 90s Hollywood version of Godzilla as an example).  But every now and again, a Hollywood update seems to hit the sweet spot: while Johnny Depp’s suggestion to take a stab at The Thin Man sounds great, there’s a remake closer to theaters coming in December. True Grit, a remake of the John Wayne starring picture from the 70s is on its way, friends.  This time around, the Coen Brothers will direct, Jeff Bridges will star, and Josh Brolin and Matt Damon will co-star – sounds pretty good, right?