Ronhamprod

Never Let Me Go (2010)
Director: Mark Romanek
Stars: Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, James Garfield, Sally Hawkins and Charlotte Rampling

You’ll note that this film actually is to be released in theaters this week: today if anyone’s keeping track.  So, how am I already reviewing it, you ask?  I have my sources!  Mwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!
 
Now, then.  Imagine an English school in the 1970s on a gloriously sunny afternoon, with plenty of pleasant uniformed children – complete with knee high socks regardless of gender – running around playing and commiserating.  Uh, oh, look at that – their ball goes out of bounds, over a fence, but still lies very near the grounds of the school.  And yet, a teacher observes that not one amongst this mob of children breaches the boundary to retrieve the ball.  Hmm.  I don’t know about you, but the kids I know are absolute monsters: the kids I know would be frothing at the mouth to scale that wall before the observing teacher could say “blueberry colored mittens” (I chose that phrase only because that’s exactly the kind of phrase that sounds neat with a British accent).

I digress.  The point of this scene in act one of Never Let Me Go, with the ball going outside the school grounds is that these kids are terribly impressionable.  They believe anything they are told.  And they know for a fact that a former attendee of their school lost their life going outside the school grounds.  They are, as the school headmaster (Charlotte Rampling) says, “special children”.  Hmmm.  Something’s going on here.  By the end of the first act, a new teacher (Sally Hawkins) informs these kids of a fact that turns all of their lives upside down.  I will let you see the movie to find out what she says, but I’ll elaborate that this revelation to these “special children” costs the teacher her job.  It costs these kids much more, believe me.  The rest of the movie is concerned with three of these kids who grow up to lead their lives still connected, despite this revelation.  The three children who grow up are played by Carey Mulligan from last year’s An Education, Keira Knightley of Pirates/Caribbean fame (and Atonement and Pride & Prejudice, by the way) and James Garfield, who’s the star of the next Spider-Man/prequel film.

I think it’s important I continue without letting out the film’s secret.  This is one story that is much better to see without having a review or preview of the film giving away too much.  The tone of the film is consistently muted by the director,  Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo).  He uses soft-hued screens to transition “chapters” of the movie as well as the credits.  The music, art direction, cinematography and editing all work together to keep the drama consistently (albeit “patiently”) building.  And all I can say about the performances is that it’s like watching a baby chick trying to peck its way out of the egg shell – you keep coaxing it to “peck at that shell just one more time and you’re out!”  Finally, there is some dialogue at the end of this picture that really hits close to home and is a thought provoking if not challenging charge to all viewers…

It’s been my goal with this entry to wet your appetite for this film and hopefully not frustrate you.  Never Let Me Go, based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, is such a unique drama, I hope you make time for it at the movies this weekend – or in the coming weeks as it’s released in your area!

Rock ‘n Rolla (2009)
Director: Guy Ritchie
Stars: Gerard Butler, Tom Wilkinson, Mark Strong, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy and Thandie Newton

Ah, Guy Ritchie movies… if nothing else, he is one consistent film maker!  I’m not sure if you’ve caught his Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, but his films typically involve numerous cons, a couple of dreadfully stupid wannabe cons, war criminals and their mingling with London gangs, the formula of which results in a bloody shoot-out to top the film’s convoluted story structure.  I feel like these earlier Ritchie films were immense successes: I can quote several lines from both Lock Stock and Snatch, which is always a good sign.  The action in these films was well done, unique, dare I say it – artistic, and most importantly, the action fit the storyline.  

Unfortunately, I feel like RocknRolla missed the mark.  Well, let me rephrase that: Ritchie’s latest foray into the Caper genre hit the marks out of habit rather than necessity.  A perfect example of a RocknRolla scene composed out of habit is a violent scene (gangster clubbed with a driver on a golf course – ouch) intercut with a smoking, piano playing junkie mouthing words of wisdom.  Let me explain something: this scene looked GREAT on screen.  The lighting, the piano song, the sound of the beating, the editing of all of this, etc. was technically proficient.  But, this artistic scene did very little for the story, dear Reader!  Furthermore, I don’t think it’s supportive to the story to introduce this junkie as having little more than a bowl of mush for a brain and then turn him around and make him capable of all sorts of strategic scheming.  But, that’s another issue all together… 

I’ve probably overwhelmed you with negative energy towards this film, so let me retrace my steps and advise that this is a fun film in some places with downright funny storylines.  There is a scene between One Two (that’s a London criminal’s name and he’s played by Gerard Butler) and Handsome Bob (played by Inception’s Tom Hardy), in which Handsome Bob reveals a secret to One Two that becomes a running joke for the rest of the film – that element of the story worked wonderfully.  The “chase scene” between One Two, Mumbles, Handsome Bob and a couple of indestructible Chechnyans was genuinely comedic (indestructible war criminals seem to be in all Ritchie films).  And the “dance scene” between One Two and the very, very slender Stella was equally comedic.  Additionally, all of these scenes helped the story rather than hurt it!

I guess the frustrated tone you’re getting from this entry is attributed to the fact I really like Ritchie’s films.  I was confounded by RocknRolla because it was so close to his earlier work!  But I wanted to see more robbing and beatings administered by One Two and his gang (particularly the underused Idris Elba – veteran of HBO’s The Wire), and much less of Johnny, the junkie lead singer.  In the end, if you enjoy Guy Ritchie movies, I don’t think you’ll count the two hours spent watching RocknRolla as wasted by any means.

Final Note: I thought I’d clarify the title of this entry for you.  I watched this film on DVD with my brudder Drew in San Antonio over the weekend while we were recovering from an “adventurous evening”.  One of the more frustrating characters to follow in the film is Johnny, the junkie lead singer.  At one point during our viewing, I asked Drew, “Did you understand what Johnny said just then”?  And he replied, “No, and I wish I did!”  About thirty minutes later I asked him the same question again and this time he said, “No.  And I don’t care.”

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Dir: F. Gary Gray
Stars: Gerard Butler, Jaime Foxx, Leslie Bibb and Colm Meany

A good old pal of mine wanted a review on this particular title and I’m finally, finally getting to it – my apologies for the delay, sir!  Regardless, if you haven’t seen Law Abiding Citizen, I think it’s worth your while if A) you’re in the mood for an intense Thriller/Suspense picture and B) you’re OK with extreme images of violence.  I’ll say this, whenever I finish a film, I really try and review the positives and negatives of the movie.  Even a film like G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra has its positives (come on, Sienna Miller?).  Granted, the positives are vastly outweighed by the negatives with a G.I. Joe type of film, but the similarity with Law Abiding Citizen is that there are indeed pluses and minuses.

The overwhelming minus, the negative element that somewhat skews the rest of Law Abiding Citizen is a scene involving torture.  Personally, I generally don’t see the upside of showing torture in movies.  I know a great deal of money has been made in films like Hostel, Reservoir Dogs and even this spring’s Kick-Ass.  What I don’t know is why so many theatergoers make time to go see them.  Isn’t there enough violence and mayhem in your local newspaper?   Even within this film, the fact that there was torture might be OK if it was handled off screen or more with audio rather than visual coverage.  Look, before I go off on a complete tangent, let’s just agree that there’s a torture scene in Citizen and you should be aware of it.  The only other minus I readily found in the picture was the convenient times at which new information would be offered.  The new information revealed in “Act 2” about Gerard Butler’s grieving, vengeful father figure wasn’t consistent with his character’s behavior in “Act 1”, particularly the very first scene of the film. 

These negatives aside, this Thriller/Suspense picture is entirely entertaining.  We all have our frustrations with the justice system in this country.  Clyde Shelton (played by Butler) loses his wife and daughter to a brutal home invasion.  Nick Rice (evenly played by Foxx) is the Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case.  To be sure they get justice, he makes a deal in which one of the perpetrators goes to the electric chair while the other (who seemed to be the “A Dog” on the crime, by the way) goes to jail, but out in three to four years.  As the preview to the film alludes, Shelton takes it upon himself to take revenge not only on the other perpetrator, but also on anyone involved in the case through an elaborate array of set ups and dealings with Rice.  This list of “responsible people” includes Rice and his prosecuting team and the Judge!

Shelton finds this plea bargain with the murderer of his family completely unacceptable: so do I, for the record!  The fact that Law Abiding Citizen makes you think about it is in and of itself a success.  So many films are forgotten by the time you get home and flip on Sportscenter, right?  But I found myself reviewing Citizen in my head the next day and beyond.  The idea of a vengeful father not only getting his sweet revenge, but teaching the whole justice system a lesson in the process is phenomenal.  However, I think we can agree that the execution of this plan – and all of the convenient elements at Shelton’s disposal – were a bit far fetched.  Was I entertained throughout the film and legitimately surprised by some of the plot twists?  Absolutely!

SPOILER COMMENT: I will say this to those of you who saw the film.  I thought one element of the film really stood out as particularly interesting: the fact that once it’s established that Shelton is just a plain awful murdering bastard (he’s blown people up by now, killed the Judge, etc) that the Mayor won’t just KILL HIM speaks volumes to our system too, doesn’t it?

From Russia with Love (1963)
Dir: Terence Young
Stars: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Robert Shaw and Pedro Armandariz

As I discussed in my Stand by Me review, Bond films were always a nice halfway point between my Mom and I while I grew up.  I couldn’t wait to watch R rated movies, but she insisted I wait till the appropriate age to do so.  Bond films seemed to be the testing ground: was the film in question more violent than a Bond film?  Then it’s out.  The end.

Involving Storyline
Well, I’m covering From Russia with Love for my latest “Why I Love Film” entry because I think it’s one of the most pure Bond films.  What I mean is, if you’ve read the books at all, Bond wasn’t necessarily a jokester or a blatantly horny bastard as he’s sometimes portrayed in the movie series.  He was indeed a Cold War era spy who knew how to handle himself.  What I mean is, he could fight if necessary, he could talk his way out of a corner with his knowledge – and he carried so-called “gadgets” as another means of survival.  The gorgeous women that he happened to meet were all part of the assignment, and not present merely for him to sleep with and then dash off on.  This picture of the character was what I got out of the books…
 
Before I get too ahead of myself, let’s cover what this film is about, remembering that this is the world as it existed in 1963: the Russian government possesses a “Lecter Decoding Machine”.  What does it do?  It decodes things!  The British want this machine very much.  The Russians know the British want their machine.  So, the Russians set a trap for James Bond to meet a gorgeous agent of theirs.  She reportedly fell in love with him when she ran across his file (or “dossier” as they so often say in Bond films).  This gorgeous Russian will give Bond the “Lecter” if he agrees to come and help her defect to the West.  So, the British suspect a trap, but as “M” tells Bond, they simply must look into any opportunity of getting a “Lecter”.  If the story seems far fetched to you, please consider that John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the President himself – considered this his favorite Bond story.  I’m just saying.
 
Superb Cast of Villains
The film opens with a sneaky assassination scene, which immediately establishes Bond’s soon-to-be nemesis, Red Grant.  Played by Robert Shaw, this guy is the epitome of cold-blooded killer: one of his favorite weapons is a thin string of wire hidden in the winding mechanism of his watch used to strangle his victims.  Now, here’s a murderer who’s put some thought into his crimes.  He’s also put some serious work into his physique, as demonstrated when his handler comes to inspect him:  you’ll know what I mean when you see the film, but I have just two words for you – brass knuckles.  The thing about Robert Shaw’s performance is that it’s downright creepy.  From the way he puts on gloves every time he’s about to conduct some mayhem to the way his expression rarely changes and he seldom speaks, Shaw’s portrayal makes your skin crawl.  He deserves a lot of credit for making From Russia with Love such a classic because he contributes so well to one of the major pieces of the Bond formula: a truly despicable villain. 
 
After establishing the ultimate killing machine in Red Grant, we meet a few other bad guys.  There’s “Number One”, who runs S.P.E.C.T.R.E., which stands for “Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion”.  That’s right, I knew that off the top of my head from watching Dr. No (the first Bond film) over twenty times!  Regardless, the uber-villain “Number One”, who Bond would battle in many of is films, is never visible to the camera other than his hands constantly petting his white cat.  This image and character have been parodied to the full extent by the Austin Powers films.  However, I can’t stress enough that in the context of this film, you really believe that this is an evil mastermind and someone to be feared.  I mean, he must be scary – they won’t even show us his face.
 
There’s also Kronsteen, who thinks up this entire operation to embarrass Bond and pit the Russians against the British: it turns out it’s not the Russians at all who are setting him up, but S.P.E.C.T.R.E.  Kronsteen is a complete characterization of the villains as described in the books.  He’s eloquent, but with an Eastern European accent.  He smokes yellow cigarettes.  Yellow frickin’ cigarettes for crying out loud!  And of course, he’s a chess champion.  He’s the kind of guy you just know grew up getting his ass kicked on a daily basis at recess (or whatever Europeans call recess), and has been plotting to get even with everyone on earth since.  Finally, there is Rosa Klebb, an ex-Soviet intelligence official who is now working for S.P.E.C.T.R.E.  Nothing personal to the actress who played her, but this is one intimidating woman.  Klebb is responsible for selecting the personnel who will put Kronsteen’s plan into action.  Just as “Number One” has a cat to pet, Grant packs a wire in his watch and Kronsteen smokes his yellow cigarettes, Klebb has a great prop, too – a poisonous knife blade hidden in her ugly shoes! 
 
Travel to Exotic Places – with Bond!
One of the big selling points to Bond movies is their exotic locations.  Have you ever been on a train travelling between Russia and Serbia?  How about taking a boat from somewhere in Yugoslavia to Venice, ever do that?  Did you ever see the ancient mosques in Istanbul?  Neither have I!  But, you can see all of these locales – and merry England, and Soviet Russia, and a Gypsy camp – by watching From Russia with Love.  Once again, though, I have to mention the books: Bond wasn’t on vacation, remember!  He was on assignment.  None of these impressive destinations were presented in the books without their essential involvement in the story.  This second Bond film is no exception to that maxim that destinations come with the story.
 
Ah, the Gorgeous Women
With Daniela Bianchi, we have the gold standard in Bond Women (that’s right, I capitalized that!): she’s important to the story, she’s in love with Bond and she can step up and jump into the action when necessary.  And she looks pretty splendid in a nightgown.  Outside of the primary love interest, you’ve got Kerim’s mistress (Kerim is Bond’s British Intelligence contact in Istanbul – sorry I didn’t mention that), who’s gorgeous.  You’ve got Sylvia Trench, the lady Bond met at the Casino in Dr. No, who’s gorgeous.  And you’ve even got a couple of Gypsy girls who are only too glad to stop beating on each other over the Gypsy man they’re in love with in their camp once old James Bond comes into their lives. Oh, and they’re gorgeous, too.  While Thunderball undoubtedly holds first place from a “per capita” standpoint of Gorgeous Bond Women, From Russia with Love certainly has its share.
 
Unique Action Sequences
I don’t know if you happened to catch 2006’s Casino Royale, but one of my first thoughts after seeing it was that the producers seemed to be getting back to Bond’s roots concerning the action sequences.  If you’ve seen From Russia, you’ll know what I mean from the epic battle in the train cabin!  There are scenes in the film worthy of a Hitchcock picture: consider the information drop at the Mosque.  Other scenes noticeably influenced today’s action sequences (lots of boats plus gasoline barrels equals explosions!).  But again, all of the action in this picture is necessary to the storyline: the conflict reaches a point where Bond has to run or fight, and when he does fight it’s pretty damned fun to watch.

Seabiscuit (2003)
Dir: Gary Ross
Stars: Jeff Bridges, Tobey Maguire, Elizabeth Banks, Chris Cooper, Gary Stevens and William H. Macy

So, I was chatting with my pal Ron a couple weeks ago and this film came up in discussion.  There’s a scene in this picture that really hits me every time I think of Seabiscuit, but it comes at the midpoint.  Let me try and update us to the scene in question…  Seabiscuit does a great job of introducing the important characters – and particularly the life-changing events they’ve all encountered by the time Seabiscuit, a three year old racehorse, enters their lives.  Jeff Bridges stars as the owner of the horse, Charles Howard.  He has lost a son and a wife by this point, but his auto sales business has boomed.  We’ve also been introduced to the jockey, Red Pollard as portrayed by Tobey Maguire.  I’m always impressed watching the movie during the scenes in which Pollard makes himself sick in order to make weight for the race, which I suppose is just another element of this sport, but not one which I’d like to experience.  Regardless, the horse trainer, Tom Smith (played by Chris Cooper) has been around horses all his life and makes it very clear when he meets Mr. Howard that he doesn’t believe in throwing something away “just because it’s a little banged up”.  He says this in reference to a horse he saved from being shot through the head, a scene which Mr. Howard witnessed earlier that day.  It’s funny how that line does such a smooth and eloquent job of summarizing the theme of the entire film, particularly considering the film’s setting in the Great Depression.

Anyhow, the scene that I was trying to get to involves the first time Pollard rides Seabiscuit, but specifically in the pitch black of night.  The philosophizing Smith insists that both the horse and the jockey need to get the feel of each other; personally, I think Smith was right based on the scenes in which both Seabiscuit and Pollard endure some pretty awful physical abuse.  Anyhow, Pollard makes clear that he’s skeptical, to be polite, about this idea.  But, Smith talks him into it and Pollard takes off – into utter darkness.

I’ll try and comment more often on the effect of sound in a film, because I think it’s a totally under-rated ingredient in the recipe of movies: this scene does a superb job of using sound to keep us in suspense.  In the first few seconds after Pollard takes off on Seabiscuit, all the information we get is the sound of Pollard breathing and the horse’s galloping around the track.  Then, we hear Pollard cursing and complaining about what a stupid assignment this is, how he can’t see anything, how – Wait a minute… And then the light barely hits the rail of the track. The sounds of the jockey breathing and the horse plowing along can still be heard as the rail becomes more visible.  You can start to make out the track and then the horse and rider come into the picture.  Even Pollard has a line to the effect of, “This is really neat….”  Perhaps I’m over-analyzing it, but I thought this was a really slick scene that genuinely inspires hope in the audience.  The rest of the film is spectacular as well…

You can sometimes find complete copies of scripts on <dailyscript.com> and other online sources, but unfortunately I couldn’t readily find one for Seabiscuit.  I’d be very interested to see if this was a scene intended for the film, or if the filmmakers tried it and it worked?  Regardless, I hope I’ve convinced you to give the film a try!

*** NOTE: If you really liked this film, you may be interested in this October’s upcoming release with Diane Lane, Secretariat.  *** NOTE 2: You’ll notice I put Gary Stevens in the cast listing above: while I’ve been to the Kentucky Derby in the first weekend in May to bet and sip Mint Juleps, I’m not a huge race fan.  I didn’t know, therefore, that Mr. Stevens is a bona fide jockey and that this role was just a side step for him.  Frankly, I thought he did a hell of a job with it! 

Good Morning, Vietnam (1989)
Dir: Barry Levinson
Stars: Robin Williams, Forrest Whitaker, Bruno Kirby and J.T. Walsh

And now for Part 2 of 2 in this entry, Good Morning, Vietnam.  You see, I was chatting with my pal Drew recently, and this film came up in discussion!   Much like Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H, one of the primary elements of Good Morning, Vietnam is its attempts to find humor in a really humorless situation; I think Robin Williams was the perfect choice to explore both worlds of drama and comedy as the lead in this film.  Williams plays Adrian Cronauer, a true life Air Force disc jockey, who spends the movie merely trying to make some soldiers laugh with his radio show, have a little romance with a local girl and most of all, get out of Saigon alive.  He knows he’s not a soldier, and the film doesn’t bore us with a storyline of him trying to become one.  

I think this is actually one of Robin Williams’ better roles because it so evenly divides his time between all out comedy and straight-and-narrow drama.  Perhaps I prefer it when we see both the sad and happy faces of Robin Williams as opposed to just the sad (Insomnia) or happy (Toys, RV, License to Wed, etc.).  In other words, you’re laughing out loud at Cronaeur’s antics on the radio in some of the early Act 2 scenes, but then you’re crying with him at the end when he finds out the truth about one of his newer friends from Saigon.

Let’s come back to Cronauer’s goals of trying to stay alive for a moment.  Standing in his way or surviving Saigon is not only the violence brought to the city by the Viet Cong, but also the hatred of his superior officer, Sgt. Major Dickerson (not making that name up), played by J.T. Walsh.  I remember one of several “chew-out” scenes where Dickerson asks Cronaeur various questions; this time Dickerson abruptly asks, in reference to the insignia on his arm, “Cronaeur, what does three up and three down mean to you?”  Dickerson expects to hear “Sergeant Major”, I’m sure.  Instead, Cronauer deadpans the reply, “The beginning of an end?”  This scene is indeed comedic in nature.  What isn’t so comedic is when Dickerson sends Cronauer on a little trek down a road… 

The movie also boasts some great supporting roles played by Bruno Kirby as an uptight Lieutenant and Forrest Whitaker as Cronauer’s good pal.  If you’ve not seen Good Morning, Vietnam in a while, give it another watch!

The Big Country (1958)
Director: William Wyler
Stars: Gregory Peck, Jean Simmons, Carroll Baker and Charlton Heston

So, I’m enjoying a nice meal on Sunday evening and I decide to start this “four star” behemoth I Tivo’d from TCM… I’m such a sucker for star studded films:  I saw the description detailing a feud between families in the old west, I saw the director (you know I love William Wyler from my Ox-Box entry) and then I saw the cast… “Chuck Heston?  I’m in!!”

Then I got about forty minutes into this soap opera.  This was the part in the movie where Gregory Peck and Chuck Heston FINALLY fight each other.  With their fists in an open field.  And even THIS scene – a FIGHT SCENE, no less – lasted about eighteen minutes!  At one point, they just sat on the ground and huffed, puffed and breathed at each other.  It was then that I realized this wasn’t a “paced” film, as I sometimes say: it was down right slow.  Unfortunately, I have give The Big Country a newfound status on this blog – a “Skip”.  I have about fourteen 1950s films I’d prefer you see rather than this ridiculous three hour epic…  Not to bash it too hard, I’m sure the film was entertaining in its day: but for me, the slow tempo, the overdone acting (outside of Peck) and the stupidity of the two villains makes this a definite “Skip”. 
 
More to come this week – thanks to those who’re posting comments!

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)
Dir: William Wyler     Stars: Henry Fonda, Harry Morgan, Dana Andrews and Anthony Quinn

The International (2009)
Dir: Tom Tykwer     Stars: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts and Bryan F. O’Byrne

Thunderbolt & Lightfoot (1974)
Dir: Michael Cimino     Stars: Clint Eastwood, Jeff Bridges and George Kennedy
 
QUICK NOTE:
As you may have guessed by this point, I tend to watch a lot of movies.  Although I have been on vacation for the first half of this month, I can’t blame my lack of regular updates solely on vacation, can I?  What I discovered is that I’m spending too much damned time on each and every film, to the point I’m really not posting new material all that often!  As I thought more about the regularity with which I’d like to update this blog, I discovered that one of the goals I have for “ronhamprod’s posterous” is for you, the reader, to discover films you’ve never heard of.  My hope is that some of my comments here might convince you to try watching one of the films I cover.  Perhaps you’ll find that some of the movies I discuss here might be a nice changeup from the usual blockbuster you rent at the Redbox kiosk or on Netflix.  I think eight of nine films that I comment here will be available on Netflix for sure, just FYI…

THE OX-BOW INCIDENT
In the spirit of trying to update you on more films more often, let’s start with The Ox-Bow Incident.  I “tivo’ed” this on Turner Classic Movies (See Note 1) last month, and watched it with the parents while they visited earlier in July.  The film stars Henry Fonda as a ranch hand, travelling with his pal played by Harry Morgan (who you might recognize as the big boss on TV’s M*A*S*H).  This William Wyler directed western drama concerns the elements of “mob justice”.  Early in Act One, a citizen rides to town minutes after Fonda & Morgan show up.  The rider tells everyone that one of their fellow citizens has been murdered on his own ranch, shot through the head – and perhaps worse, his herd of cattle is missing!  Well, immediately the townsfolk decide they have a rustler problem and assemble themselves as an armed-to-the-teeth posse.  The key to this small army is that they’re acting without the blessing of the county sheriff, who is unavailable for counsel at the time.  When and why the sheriff shows up is one of many perfectly played notes that Wyler, the conductor, controls throughout the picture.
 
What results is a timeless classic, told in a mere 80 minutes or less.  There are so many cameos and side stories involved in this picture, it’s like you’re eating a piece of layer cake.  For example, Dana Andrews plays one of the suspected “rustlers” in a key supporting role.  Should you have a chance to see the film, you might recognize the photo I’ve attached up top, which for me, was one of the highlights of Ox-Bow.  Let’s just say Fonda reads a letter towards the end of the film to a bar full of the guys that rode in the posse: instead of a tracking shot with all the reactions of the posse, Wyler decided to conceal Fonda’s eyes and part of Morgan’s face while Fonda reads the entire letter.  I thought the execution of this scene was pretty profound.  If you’re in the mood for a western or a “morality tale”, you’d be hard pressed to find a better film than Ox-Bow.
 
THE INTERNATIONAL
I don’t know if you’ll agree with me, but I find some films are worth the price of admission simply for one scene.  In The International, Clive Owen stars as an INTERPOL agent working with a Manhattan Assistant D.A. played by Naomi Watts.  They’re trying to prove that an international bank, IBBC, is responsible for dealing with arms dealers and organized crime to supply the armies of third world countries.  The odd thing that Owen & Watts have found is that IBBC seems to be providing the weapons for free!  Why on earth would they do such a thing?  Because the resulting debt from such conflicts, regardless of the loser, will make this bank stronger than any other competitor.  At least that’s what I think the story was about!!!
 
The International boasted a different storyline than most movie “formulas” in that there was very little background given on our heroes and very little back story.  Within the first five minutes, we’re kind of thrust into this world of intrigue and very serious peril.  While the movie undoubtedly had its weaknesses, I honestly feel it’s worth a viewing for an action scene shot at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. at the end of Act Two.  This scene, involving Owen and the gentleman I credited at the top, Brian F. O’Byrne as a top notch assassin, was truly unique in its action – and most importantly, justified by the intricate storyline.  Check it out!
 
THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT
Please see my review of Inception for a lengthy (I mean lengthy) discussion of how many different elements go into a film: I mention this only because one of the elements – like ingredients in a recipe – is indeed the very title of a film.  Doesn’t Thunderbolt and Lightfoot just generate thought and curiosity when you first hear or read it?   Is this about a Native American hero and his sidekick?  Greek Gods?  Who are these guys for Pete’s sake?
 
Michael Cimino, the director, would sell this script – and the idea of his directing it – to Eastwood and Warner Bros.  Based on the success of this film, he got the go-ahead to direct The Deer Hunter, which I promise you, dear reader, will be a lengthy entry indeed.  Anyhow, with Thuderbolt and Lightfoot, we begin the story with Clint Eastwood dressed up as a preacher and delivering a Sunday sermon.  You read that sentence correctly: Eastwood = preacher.  This can’t be right, can it?  Well, that’s one of the film’s strengths: this film keeps you on your toes from beginning to end.  Characters that we meet along the “journey” of the film’s story are not always what they seem…  So, what’s the film about?  In a word, friendship: Eastwood’s Thunderbolt thought he had it with a bunch of “pals” with whom he used to rob banks.  Instead, through a bizarre set of circumstances, he finds genuine friendship in this drifter named Lightfoot.  In the first scene, one of Eastwood’s old “pals” tries to kill him just as Eastwood the preacher is delivering the Sunday message.  Lightfoot, young and unpredictably played by Jeff Bridges, rescues him.  That Lightfoot saves Thunderbolt by nearly running him over in the Pontiac Grand Am he just stole should tell you something about his character.
 
This film is a real treat for those who love capers and heist films.  There are some truly unique elements that mix crime films, road movies and basic action-adventures.  You even get to see George Kennedy play a real son of a bitch villain – no kidding.  But the scenery of the film, which is necessarily shown due to all the driving these characters do, was also pleasant to watch.  Check this one out for sure…
 
Note 1: Turner Classic Movies is, in my opinion, the best way to watch movies on Cable short of Pay-Per-View or Video on Demand’s free services.  There is no commercial interuption, they show a wide, wide array of films – and that Robert Osbourne knows what he’s talking about!

Nadine (1987)
Dir: Robert Benton
Stars: Jeff Bridges, Kim Basinger, Rip Torn

Here is a fun little romantic comedy.  Concerning movies like Nadine, it’s important to manage your expectations: and this is not to say that Nadine isn’t an entertaining film.  All I’m saying is, has been making very different kinds of movies over the past ten years than Nadine.  I feel they’re either “event” pictures, or they’re really small and goofy and only exist to fill the slate and balance the budget.  Films like Nadine are becoming a rarity: medium sized in budget but still with star power. 
 
In the opening scene, writer-director Robert Benton establishes Austin Texas in 1954.  You have Kim Basinger’s title character trying very hard to get her “artistic” photos back from the town photographer (played by none other than Jerry Stiller).  It seems the photographer promised Nadine that he had a personal relationship with Hugh Hefner and that this could be a great break for her.  Well, Nadine’s changed her mind, and while she waits in his back room for him to find the photos, she hears a ruckus.  Seconds later, Nadine sees the photographer collapse through the room with a knife through his heart. 
 
Now, when our hero takes the file labeled “NADINE” back to the beauty salon where she works, she expects to see some scantily clad photos of herself.  Instead, Nadine finds confidential photos of a State highway plan.  Just when she needs a moment to think, there’s a knock on the salon door – and this is a superb example of “primary frame”.  Nadine goes to the front door and instead of opening it, pulls the roll-up shade, revealing her husband Vernon, played by Jeff Bridges.  If you take a minute to pause the film, you’ll see Bridges’ kind of leaning with his elbow against the door frame, his head cocked, grinning and wincing at the same time… And he’s not afraid to yell through the glass window at his “soon to be ex-wife”.  Think of how much we know about this character just from this first look at him!

What ensues, of course, is a nice little adventure with Nadine and Vernon growing closer together as they run from Rip Torn (the Highway construction/developer) and his thugs close at their heels.  The chemistry between Bridges and the gorgeous Basinger is genuine.  The setting of Austin Texas is fun – particularly if you’ve been there – and supports the unique & zany dialogue unique to the setting.  While others online gave this film a rough review, I think it’s simply charming: as long as you’re not expecting too much!
 
Issues/Observations/Comments – Not Necessarily Positive ***
If you’re going to establish that we’re in Austin Texas in 1954, please don’t allow the Costume Designer (note capitalization!) to dress Basinger in a high school prep-coat with the number “71” very clearly visible on the arm sleeve.
 
Relevant Links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093596/
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870807/REVIEWS/708070301/1023
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nadine/
 
*** All of the issues/observations/comments/complaints in this section come with the understanding that I am aware I surely sound like a jerk in calling them out!  No, I’ve never made a feature film.  Yes, I understand how difficult it is to do so.  No, I don’t think these things ruin the film.  I’m just calling them out, that’s all…

Why I Love Film – Chapter One
*** Burke Commentary ***

On Wednesday night (June 23), I went for a haircut.  Bizarre way to begin a post about why I love film so much, but bear with me.  I went to my neighborhood, economically viable barber shop and stepped inside.  Oddly enough, I had just finished a great discussion over the phone with my Brother regarding some of Coppola’s movies when my name was called and I was shown the chair.  Sitting down I observed my barber.  5’2”, maybe 5’3”, in her fifties, her hair reminded me of some of the late 60’s styles.  She had gold glasses, not too big for her face, a simple dress under her apron and flat shoes for comfort in standing for eight hours, no doubt.  This lady also had a stern look about her, like Grandma used to have when she’d had enough of my shenanigans.  Regardless, I sat down and described the cut I desired, and she started off.  As I looked at her in the mirror, I remembered her cutting my hair a long time ago.  I had started using another barber at the shop, but then she left and now I was apparently back to this lady.  I wondered where she was from?  Since I was in Westwood, a predominantly Persian neighborhood, I guessed she might be –   

“So, how was your day, sir?” she asked.  I’m one of those people who don’t mind being called sir, so I said, “It was pretty good: but we’re rather busy this time of year, so…”  She narrowed her eyes, nodded and said, “Oh? What is it you do?”  As she went through the motions of my trim, I spared her the details but essentially told her I work in advertising on the movie business.  “Movies?” she said, stopping the process of cutting my hair, looking at me squarely in the eye in the mirror.  “Yep,” I nodded, “It’s pretty busy around this time of year, you know, between May and August, and then the holiday season…”

My barber nodded to herself and thoughtfully went on trimming.  “Have you seen any movies lately, yourself?” I asked her.  “No,” she frowned and shook her head slightly.  “So you don’t go to the movies regularly, huh?” I continued, trying to use this haircut as an opportunity to conduct a one-on-one focus group (I’m such a company man!).  “Oh, no,” my barber replied, shaking her head more vigorously.  “Well, what about at home?  You prefer TV when you watch at home?” I continued.  “Yes…” thought my barber for a minute, “I saw The Fugitive on television lately.”  And she went on cutting my hair.

Well, I’m the one that stopped in my tracks and said, “Aw! That’s a great film!  Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones… plenty of action!”  My barber stopped once again and looked at me in the mirror and said, “You know this film?”  “Absolutely!” I exploded, “That’s a quality film.  Isn’t that a great scene when they’re in the tunnel, and Tommy Lee Jones drops his gun, Ford picks it up and says ‘I didn’t kill my wife’ and Jones says ‘I don’t care!’  So good!”  Incidentally, I put up my own hands slightly as I said this, just enough to throw the dead hair off of my poncho onto the floor in the process of quoting the movie.  Anyhow, the little barber stared at me in the mirror for a couple seconds. “When did you see this movie?” she asked.  “Oh, a while back, but I remember it pretty well.”  She continued trimming and said, “Yes, I suppose for your job…”  

We continued our exploration of why The Fugitive is such a great film, the highlight of which was her clarification on Tommy Lee Jones’ name.  “How you say that man… (waving the shears in her hand) the one who tells Harrison in the end that he cares?  Tomley June?”  I helped her pronunciate Jones’ name correctly, and then we moved on.  She contradicted herself by admitting that she had gone to the theater to see April’s release of Death at a Funeral, which is a Chris Rock film and a remake of a British film from a few years back.  Her major complaint with that film wasn’t anything related to the movie itself, it was how far she had to walk from the parking lot to the theater!  On a more general note, I was able to identify the reason she disliked most American movies was the copious amounts of sex, drugs and violence.  

We then progressed to foreign films when she asked if I only watched movies from “this country”.  I started rattling off some of my favorites from France and other places and then she interrupted with, “Do you watch any India films?”  Again, I nodded vigorously in the mirror and said, “I love Bollywood movies!  They’re always breaking into song and then cutting to a chase scene and then a love scene after that… they’re crazy!”  Well, Ester – we were on a first name basis by this point – started to describe this Bollywood film that must have been based on King Lear, because it was all about a gardener and his crazy family and how he adopted a street urchin and started to raise him, etc, etc…  It turns out Ester is a Persian exile who lived in Pakistan after the fall of the Shah in the late 1970s.  She told me this as the conversation went from our mutual interest in Bollywood to how close India is to Pakistan, further to how she lived there for a while and perhaps she’ll tell me her story some time and “you can make millions!”

I’m skipping the details on the Bollywood portion so I can (finally) get to my point here: movies have this tremendous capacity to connect people.  I think you could tell from the beginning of the story that I didn’t expect anything more out of my haircut than shorter, better looking hair.  However, as soon as Ester navigated the discussion to movies, suddenly we had all kinds of things in common – her, a Persian exile having lived through God knows what, and me, a little film buff who grew up comfortably in Cincinnati, OH.

Lots of film industry folks, from actors to producers, from critics to bloggers, talk about how they’re in love with the “Magic” of movies.  Sometimes, I think it’s natural to feel like that magic might be gone.  I can see how some folks get disillusioned with bad movies (particularly if they see several in a row), DVDs that now include the “here’s how we did it” features and to a certain extent, the greed of film makers (“She made how much?  For that drivel???”).  But it’s discussions like I had with Ester – a nice, Persian lady in her 50s who cuts hair – which I find truly magical.  Consider, Ester stopped me as I left to give me a note with the name of the Bollywood movie “The Gardener” – in English and in Farsi.

Stand by Me (1986)
*** Burke Favorite ***

Dir: Rob Reiner
Stars: Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, Jerry O’Connell and Kiefer Sutherland

There are coming of age stories told on film that I love, but I think I identify with Stand by Me in particular because it was the first rated R movie I saw.  And, I was about the age of the primary characters when I saw it.  As if that’s not enough, there’s the added detail that my Mom didn’t want me to see it.  Game on!  Seeing rated R movies as I was growing up was a source of friction between Mom and I.  We had compromised with Bond films – those were always good for a go-ahead from Mom.  But, I wanted to start seeing rated R movies as soon as I knew what they were!  My obsession was such that I even resorted to bribery.  Once, as we shopped in Home Video Library, (this was the first of several home video shops that we would rent these amazing devices called VHS tapes as I grew up), I distinctly remember offering my Mom $50 of my own money to watch Beverly Hills Cop.  I believe her answer was something to the effect of a sigh, then a slight shake of the head followed by, “Absolutely not.”  So, when I was in the sixth grade, my pals and I gathered in Chris Fry’s basement during a sleepover and inserted the amazing VHS tape labeled “Stand by Me” into this magical device called a VCR.  As the movie started, I was filled with excitement.  My experience with watching this film surely doesn’t compare to trekking to see a dead body, as the fellas in the film do, but…  

Enough of my reminiscing, what is this movie about?  It’s about growing into yourself, that’s for sure.  You might even surmise that the theme in Stand by Me is something to the effect of, “To live a long, happy life, you must know when to rely on yourself and when to ask for help.”  This particular story concerns a group of four pals, all about twelve years old, living in a small Oregon town in 1959.  They are the classic movie foursome, aren’t they?   You’ve got the brain, the smart guy, the introspective one in Gordy (Wil Wheaton), who just lost his older brother, poor kid.  [Not to get off topic, but his older brother is played by John Cusack in a definitive example of “supporting role”.]  There’s a fat kid in the group, the Jerry Lewis, the court jester in Verne (Jerry O’Connell, who’s now married to Rebecca Romijn – just sayin’).  Then there’s the wild card, the nut ball, the guy that you never know what he’s going to do, Teddy (Corey Feldman).  This piece of work is a product of his “loony” Father, who nearly burned Teddy’s ear off on the kitchen stove.  And of course, there’s the A-Dog, the leader of the bunch, Chris Chambers (River Phoenix).

The catalyst to the story is Verne’s huge news: in looking for a jar of lost pennies that he buried under his front porch, he overhears his older brother and an associate of his discussing the location of Ray Brower, a kid that’s been missing and feared dead for the past several days.  Now that the group knows the location of the body, this fearsome foursome decides to go find it, bring it to the cops and “get [their] pictures in the papers!”.  Then, they slip each other some skin: if you don’t know what that is, watch the movie. 

As mentioned, each of the foursome has their life challenges, if you will.  The story is composed of their interaction with each other on opposite sides of a coin: there’s a “fun and games” level and a “growing up” side.  A perfect example of this coin is in the junkyard scene.  The fun portion of the scene is when the legend of the junkyard dog, “Chopper”, who is supposedly trained to “sick balls”, is revealed as a nice little Golden Retriever mix.   The “coming of age” side is a little harder to watch, as the junkyard owner makes fun of Teddy’s crazy dad.  Despite the fact that Teddy’s dad clearly likes to beat on him, Teddy goes absolutely berserk and tries to attack the junkyard owner: his friends have to pull him away, cussing and crying.

There are a couple of other key scenes that I want to touch on, beginning with the Lardo story.  After their first day of hiking, the fearsome foursome sit around the campfire and smoke cigarettes and beg Gordy to tell them one of his stories.  What results is, in my opinion, an incredibly challenging scene to pull off:  the movie takes a complete pause to tell this little five minute story that Gordy has thought up about a bullied fat boy named Lardo and how he exacts his revenge on his town at the annual pie eating contest.  It’s a testament to Rob Reiner’s direction that he can literally stop the action of the story (the search for the dead body) with a gross-out story told around a campfire and yet, use it to demonstrate the strengths of his main character, Gordy.

The other scene I wanted to comment on is early in the film, before the boys leave town.  Gordy, wearing his Yankee cap, is walking with Chris to go meet the other fellas.  On the way, they run into Ace, the town bully and leader of the “Cobras”.  In another textbook example of “supporting character”, a blonde haired Kiefer Sutherland really drives you to despise Ace.  In this first of Ace’s scenes, he takes Gordy’s Yankee cap – which was a gift from his deceased older brother – just to be a shit about it.  When Chris steps up for Gordy, calling him a dirty word, Ace insists Chris take it back.  Chris refuses, so Ace nearly puts one of his eyes out with a lit cigarette.  Examples of Ace’s maniacal behavior are evident throughout the film, which makes the final confrontation between him and the group one of the most satisfying climaxes…  However, this climax or “payoff” would be a half-cocked, trite exercise without the “plant” of Ace snagging the Yankee cap. 

There are so many other parts of the film I like, but I’ve already written the shit out of this one: in closing, I just want to advise any female readers, that this is definitely a male dominated tale.  You may wish to substitute a review of Beaches or Fried Green Tomatoes for this particular title?