Ronhamprod

Thunderheart (1992)
Dir: Michael Apted
Stars: Val Kilmer, Sam Shephard, Graham Greene & Ted Thin Elk

Links: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105585/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thunderheart/
 
You’ll hear me refer to some movies as “medium sized” a lot: Thunderheart is a perfect example of a “medium sized” film.  So, what exactly makes a film “medium sized” you ask?
1)   Release Date: The film was released Apr 3, 1992.  It wasn’t between May and early August and it wasn’t between early November and Christmas week.  Therefore, it’s a medium sized movie because it was providing “filler” to the slate between the Summer and Holiday blockbuster seasons. 
2)   Medium Star Power: Thunderheart had an “up and comer” (at the time) in Val Kilmer, fresh off his portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors.  The production had a veteran in Sam Shephard (reliable as phases of the moon) and genuine Native Americans for the roles in Graham Greene (Dances with Wolves) and Ted Thin Elk.  Not only did Mr. Thin Elk have an ultra-awesome name, he was a real tribal leader!  Anyhow, while Kilmer was no doubt recognizable to audiences, I can see where the remaining cast wasn’t necessarily top of mind; this element again supports Thunderheart as a medium sized production.
3)    A Studio Produced, Albeit Not a “Big 6” Studio: There are six major film studios, in no particular order, of course – Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Sony Pictures (formerly Columbia: Tri-Star was part of this company, too), 20th Century Fox, and Walt Disney.  While MGM used to be a major player, it’s now medium sized.  Tri-Star, the production company behind Thunderheart, was a medium-sized player before it dissolved and its staff became part of Columbia, which became part of Sony Pictures.  Tri-Star’s equivalent today would be Lionsgate (they’re behind many horror movies like the Saw series and super-action films like Crank) and Summit Entertainment (they picked up Twilight and became medium sized overnight).  These medium sized studios are bigger than “boutique” or independent studios (like Fox Searchlight, Focus Features and others).  I digress: the point is that even the studio behind this film wasn’t massive.  But I did note ol’ Bob DeNiro’s production credit (his Tribeca Films co-produced).
4)   The Story Is Entertaining – And Manageable!: I adore “medium sized” movies because they don’t try and hit a home run, they just hit a nice single or double into the outfield.  Thunderheart had an exotic location in South Dakota – granted, maybe not top of mind as a vacation destination, but exotic nonetheless.  Chances are, most of the audience hadn’t been where we’re going, which is always a plus.  The story is to a certain extent, a typical “whydunnit” murder tale: or is it?  There’s a lot going on with Kilmer’s character being born a quarter Sioux, and his ongoing struggle to confirm or deny who he is.  Some of the best scenes are shared with Kilmer and Mr. Thin Elk.  Whether the scene was set in the old Chief’s trailer home or around the campfire, Thin Elk’s dictation of the visions he has had of Kilmer’s FBI Agent are downright creepy, particularly as Graham Greene’s character translates.  Once again, this isn’t a story with all kinds of special effects and explosions – it succeeds in its intent of simply getting on second.

FINAL THOUGHT: I just want to be sure and mention that the director of this picture, Michael Apted, is a certified BAD ASS.  If you look at the imdb.com link above and click on him, you’ll see the body of work he’s done, which includes a fascinating documentary series in which every ten years, he’s interviewed the same nine British residents for the past forty years or so!  He also directed several episodes of HBO’s incredible series Rome, which I dearly miss.

*** Burke Favorite Scene *** 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPqYnC-SW5w

Quick Clarification
I know the AFI (American Film Institute) has done a top 100 lines of dialogue list… Entertainment Weekly recently did a top 100 characters of the last 20 years (which is “ree-DONK-u-luss” just by the way)… But I’m going to spare you the “Burke Marksity Top 50 Film Babes of ALL TIME” list, or my top film flubs and the like.  I mean, who really cares?  Your list would differ from mine, which would differ from my Brother’s, etc…  Instead of these lists, every now and again when I happen to see these favorite scenes of mine on Cable, during a viewing or elsewhere, I’ll try and link them and give you my take.
 
It might help to watch the clip before you read the following…  Regardless, this classic scene (again, my blog, my opinion) is from A League of Their Own, in which Tom Hanks plays a reluctant baseball manager named Jimmy Dugan.  He’s been hired to manage an all-Ladies baseball team that’s part of a WWII all-Ladies league.  While the movie is very entertaining, I think of this scene first and foremost when I think of the film.  Though this clip is less than two minutes in length, it demonstrates so much of Hanks’ character: he is extremely aggravated to be in this position, to have to manage an (gasp!) all-Ladies team?  Think of it!  He’s incessantly hung over, his five o’clock shadow is visible at 11am and his constant spitting kind of demonstrates his disposition towards his job.  

I love how he brings Evelyn over to him with a “Hey, can I talk to you a minute, got a sec?”, which kind of puts her at ease before he completely tears her apart.  As a result of Jimmy’s tirade, Evelyn starts crying in front of the whole team and everyone in the stands.  I love how Jimmy pauses, looks at her, and then asks her, “Are you crying?”.  It’s hilarious to me just how incredulous he is that she’s crying.  Dugan just cannot believe it.  Hanks’ even gives her the worst example he can think of, when a manager called him a pile of pig shit in front of his parents – and STILL he didn’t cry!  You know why?  “Cause there’s no crying in baseball!”

Then, to top it all off, we have the soft spoken Umpire approach Jimmy and ask if everything’s all right.  Jimmy tells him matter-of-factly, “She’s crying, sir!”.  As if the Umpire will completely understand.  Instead, the Ump says perhaps Jimmy “chastised her too vehemently”.  As if having a hangover and an all-Ladies team to manage weren’t enough, now Jimmy’s got this guy telling him how to run his team?  Well, Jimmy can’t help but give the Umpire his opinion as to the Umpire ‘s appearance…  I hope you agree this is indeed a great scene!

*** Burke Commentary ***

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i4811cd742d860d93d101a0eb6ca4b9cb?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thr/film+(The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Film)

To me, the long and short of this article above is that the sequels and “re-imaginings” that studios have put in theaters this year have under-performed.  That’s all there is to it.  I can’t imagine that the public at large is “sick of sequels” as this article suggests.  I think that the public at large is sick of these sequels, though.  Let’s consider the major films released in the last month, the first of the big summer season (May-Aug), and see what we think: is “Sequelitis” an industry problem?

Shrek Forever After?  I know Shrek the Third was an immense success, which these days guarantees a sequel.  My question is how can the Greed portion of the following equation [Greed + Fear = Hollywood] really call Shrek Forever After a disappointment?  Per <the-numbers.com>, Shrek 4 has already made $210 Million.  Has opening weekend really become that essential?  Will I be able to complete this entry with only questions?

Now, Robin Hood, this is potentially more so what the studio execs are concerned about: here’s what looks on paper to be an automatic cash cow.  After all, with the exception of the wine country movie, the following equation usually holds true – [Russell Crowe + Ridley Scott = Mucho Cash Money].  Robin Hood is a quality character: particularly in today’s economic waters, you’d think the old story of robbing from the rich and distributing amongst the poor would work, right?  And from the trailer, the picture looks action packed… so, what happened?  OK, we’ll count this as a case of Sequelitis (see footnote 1).

I think we can count Sex & the City 2 as case number two of Sequelitis: consider the first one made over $70mm in its first weekend.  Again, guaranteed sequel.  What I think the studio potentially missed on was the changed economic environment: these four spoiled chicks were fun in the summer of ’08 (see footnote 2), but today, they look kind of obnoxious.

Finally, we count MacGruber as a third case of Sequelitis.  A Saturday Night Live skit typically works as a skit, not a full length film (See Footnote 3).  I’m not sure what research went into the green-lighting of this film, but its unfortunate opening is indicative of the moviegoing audience saving its piggy bank money for Toy Story 3 or the latest Twilight or another guaranteed hit that their friends will be talking about.  

Footnote 1: Sequelitis can be anxiety and apprehension experienced while viewing a sequel or a re-make/re-imagining of a TV Series or previously made film.
 
Footnote 2: In the end, I think sequels and re-imaginings are fun for audiences and money-makers for the studios.  At least generally, everybody should win.  However, the sense of frustration the studios are feeling this summer is directly related to the seasonality of their slates.  As I said before, I think audiences are sick of these sequels.
 
Consider that in 2008, audiences had nearly exactly the same choices:
 
 
May 2, 2008 – Iron Man                                                               May 7, 2010 – Iron Man 2
May 9, 2008 – Speed Racer                                                          May 14, 2010 – Robin Hood
                                                                                                            May 21, 2010 – MacGruber
May 16, 2008 – Chronicles of Narnia 2                                        May 21, 2010 – Shrek Forever After
May 30, 2008 – Sex & the City                                                     May 28, 2010 – Sex & the City 2
               
 
Is comparing Speed Racer with Robin Hood & MacGruber a stretch?  Perhaps.  All I know is that all three of these films under-performed dramatically and all three were supposed to be spectacular. 

Footnote 3: For me, MacGruber should be tossed in the same bucket as Step Brothers.  These two films are prime examples of knowing what your material is and not trying to turn it into something it’s not.  For me, MacGruber is an ideal SNL skit: short, to the point and you’re on to the next skit.  Similarly, Step Brothers would have made an ideal web-short series.  In fact, it might still be going on if it was a web-short series!  But instead, they tried to take these two absolutely idiotic characters and give them a sit-com style lesson at the end of the film.  Did not work.  I can only imagine MacGruber did something similar with its storyline, but regrettably, can’t confirm this as I’ve not seen it!

Unforgiven (1992)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Stars: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris
 
*** Burke Favorite ***

Even if the Western isn’t your preferred genre, I can’t recommend this Clint Eastwood starring & directing classic enough.  If you’re in the mood for a thought provoking and challenging editorial on violence – entertaining though it may be – you’d be hard pressed to find a better title than Unforgiven.  From the truthful acting to the convincing cinematography, the efficient yet eloquent writing to the subtle music, this is a film that is “firing on all cylinders”.  It uses all of the collaborative arts that comprise a film and maximizes them all to tell an involving story.   
 
The tale concerns a group of hookers living in Big Whisky, Wyoming.  In the second scene of the film, one of the hooker’s customers cuts her face with a burly knife because she “gave a giggle” at the sight of his private parts.  Unfortunately for the hookers, the town sheriff, Little Bill Daggert (Gene Hackman), doesn’t really take their side in the matter.  In fact, he sees them as “property”, just as their pimp Skinny does.  Skinny describes in gross detail how he has a signed contract between himself and Delilah Fitzgerald, the victim, who he brought all the way out to Big Whisky from Boston.  And now, well, she’s damaged property!  So, in lieu of a hanging or at least a whipping (with a bull whip mind you), Little Bill decides the best retribution would be for the cowboys to bring a collection of six horses to Skinny for the trouble.  He makes no mention of any retribution for Delilah, however.  Uh oh.
 
 As in all classic films, the question of this film is very simple: will the hookers tolerate this kind of violence and subsequent injustice?  As Strawberry Alice, the “A Dog” of the hookers so eloquently puts it, “They may ride us like horses, but they sure as hell can’t brand us like horses!”  Now, to me, that’s a great question for a film: never mind your own ethics or levels of morality regarding the “oldest profession”.  To Strawberry Alice and the girls, they have a line they won’t cross.  By God, they’ll get retribution for this obscene violence done against them all.  So, they combine their earnings from the “billiards” as they call their relations with men, and put out a bounty of $1,000 to have the cowboys who cut their friend, well, killed. 
 
And if there was any doubt whatsoever that these ladies could be bargained with, let me mention the scene in which the cowboys bring the horses for Skinny.  The nicer of the two cowboys – the one who didn’t even lay a hand on Delilah, by the way – brings her a pony of her very own.  She can do what she pleases with it.  Well, Strawberry Alice and the gals let that option sink in for about six seconds before Alice responds with, “She ain’t got no face left and you bring her a goddam pony?!?!”  Then, the gals literally throw feces and mud and whatever else is in the street of Big Whisky at the poor bastard until he’s run out of town!  These hookers want the cowboys dead.
 
The remainder of the movie concerns Clint Eastwood’s character, William Munny, his old partner Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) and a young gunfighter named the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) as they travel to Big Whisky and attempt to collect on the bounty by, well, killing the cowboys.  While these three characters are fascinating in their own right, I was struck by something else in my latest viewing.
This time around, I couldn’t help but pay close attention to how the film focuses on how stories would grow into legends in the old west.  As you watch Unforgiven, you’ll catch yourself saying, “Hey!  What he just said about the cowboys that assaulted the prostitute isn’t close to true!”  Was the poor woman’s face severely scarred?  Yes, indeed.  However, as Munny and his little gang continue to justify their hunt for the cowboys, you’ll note that the reported violence done to Delilah grows exponentially in its exaggeration.
 
In fact, one of the best scenes of the movie for me was between Hackman’s Little Bill and a biographer named W.W. Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek).  Please bear with me as I do my best to set this scene up: Beauchamp accompanies an “assassin” named English Bob (Richard Harris) into Big Whisky.  English Bob planned to cash in on the hookers’ bounty, but unfortunately for Bob, Little Bill catches him violating a county code.  Signs on the way to town detail that no firearms are to be carried in Big Whisky.  Anyone carrying has to surrender said weaponry to the proper authority for the duration of their stay.  Well, English Bob had a peacemaker and a cute little .32 as well and refused to give them over to Little Bill’s deputy (not knowing that Little Bill was the town sheriff).  For this violation, Little Bill kicks the living hell out of English Bob in front of the entire Big Whisky population.  This scene is one of several terribly violent episodes in the film.
 
That evening, Little Bill sits in his jailhouse with English Bob safely behind bars and chats with Bob’s biographer, W.W. Beauchamp.  Little Bill’s goal is to help Beauchamp with the accuracy of some of the stories Bob has told him.  One in particular is about a shooting in a bar many years ago.  English Bob’s version of the story to Beauchamp was so courageous and admirable in its nature that it was worthy of a being published in its own magazine entitled, “The Duke of Death”.  To hear Little Bill tell the story – as an eyewitness to the shooting in the bar, no less – English Bob sounds little more than a cold blooded killer than any kind of killer.  After you finish the film, did you kind of have the same feeling towards Eastwood’s little gang? 
 
For those of you who’ve seen Unforgiven, I’m sure you’re wondering when I’m going to get to the Clint Eastwood parts: after all, William Munny is a layered character capable of fueling a two page piece of his own.  But the fact is, I’m not going to comment on Munny.  Go and watch the movie again!  His scenes are equally impeccable, but this is my blog and I’m just trying to react to the film as I saw it this time.

Welcome to my little space on the web.  I hope that this blog will be a source for my family, friends and anyone with an interest in film!
 
I have a supreme interest in all things related to movies: I’m not embarrassed to say that I watch several a week, religiously.  My little L.A. apartment is chock full of movie posters and even the little postcards you buy in Hollywood souvenir stores.  Here, you’ll be able to see random reviews I write, commentaries on my favorite films, quick posts of my favorite scenes and even my take on special film events and industry trends.
 
I hope you have fun reviewing my posts, and welcome any comments, questions or follow up requests.   Thanks for checking out <ronhamprod.com>!