2023 - June
Prizzi's Honor (1985) 4/4
The Spanish Prisoner (1997) 4/4
Time After Time (1979) 4/4
The Bad Sleep Well (1960) 3.5/4
Stakeout (1987) 3/4
Another Stakeout (1993) 3/4
Split Second (1992) 3/4
Needful Things (1993) 2.5/4
Blood and Wine (1996) 2.5/4
Ice Station Zebra (1968) 2.5/4
My Fellow Americans (1996) 2.5/4
The Butterfly Effect (2004) 2/4
Pete 'n' Tillie (1972) 2/4
Diabolique (1996) 2/4
Masquerade (1988) 2/4
The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006) 2/4
Past Midnight (1991) 2/4
The Dark Half (1993) 1.5/4
Tango & Cash (1989) 1.5/4
Legal Eagles (1986) 1.5/4
Town & Country (2001) 1/4
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009) 1/4
The Fortune (1975) 0.5/4
The Spanish Prisoner (1997) 4/4
Time After Time (1979) 4/4
The Bad Sleep Well (1960) 3.5/4
Stakeout (1987) 3/4
Another Stakeout (1993) 3/4
Split Second (1992) 3/4
Needful Things (1993) 2.5/4
Blood and Wine (1996) 2.5/4
Ice Station Zebra (1968) 2.5/4
My Fellow Americans (1996) 2.5/4
The Butterfly Effect (2004) 2/4
Pete 'n' Tillie (1972) 2/4
Diabolique (1996) 2/4
Masquerade (1988) 2/4
The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006) 2/4
Past Midnight (1991) 2/4
The Dark Half (1993) 1.5/4
Tango & Cash (1989) 1.5/4
Legal Eagles (1986) 1.5/4
Town & Country (2001) 1/4
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009) 1/4
The Fortune (1975) 0.5/4
List activity
51 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
26 titles
- DirectorDavid MametStarsSteve MartinBen GazzaraCampbell ScottAn employee who develops a lucrative secret process for his corporation is tempted to betray the company when higher ups attempt to take the process from him. Dastardly intrigue ensues.03-06-2023
Here is David Mamet at his most Mametian giving us a film so twisty that it subverts its own style and genre, a script in which every dialogue scene is written like a verbal fencing match, and a comedy so cagey that you don't even realize it's meant to be funny until the final joke lands. It's a movie about a con but the con is not played on or by its characters, it's played by Mamet on the unsuspecting audience. "The Spanish Prisoner" is like the culmination of Mamet's great caper experiment - the true north that he's been heading towards since "House of Games". It feels like the continuation of the anxieties presented in "Glengarry Glen Ross" and the natural conclusion to the simmering intensity of "American Buffalo".
I can only reveal the slimmest outline of the plot because to say more would be a disservice to a potential viewer. The film revolves around an unnamed company bound by paranoia. Their windowless, bunker-like offices are adorned by terrifying posters with messages like "Someone Talked" and "Loose Lips Sink Ships". They are in the final stages of developing an unexplained process - the film's McGuffin which will bring its owners millions upon millions of dollars.
The man who developed the process is our protagonist Joe Ross (Campbell Scott), the poster boy of straight-laciness with his white shirts and wire-frame glasses. He even carries around his boy scout knife which proudly proclaims "Be prepared". But is he?
On a company trip to the Caribbean, he meets Jimmy Dell (Steve Martin), a swanky, cocksure playboy who runs into Ross while getting off his private seaplane with a princess hanging off his arm. Or is he?
Jimmy takes a liking to Joe - the naive, good-spirited working man and offers to introduce him to his sister. Joe, a man who wants to be in line for higher things, happily accepts.
What happens next resembles a fish getting ensnared in a tightly wound web. Jimmy takes Joe to glamorous restaurants, gets him a membership at an exclusive club, and opens a Swiss bank account for him. But to what aim? Is he after the process?
David Mamet smartly knows that every member of the audience will know the answer to this question from the get-go. So, he plays with our expectations. Most thrillers try to be as realistic as possible - grounding their outlandish plots into a world that is supposed to feel as real as ours. Mamet does the opposite. "The Spanish Prisoner" feels artificial right from the beginning. Its Caribbean locations are shot in such a way that they resemble cheap theatre sets. Meanwhile, the actors deliver their lines in intentionally melodic rhythms which sound more like music than realistic speech patterns.
Because everyone and everything looks and feels fake there's no way for the audience to intuit who is in on the con. Mamet wrongfoots us every step of the way. He makes every single person on screen look suspicious. So much so that I was scanning the extras for signs of deception. Hell, I was sure I saw some too...
The cast, comprised mostly of Mamet regulars with some fresh faces, gamely plays along. He casts Steve Martin, best known as a comedian, in a role meant to be sinister and suspicious. He casts Ben Gazzara, best known for playing tough guys and gangsters, as Ross' grandfatherly boss. He casts magician and con artist Ricky Jay as the only guy who seems remotely trustworthy. What is going on? Who's who? Mamet makes sure you can't figure out the plot by analyzing the cast.
The best performance comes from Rebecca Pidgeon who is effortlessly attuned to Mametspeak. In his films, she isn't an actress but a perfectly tuned first violin setting the intonation for the rest of the orchestra. Anyone who complains that she is unnatural or phoney in this film has completely missed the point not just of her character but also of her performance. Mamet intentionally writes her as the most likeable, sweet-natured girl in the world. He then has Pidgeon play her as if she's the least trustworthy and most obviously deceptive girl in the world. Which is she? Mamet makes sure you can't intuit it by watching her performance.
The dialogue sounds like music. Every scene is a perfectly scored movement in a symphony of lies. The lines are so beautifully shaped, so rhythmic, and so eminently quotable that they can't be anything but fake. "The Spanish Prisoner" is one of Mamet's best-written pieces and that is saying a lot. Just listening to it is a pleasure.
Speaking of listening, the film is scored by Carter Burwell, one of the most undervalued film composers of all time. His score matches the beauty of Mamet's dialogue. It is exciting, enticing, labyrinthine, and mysterious.
Even to say what genre "The Spanish Prisoner" is would be a bit of a spoiler but I'll try to explain it without revealing too much of Mamet's genius. It quacks and walks like a thriller but it is actually a riotously funny farce, a labyrinthine comedy of errors in which every twist, every reveal is a joke on the audience which has come in expecting a traditional thriller.
The final twist in "The Spanish Prisoner" had me laughing out loud with tears in my eyes. It is a masterstroke by a brilliant writer, the best punchline I've ever seen delivered by a master comedian who has spent 100 minutes setting it up domino by domino.
And at the heart of it all is Campbell Scott's Joe Ross, a man so naive, so obliviously dumb that he seems to miss even the obvious. Watching the plot play out through his eyes makes us feel smart. It lulls us into a false sense of security by making us think we're ahead of the plot. We're not. Mamet is always ahead of us waiting for the right time to drop each of his twists and he always does so with the timing and delivery worthy of Richard Pryor.
4/4 - DirectorAkira KurosawaStarsToshirô MifuneMasayuki MoriKyôko KagawaA vengeful young man marries the daughter of a corrupt industrialist in order to seek justice for his father's suicide.03-06-2023
Alfred Hitchcock is usually called the master of suspense but a convincing case can be made that Akira Kurosawa deserves that moniker as well. Just look at how much tension he wrings out of a simple wedding cerenomy which comprises the elaborate opening sequence of "The Bad Sleep Well", another film in which Kurosawa proves that the topic of social inequality can be turned into a devilishly entertaining thriller.
The wedding is between Yoshiko (Kyoko Kagawa), the lame daughter of the vice president of the Public Development Corporation and the vice president's private secretary Nishi (Toshiro Mifuno). At first, the ceremony appears to be proceeding smoothly - the ideal mixture of swanky Western values and Japanese traditions. And yet, a dark cloud hangs over the wedding party as personified by an army of journalists fighting to get in. The Corporation is being investigated for corruption by the public prosecutor and arrests are going to be made imminently. Indeed, Wada (Kamatari Fujiwara), one of the businessmen and the master of ceremonies is arrested right before the toasts but another employee of the Corporation replaces him gamely.
The charade of the happy wedding continues with speeches and laughter, until the wedding cake rolls in. Made up in the shape of the Corporation's HQ it has a black rose stuck in one of the seventh story windows. That window is the place from which an employee comitted suicide some five years later. The message is received loud and clear as Vice President Iwabuchi (Masayuki Mori) and his henchmen exchange nervous looks. Somebody knows that the man's suicide wasn't as straightforward as they claimed.
Indeed, there is a mole in the Corporation and that mole is the lucky groom himself. Mr Koichi Nishi is actually the dead employee's son who has tirelessly worked his way up from nothing to become the Vice President's son-in-law. Now that he has wormed his way into the Corporation's inner circle he can begin his devious vengeance. If the bad indeed do sleep well, Nishi is here to make sure they receive a rude awakening!
"The Bad Sleep Well" is a disturbing exposee of the mechanisms of corruption and a stark portrayal of the working man's inability to stop it. But Kurosawa, a real master of the cinema, turns what could have been a portentous and heavy-handed screenplay into a devilishly entertaining movie, full of humour and twists, which kept me on the edge of my seat for its weighty 150 minute runtime.
The screenplay, credited to five writers among whom the most famous name is that of Shinobu Hashimoto, is not one of Kurosawa's finest. Sure, the plot moves along at a brisk pace and Nishi's vengeance is twisty and clever, but the characters are never fully fleshed out and remain nothing more than symbols and stereotypes - strawmen to prove Kurosawa's point.
What lifts the film, however, is Kurosawa's taut, artful direction so full of suspense, style, and palpable tension that it rivals Hitchcock at his best. Look at the wonderfully melodramatic scene, for instance, in which an employee of the Corporation tries to commit suicide by jumping into an active volcano. Or a superb sequence in which a guilt-ridden conspirator sees his victim's ghost on an empty road in the middle of the night.
The film is also full of humour as Nishi meticulously does away with his obnoxious enemies. In a very funny scene he hides stolen money into a briefcase owned by one of them. When the man finds the incriminating yen, he is so dumbstruck that he can't even form a sentence. All the way through, Nishi's devious plan is underscored with a joyful children's ditty which makes these serious, evil men look like the petulant, greedy kids that they are.
Speaking of music, the film features a superb, thundering, pulsating, pounding, exciting score by Masaru Sato making the already suspensful film feel urgent and alive.
"The Bad Sleep Well" is not as fleshed out or as human as Kurosawa's finest films but it proves once again what a master of the medium he was. This is a superbly put together thriller. Entertaining, suspensful, atmospheric, and smart, it is able to entertain and terrify in equal measure.
I found its anticlimactic ending somewhat disappointing but the bitter taste it left in my mouth lingered for much longer than any left by far better endings in far more conventional thrillers.
3.5/4 - DirectorHarry LachmanStarsSidney TolerArleen WhelanRichard DerrCharlie Chan investigates apparent poisonings at a mystery mansion in the Mojave Desert.07-06-2023
ALL CHARLIE CHAN REVIEWS HERE:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls539978222/ - DirectorIvan ReitmanStarsRobert RedfordDebra WingerDaryl HannahA New York district attorney works and flirts with his adversary and her kooky artist client, who is on trial for a murder she didn't commit.08-06-2023
Released between "Jagged Edge" and "Suspect", "Legal Eagles" was another one of those 80s courtroom dramas that mixed overcooked romance plots with a neo-noirish thriller story so convoluted that Raymond Chandler would ask for a rewrite. Directed by Ivan Reitman, "Legal Eagles" marketed itself as a comedy but, truth be told, it has no idea what it is. Much like "The January Man", another 1980s wannabe thriller/comedy it mixes all kinds of tones, styles, and plots into an unholy concoction that neither excites nor amuses.
The film's ludicrous plot begins when Chelsea Deardon (Daryl Hannah), a vampish performance artist, is accused of trying to steal a painting by her late father which is now owned by Victor Taft (Terence Stamp), a gallery owner so sinister and over-the-top that he might as well have the word villain painted on his high forehead.
Chelsea's defence attorney Laura Kelly (Debra Winger), however, argues so convincingly that the painting should rightfully belong to her client that prosecutor Tom Logan (Robert Redford) agrees to look into the case.
Mysteriously, just as Laura and Tom begin investigating Taft's shady business dealings, the case is dropped. Unwilling to accept such a simple victory, Laura keeps digging and uncovers evidence that Chelsea's father might have been killed by Taft.
After close to an hour of the film has gone by, the expected happens. Taft is found murdered and Chelsea is arrested as the prime suspect. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that Chelsea was arrested in Tom's bed! Following their steamy one-night stand, Tom is fired from the DA's office and Laura invites him to join Chelsea's defence team.
"Legal Eagles" is such a ludicrously inaccurate courtroom thriller that it would be a fool's errand to list all of the things it gets blatantly wrong. Let me, however, just give you a few of the most obvious examples. For instance, it is absolutely ludicrous that Tom, after having a much-publicised affair with Chelsea, would be allowed to defend her in a court of law. It is equally ludicrous that the trial for Taft's murder seems to take place about a week after the murder itself. This is probably why Tom and Laura haven't agreed on their defence tactics and why they keep arguing before the judge. For god's sake, at least give them a month to prepare!
Now, you might think that it is foolhardy to expect legal accuracy from a comedy but "Legal Eagles" takes its idiotic thriller plot so seriously that it left me confused as to whether it wanted me to take it seriously as well. The screenplay by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. is astoundingly messy, full of twists that don't merely stretch our credulity but also openly contradict each other. The ending, once it finally arrives, is so convoluted and out-of-left-field that I doubt that I'd even be able to accept it in a "Naked Gun" film. It doesn't help that it is all explained to us in a terribly written exposition monologue that made me feel bad for the actor who had to try and deliver it with a straight face.
The biggest problem with "Legal Eagles" is not the plot, however, but just how much of a slog it is to get through. For a film directed by Ivan Reitman, this is a surprisingly low-energy effort which drags itself listlessly from one scene to the next without a coherent tone or an even pace. The script meanders from thriller to comedy to action movie and Reitman never manages to pull all of these disparate elements together into an entertaining picture. For one, it goes on for far too long. At almost two hours it could stand to lose more than thirty minutes.
Indeed, it is impossible to overstate just how boring "Legal Eagles" is. I found it really difficult to finish and as we rolled into the third act, I actively considered just giving up - something I haven't done with a movie in a long, long time.
The utter shambolic failure of "Legal Eagles" is all the more disappointing because its two stars Redford and Winger are so damn good in it! They play two smart, witty people and have terrific chemistry together. Whenever they are on screen and unencumbered by the plot, the film actually begins to work. Winger especially is superb in a rare comedic role. She has a real knack for screwball comedy and would have done wonderfully in a tightly-written farce. As for Redford, I've always contended that he's at his best in light comedic parts which allow him to show off his easy charm and great sense of humour. I don't much like him in serious roles but when he's allowed to be funny and warm on-screen, he's one of Hollywood's best leading men.
I was less enamoured by Daryl Hannah, however, in a thankless, underwritten, confused role. She seems completely lost playing a character whom the writers never manage to convincingly insert into the plot. The first act seems to hint towards a romance between her and Redford but after they sleep together they never have another scene alone in the whole picture. In fact, after the murder happens, the film completely forgets about her and has to do some shamelessly unconvincing backtracking in the final scene.
"Legal Eagles" is a truly terrible movie. A boring, overcomplicated mess which tries to fuse together so many disparate plots that it completely forgets about its terrific actors. The romance that develops between Redford and Winger would have been sufficient for a terrific, warm, and funny picture but Reitman and his writers apparently never found the time to make it. Instead, they focus on murders, art theft, explosions, three fires, and a shockingly awful ending which takes place not in a courtroom but rather in a towering inferno where Redford and Winger solve the case not with legal arguments but with guns.
It came out in the same year as "Running Scared", another unrealistic film with a ludicrous thriller plot. "Running Scared", however, had high energy and good humour and a director with the good sense to focus on his brilliant stars and their chemistry rather than on pyrotechnics and idiotic plot twists. "Legal Eagles", with its demented plotting, plodding pace, and lack of a coherent tone never achieves flight. It gets weighted down by its horrendous screenplay and flops dead in a ditch between far better courtroom movies of its day.
1.5/4 - DirectorJohn BadhamStarsRichard DreyfussEmilio EstevezMadeleine StoweTwo detectives observe an escaped convict's ex-girlfriend, but complications set in when one of them falls for her.08-06-2023
I love a good "hangout movie". The kind of film in which the plot isn't as important as the characters, the dialogue, and the atmosphere. The kind of film which feels more like a good night out with some interesting people than like being strung along through some predictable narrative structure.
In its finest moments, "Stakeout" is one of the best hangout movies of the 1980s a period when such films thrived. Director John Badham and Jim Kouf, the writer, really made me feel as if I too was on a police stakeout with a pair of tired, slobby, bored cops. Holed up in a cramped, dilapidated house without heating detectives Chris (Richard Dreyfuss) and Bill (Emilio Estevez) while away the long nights by reading Playboy for the articles, eating copious amounts of KFC, and playing trivia games. In one scene they are guessing movie quotes. "This was no boating accident," offers Bill. Chris shrugs his shoulders, "No idea," he says. "Man, you suck at this," replies Bill.
They also engage in a prank war with the day shift, a pair of equally bored cops who bring along a slobbering dog for company. So, one morning, Chris and Bill bring a wild cat with them and sit back enjoying the chaos.
The actual stakeout scenes in "Stakeout" are a joy. Dreyfuss especially is terrific as the high-strung, energetic Chris. He injects the role with a kind of irresistible enthusiasm, a nervy charm that seems to electrify his entire body. Look at the way he hops across the street or the way he seems to glide in and out of his car.
Emilio Estevez is the perfect partner for Dreyfuss here. He's younger but also calmer and actually quite a bit wiser. He's made detective before 30 and has a wife at home and a kid. Still, when boredom strikes, he can be just as juvenile as his older partner. In what is the film's subtlest and funniest joke, they both wear moustaches that make them look like twins.
Chris, meanwhile, has no one to go home to. A brilliant running gag has him returning home after a sleepless night on stakeout only to find a variety of neighbourhood activities disrupting his much-needed sleep. It ain't easy being on the night shift.
This being a Hollywood movie, a plot has to rear its ugly head from time to time. Chris and Bill are steaking out of the house occupied by an ex-girlfriend of a cop-killer who has escaped from prison. Every so often we cut away from the excellent, fun stakeout scenes to see what the escaped felon named Stick (Aidan Quinn) is up to. These violent action scenes don't gel with the rest of this lighthearted movie and often grind it to a halt. When the two plots finally converge into the film's inane final shootout - the result is anticlimactic at best.
A far more interesting complication comes in the form of the ex-girlfriend Maria (Madeleine Stowe) whom Chris falls in love with. He surreptitiously orchestrates a meet cute and the two begin dating but only at night. How come she doesn't become suspicious that her new boyfriend has to sneak out of her place every time the sun rises? Well, Dreyfuss is quite a charming fellow I guess. To her credit, Stowe does a great job with a thin character. She adds a lot of charm, wit, and sexiness to the picture and she and Dreyfuss share enough of a spark to light up the screen.
"Stakeout" is a lot of fun when it focuses on its three main characters - Chris, Bill, and Maria. The stakeout scenes are hilarious and feel authentic and the romance plot is sweet. Director John Badham, however, would have been a lot wiser had he cut all the unnecessary thriller stuff that surrounds those scenes. The violent cop killer on the prowl should have been nothing more than a McGuffin, a reason for the plot to start which we then completely discard.
If those scenes, however, absolutely had to be put into the picture, writer Jim Kouf should have tried to make them as witty and as original as the rest of the picture. Make the character of Stick actually interesting, three-dimensional, and memorable. Instead, he is a lump, a stereotypical movie psychopath who goes around killing innocent people for the fun of it. Well, I wasn't having fun when he was on screen.
The rest of the time, thankfully, "Stakeout" is a joy thanks in no small part to its terrific trio of leads and a convincing atmosphere established by Badham. It may not have the frenetic energy of "Lethal Weapon" or the relentless humour of "Beverly Hills Cop", but in its own gentle, understated way, "Stakeout" is another great buddy cop film of the 1980s.
3/4 - DirectorJohn BadhamStarsRichard DreyfussEmilio EstevezRosie O'DonnellTwo immature detectives are joined by a pesky assistant district attorney in staking out a lakeside home where a Mafia trial witness is believed to be heading.09-06-2023
Can you think of a worse title for the sequel to "Stakeout" than "Another Stakeout"? It's like they held a contest and nepotism won. Not only is it lazy and unwieldy it also undermines any confidence that we, the audience, may have had in the movie. It betrays an unambitious, unenthusiastic approach to the material from the filmmakers. "What are we making? Oh, another "Stakeout"? Who cares?" "What is it about? Oh, another stakeout? Who cares?"
My confidence was further undermined when "Another Stakeout" began with an almost beat-for-beat copy of the opening of "Stakeout". They repeat the format of introducing the villains and the heroes in two separate, back-to-back action sequences and repeat some of the same gags and lines. They try to play them off as callbacks but when it's the same exact joke it feels more like recycling.
But then, quite unexpectedly, "Another Stakeout" slowly but surely comes into its own. Indeed, "Another Stakeout" is quite a different picture than its predecessor. For one, it trades the tedium of police work and the grime of inner-city Seattle for what is almost a domestic farce set on a picturesque island peppered with holiday homes of the millionaires.
Our heroes, the bored stakeout cops Chris (Richard Dreyfuss) and Bill (Emilio Estevez) are sent there to stake out a rich couple who are friends with a woman who was supposed to testify against the mob but who has since escaped from protective custody. Much to Chris' chagrin, they are posing as father and son. Joining them and posing as the mother is Gina Garrett (Rosie O'Donnell), an overeager assistant district attorney.
I was wary of the addition of O'Donnell to the cast especially since the chemistry and the interplay between Dreyfuss and Estevez were so central to the success of the original "Stakeout". They are superb here as well, playing off of each other with ease and perfect timing. They are absolutely convincing as two wisecracking cops who have worked together for almost a decade.
To my surprise, however, after a rocky start, O'Donnell actually becomes an integral part of that repartee. She and Dreyfuss are especially good together and writer Jim Kouf manages to make her just annoying enough so that she's a good foil for Chris and Bill but not in such a way that she's annoying to the audience.
"Another Stakeout" is not quite as fresh nor as authentic-feeling as the original film but it has some really big laughs. As before, the best scenes are the ones in which director John Badham simply allows Dreyfuss, Estevez, and O'Donnell to riff off one another trying to while away the boredom of a stakeout.
Some very funny scenes come later in the picture when the undercover trio inadvertently befriends the couple they're supposed to be watching. They are played superbly by Dennis Farina and Marcia Strassman. A terrific farcical sequence then ensues in which the trio invite the couple to dinner only to then continually forget their cover story. Farina, a vastly underrated comedic performer, is especially good in this picture. Just watch him as he slowly realizes that his neighbours are not who they claim to be. It's a stock situation for sure but the way these wonderful actors play it makes it riotously funny.
"Another Stakeout" repeats a big mistake from the first film. It focuses far too much on the bad guys who are actually quite obsolete. We don't really care if the witness ever really shows up. We don't care if the hitman working for the mob gets her. We only want to see what happens when these three funny, smart characters go on a stakeout together. So whenever the film cuts away to show us the mobsters, I found myself checking my watch. Those scenes are quite tedious.
But "Another Stakeout" surprised me by just how funny and enjoyable it is. It manages to recreate the magic that Dreyfuss and Estevez had in the original film while creating an identity and a style all of its own. The film is not as original or really as clever as "Stakeout" but it is every bit as funny and laughter is the true measure of a comedy's success. By that barometer, this one worked!
3/4 - DirectorAndrey KonchalovskiyAlbert MagnoliStarsSylvester StalloneKurt RussellTeri HatcherFramed by their ruthless arch-nemesis, a pair of mismatched LAPD officers must put their differences aside to get even with the brutal crime baron who sent them to rot in a maximum-security prison.09-06-2023
Harold Faltermeyer does not get nearly enough credit as he deserves. As the composer of such iconic film scores as "Beverly Hills Cop", "Fletch", and "Top Gun", he is (along with Giorgio Moroder) the man who is the most responsible for the way 80s movies sounded. Indeed, it is impossible for me to think of that colourful, gauche, kitch decade without hearing those instantly recognisable clinks of Faltermeyer's keyboard.
He is the reason why I finally decided to sit down and watch "Tango & Cash", a critically derided film which, despite starring Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell, has never had the reemergence and reevaluation you'd think it would. Even though I am a massive fan of 80s buddy cop films I have avoided this film for years not only because of scathing reviews from critics I respected but also because of all the behind-the-scenes horror stories which culminated with the firing of the film's director Andrei Konchalovsky. If there's one thing I've learned from all my years of watching Hollywood trash it's that a fired director spells a fatally flawed film.
Still, one evening while browsing YouTube I stumbled upon Harold Faltermeyer's score and boy is it a banger! Faltermeyer never disappoints. The film's energetic, frenetic, disco-electric main theme alone convinced me to watch the film and here I am 100 minutes later thinking that I should have stuck to the music and avoided the film. In the time I spent watching this mess, I could have listened to the album twice.
Why do I love buddy cop films? Well, the clue is in the name of the subgenre. It's the dynamic of the stars, their interactions, the comedy, and the friendship that develops between the usually chalk-and-cheese partners. That's why "Lethal Weapon" is remembered today, not because Mel Gibson blows up a building in it.
And yet, "Tango & Cash", a film whose entire marketing rested on the fact that it teams up Stallone and Russell, doesn't seem to know this basic fact of the formula. Instead of letting these two charismatic, funny actors interact as much as possible, the film drowns them and us in a relentless onslaught of dour violence and bizarrity.
The film never lets up. There's no downtime. Even if a scene begins with a funny dialogue it'll inevitably end with someone getting their head bashed in or brutally blown away with Cash's bootgun. And when there are no bad guys for Tango & Cash to fight, they rough up their own friends.
The plot - about as thin as the paper it's printed on - revolves around two cowboy cops who are framed for a murder they didn't commit. After an unbearable thirty-minute sequence in which they murder, maim, and mutilate thugs in a federal prison, the duo escapes and decides to clear their names.
Except they don't. In order for them to do that, the film would have to stop and let them do some investigating. Instead, they steal an armoured vehicle and blow up the guys who framed them. To hell with dialogue! Who needs it when we have grenades?
Randy Feldman is the writer responsible for "Tango & Cash". Not only is his plotting thin but so are his characters. The two protagonists are only discernable by their dress sense (one's a slob and the other wears Armani suits). The main rule of the buddy cop genre is that the two cops should be different but Tango & Cash are the exact same character just played by different actors.
Stallone & Russell are OK together (nothing special) when the film allows them to talk but for the most part, they're merely there to throw punches and be replaced by stunt doubles. Any muscular dudes could have played these roles.
The villains are equally underwritten. Not only are they given no personalities they don't have much of a plan either. Instead, the filmmakers try to compensate by making them as bizarre as they can. The main bad guy is overplayed by Jack Palance who monologues his evil plots to his pet rats. His thugs of choice are a horny bodybuilder with a fake Cockney accent and Robert Z'Dar whose chin is bulkier than Stallone's forearm.
The movie consists of Palance's thugs attacking Stallone & Russell as if they're on some kind of a screenwriter's conveyor belt. The action scenes are well choreographed and astonishingly well shot by cinematographer Donald E. Thorin but since the film has no characters or a coherent plot, we don't care.
Thorin's photography is beautiful, however. The whole film is bathed in shadows. Only our heroes, Stallone & Russell, walk through this shadowland backlit. He gives the film a kind of mythic look that is far grander and more poetic than anything the script has in mind.
"Tango & Cash" looks great and sounds great but lacks any kind of dramatic weight. Stallone & Russell are completely wasted playing these monosyllabic thugs and the film, which is nothing more than a series of fight scenes flimsily strung together, soon becomes a tedious bore.
1.5/4 - DirectorPeter SegalStarsJack LemmonJames GarnerDan AykroydTwo former U. S. Presidents, hated rivals, join forces to expose the current, corrupt President at the risk of their lives.11-06-2023
Reviewing comedies tends to be a rather binary matter - either you laughed or you didn't. Well, watching "My Fellow Americans", I did laugh and I dare say that you will too. It's a comfortable, witty, inoffensive film the kind people tend to refer to as comfort food. For 100 minutes it moves along at a brisk pace delivering all the familiar gags and laughs you expect it to with competent aplomb. And yet, as I write these words it's hard not to feel a lingering sense of disappointment that a film with this much promise didn't achieve more. By right, it should have been even funnier, smarter, and sharper.
It stars Jack Lemmon and James Garner as a pair of former US presidents (a terrific idea!) who find themselves embroiled in a Watergate-style scandal. Even though they are bitter rivals (Lemmon is a Republican and Garner is a Democrat), they have to work together to prove that it was actually the current president (Dan Aykroyd) who is corrupt and not them.
Of course, President Aykroyd doesn't take kindly to their investigation and sends a sinister NSA colonel out to kill them. Thus begins a madcap road trip which sees two former US presidents getting down and dirty with the "common folk" as they try to stay under the radar and evade hitmen in black until they can gather enough evidence to oust the current commander-in-chief.
Written by E. Jack Kaplan, Richard Chapman, and Peter Tolan, "My Fellow Americans" has a brilliant premise to be a farcical yet insightful movie. Unfortunately, it spends its entire runtime avoiding fulfilling its own potential. It is much happier focusing on the bickering between the two grumpy old presidents. Now, don't get me wrong - the bickering is fun. The screenwriters have written some terrific barbs which Lemmon and Garner deliver with their trademark charm but "My Fellow Americans" never quite seems to take off.
It is a lot of fun to see the reactions of regular people when not one but two US presidents stroll into their lives but the situations the president find themselves in are predictable and downright antiquated. Look, for example, at the scene in which they have to share a tiny car with a large salt-of-the-Earth-type family. The son's line "Mom, the presidents are squishing me" is very funny but I'm sure the same situation was already old hat by the time it was done better in 1963's "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World".
Another familiar scene happens when the two presidents try to hide in plain sight. They march right into the middle of a parade waving to a surprised crowd. Then, shock of shocks, they discover they're marching in a gay parade!
The film also feels far too simplistic. The conspiracy plot they're involved in is straightforward and obvious, the predicaments they find themselves in are far too easily solved, and there's never a real sense of danger. It never feels like the two men are challenged in any way. They breeze through life-threatening situations with the ease of Steven Seagal.
Strangely, the film is at its absolute worst in the few scenes it tries to be serious. A cringe-inducingly cheesy scene in which the presidents encounter a Mexican immigrant is a good example. The film just doesn't have the weight to carry such scenes.
And yet, I did laugh. Not as much as I thought I would but plenty to recommend the film with a fair bit of qualifications the main of which is that you shouldn't expect Aaron Sorkin.
The film is carried on the backs of its terrific cast led by assured performances from Lemmon and Garner who are so good together that it's a shame they hadn't co-starred in more films. Supposedly, this movie was written as another vehicle for Lemmon and Walter Matthau but James Garner is so perfectly cast as the laidback womanizing politician that it's impossible to imagine anyone playing the part better. Lemmon, of course, is completely at ease in his usual part of the comedic neurotic.
Also terrific is Dan Aykroyd who doesn't get nearly enough screentime and who, to my pleasant surprise, plays his part fairly straight. The film also has the always-welcome Bradley Whitford, James Rebhorn, Lauren Bacall, Sela Ward, and Jack Kehler in supporting roles along with the wonderful Wilford Brimley who is cast in one of the most bizarre casting choices I know of as the head of the Democratic party!
As a long-time fan of Matthau-Lemmon films and comedies of this period in general, I felt that I should have loved or at least really liked "My Fellow Americans". Sure, it's a perfectly pleasant comedy but a film with such a terrific premise and first-rate cast should not be this forgettable.
2.5/4 - DirectorPhil RosenStarsSidney TolerMantan MorelandArthur LoftCharlie Chan is an agent of the U.S. government assigned to investigate the mysterious death of an inventor.12-06-2023
ALL CHARLIE CHAN REVIEWS HERE:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls539978222/ - DirectorPhil RosenStarsSidney TolerJoan WoodburyMantan MorelandCharlie Chan investigates the locked-room murder of a chess expert.13-06-2023
ALL CHARLIE CHAN REVIEWS HERE:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls539978222/ - DirectorMartin RittStarsWalter MatthauCarol BurnettGeraldine PageTillie Shlai is not looking forward to meeting yet another blind date. This one's name is Pete Seltzer. Pete and Tillie are not a match made in heaven; he uses wisecracking and constant flirtations with women to mask his own insecurities. Despite Tillie's guard being up, Pete is able to slowly chip away at her defenses. They embark on a relationship that ends up in a mutual decision to marry.13-05-2023
"Pete 'n' Tillie" is a film full of witticisms that mightily struggles to fit them into a tonally consistent picture. It is one of those movies that seem to tear themselves apart. At least three times in its 100-minute runtime, it changes gears considerably without warning or set-up. It wants to be a romantic comedy, a domestic farce, and a heartrending family drama. It casts some of the best comedic actors of its time: Walter Matthau and Carol Burnett only to make them play their parts with deadly seriousness. It then casts one of the best dramatic actresses of its time: Geraldine Page and gives her such outrageously funny material that it seems to want to take off into a film of its own.
The first third of "Pete 'n' Tillie" charts their courtship with surprising dryness and a refreshing lack of "cuteness". You see, Pete and Tillie are bachelors approaching their "sell-by dates" which for him means he's in his late 40s and for her that she's in her late 30s (don't expect too much progressivism here).
She is a happily single woman but her friend Gertrude has gone through the trouble of setting her up with a man so she should go through with the date. He is a happily single womanizer who takes one look at Tillie, sees that she won't be an easy conquest and decides not to call her. But she calls him so he should go on a second date with her.
A second date leads into the third and into the fourth and so on. After a respectable amount of time has passed they decide it's time to have sex. The sex scene, performed with a kind of clinical lack of passion, is one of the film's finest. Taking off her bra, Tillie remarks that she feels like she's being stripped for surgery.
I admire the attempt to portray Pete and Tillie's romance not as a passionate coupling of two perfectly suited people but rather as a kind of social obligation. They don't sizzle together but they do get along well. They don't really fall in love but they are awfully fond of each other. She doesn't like his piano playing and he doesn't like her paintings but they can compromise. Later on in the film, their living room is lined with paintings but the central place is taken up with a piano.
I love Tillie's marriage proposal which is encapsulated in the line "Honeymoon is over, it's time to get married". After all, it's the right thing to do.
The problem with the first third of "Pete 'n' Tillie" is that the blandness of their relationship infects the film itself. I think the fault is in the titular characters. They are types more than humans. Their dialogue is witty but little else. We don't get to learn much about Pete and Tillie in this film which is more concerned with their relationship than their individual personalities.
The second third of the film is where it seems like "Pete 'n' Tillie" will finally come alive. It flashes forward to their suburban married bliss which is shattered by the news that their charming 9-year-old son has leukaemia.
The best scenes in "Pete 'n' Tillie" are the ones in which the pair try to go on with their lives, pretending nothing is happening while their son is dying beside them. They claim they are pretending for his benefit but are they?
This part of the film is so potent and so interesting that the director Martin Ritt and the screenwriter Julius Epstein really should have focused entirely on it rather than trying to fuse it together with the weaker, wittier first third. Obviously, the middle part of the film is not laden with laughs. It treats its subject seriously and gravely which conflicts with the tone of the film up to that point.
The final third of the film, focusing on the aftermath of their son's death, is the really baffling one. Rather than trying to tie the disparate tones together, Ritt seems to give up on any kind of cohesion. All kinds of tones suddenly burst into the film conflating and conflicting until all that is left is a confusing mess of a movie.
I have never before seen a film which contains a death of a child, a naked Walter Matthau playing ragtime, and a farcical fight in which one woman sprays another with a water hose. Furthering the trouble is that only the middle part of the film actually works. "Pete 'n' Tillie" is only any good when it plays it straight.
Matthau and Burnett are a strange pairing that never quite works. There is little chemistry between them and even though the film seems to want us to like Pete I certainly never did. Matthau seems a little ill at ease in the first third of the film and I never bought him as a charming womanizer. Like the film, he is much better in the dramatic scenes.
Burnett, on the other hand, walks away with the picture. It is a shame she never got the film career she deserved because she really is a first-rate actress. She is the only one in "Pete 'n' Tillie" who can move seamlessly between comedy and drama and be equally convincing in both. She is devastating in the middle part of the film quietly suffering while her husband avoids any serious discussion, any emotion, any true connection.
"Pete 'n' Tillie" is made up of all kinds of scenes which never come together into a coherent film. There are witty dialogue scenes, not-so-effective farcical punch-ups, quietly devastating scenes of a child dying, not-so-quiet scenes in which characters scream at God etc. etc. etc.
I wonder if anyone on set knew what kind of movie they were making. Is this meant to be "A Touch of Class" or "Uncle Joe Shannon" or "No Down Payment"?
Some scenes work others don't. Some are funny others aren't. I suppose the really good scenes (the ones in the middle of the film) are worth seeing but the rest of "Pete 'n' Tillie" is so tonally confusing and so short on warmth or charm that I cannot in good conscience recommend this picture.
2/4 - DirectorPeter ChelsomStarsWarren BeattyDiane KeatonNastassja KinskiTwo loving middle aged couples get caught in a series of marital misadventures over reasons of fidelity.15-06-2023
Is your marriage perfect? Well, the marriages of Porter (Warren Beatty), Ellie (Diane Keaton), Mona (Goldie Hawn), and Griffin (Garry Shandling) sure do seem to be. We first meet them as they're celebrating Porter and Ellie's 25th wedding anniversary in one of those perfect low-lit Parisian restaurants you only see in films like this and "Something's Gotta Give". These four best friends live in one of those worlds. A world of golf weekends which look more like fashion shows and log ski cabins built by Ernest Hemingway, a world in which every apartment is designed by a "celebrity architect", every bookshelf contains at least one first edition, and the chocolate mousse is a poem! The film's matter-of-fact indulgence in these kinds of unnecessary luxury details quickly becomes insufferable. At least the self-absorbed jerks in Woody Allen films are middle-class!
Anyway, back to the plot or at least as concise a version of the synopsis as I can come up with. One day, Mona catches Griffin cheating on her with a man and the picture-perfect version of their lives is ruined. Another shocking twist comes when Mona and Porter, who are childhood friends, begin sleeping together.
All of this seems to be leading to some kind of a farce, a sort of cheap (or in the case of this film extremely expensive) sub-Alan Ayckbourn marital comedy. However, "Town & Country", written by Michael Laughlin and extensively rewritten by Buck Henry, consists almost entirely of digressions - a collection of increasingly ludicrous subplots and cameos which are randomly introduced into the picture and then just as quickly abandoned in favour of yet another plot twist.
The film begins as a four-hander focusing on two marriages but around the halfway point the women disappear from the picture which then follows Porter and Griffin on a skiing trip. There the still-closeted Griffin for some reason keeps trying and failing to sleep with a local shopkeeper (Jenna Elfman) while Porter is being romanced by a mysterious beauty he met on the plane (Andie MacDowell).
Also in the film are Nastassja Kinski as a flighty cellist, Buck Henry as a cutthroat lawyer, and Charlton Heston and Marian Seldes as Andie MacDowell's nutty parents.
The screenplay bears all the hallmarks of a movie that a group of actors made up as they went along. It's rambly, disjointed, tonally confused, lacking in any kind of sensible characterization or depth, and not very funny at all. It weaves hurriedly from one location to the next and from one situation to the next constantly failing to find anything funny to do while there.
Meanwhile, its starry cast is wasted on underwritten parts. Warren Beatty fades into the chaos with one of the weakest, blandest performances of his career; Diane Keaton is similarly just there posing in shots like a piece of the set; meanwhile, Goldie Hawn tries desperately to be funny with her usual schtick of neurotically rambling every speech but there's just nothing in the screenplay. Andie MacDowell and Nastassja Kinski's parts are too small and insignificant to even mention. They walk through the film like tourists who decide they aren't enjoying their holiday and wisely leave on day two.
Ironically, the only person who did manage to make me chuckle is Garry Shandling, the one guy in the cast who isn't a movie star. What he is, however, is a smart, talented comedian and even though he's given nothing funny to say, he somehow always comes up with funny things to do. His performance consists of little bits of business, reactions, and fumbling. He's terrific.
"Town & Country" reportedly cost over 100 million dollars to make. Why anyone would sink so much money into a movie that didn't even have a satisfactory script to begin with is one of those Hollywood mysteries we'll never know the answer to. The one thing everyone knows, however, is that "Town & Country" stinks and that's the truth except for a funny performance from Garry Shandling and the best score made up of old jazz standards in a film not directed by Woody Allen.
1/4 - DirectorMike NicholsStarsStockard ChanningJack NicholsonWarren BeattyTwo bumbling hustlers in the 1920s attempt to gain the fortune of an heiress. Nothing will stop them, not even murder.15-06-2023
It's rare nowadays to see a movie begin with a title card explaining an obscure legal term. Hell, it was pretty rare even in 1975 but Mike Nichols' "The Fortune" is meant to be one of those "they don't make 'em like this anymore" kind of a picture. It is set in the 1920s, shot with that rich, colourful glow we associate with the period by "Chinatown" DP John A. Alonzo, and is scored throughout by jazz standards. The effect is not nostalgic, however, since "The Fortune" is a truly terrible picture that ironically makes you glad they don't make 'em like this anymore.
Most of the film is an awkward three-hander following the misadventures of a pair of crooks. One of them, Nicky (Warren Beatty), is conducting an extramarital affair with a rich heiress named Freddie Bigard - pronounced Beguard (Stockard Channing). They plan to elope together but because he can't marry her they're afraid of running afoul of the Mann Act, the aforementioned obscure law which prohibited the transportation of an unmarried woman for immoral purposes across state lines.
In order to do just that, Nicky enlists the help of his old pal Dix (Jack Nicholson). Dix is to marry Freddy and accompany them on their trip to Los Angeles where Nicky and Freddy will live in sexual bliss while Dix... looks on.
After this initial set-up, the film grinds to a complete standstill as we get scene after scene essaying the tedium of the trio's Californian life. Freddy is a terrible cook who misses the extravagant life she left behind; Nicky tries his best to provide for them by honest means but is a crook at heart; Dix, meanwhile, a complete incompetent bordering on insanity, is bored stiff sitting around and decides to seduce Freddie.
I was wary of "The Fortune" almost from the very beginning. There's clearly something "off" about the picture immediately, a kind of tangible disconnect between the material and the performers. The screenplay which Carole Eastman wisely took her name off of feels like it was meant to be played more seriously but Nichols and his cast strain so hard to push it into some kind of cartoonish territory that the whole thing breaks down in a truly impressive manner.
The two leads are doing backbreaking work trying to be funny. They mug for the camera, put on funny voices, wear goofy haircuts, and poorly styled moustaches. Their antics resemble amateur theatre where untrained actors for lack of technique resort to caricature. Thus Nicholson tries to distinguish his loony character by pushing his hair up into an Einstein-esque mess. Meanwhile, Beatty who is supposed to be some kind of a lothario, plays the whole part with hideous vocal fry which is I suppose meant to make him sound more masculine.
But the film just isn't funny. There aren't really any jokes in it - just scene after scene of Nicholson and Beatty lampooning their way through the picture as the plot goes nowhere very, very slowly. I don't know how much if any of the film's dialogue was improvised but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of it was. It has that rambling incoherence that is usually the result of unrestrained actors "improving the writing".
Finally, after 50 minutes of boredom, the film kicks into some kind of gear when Nicky and Dix decide to kill off Freddie for her money. What follows is meant to be farcical but is just laboured. Farce works much better when it's played straight and without mugging for the camera. It only works if we are under the illusion that the characters don't know they're funny. No such luck with the stars of "The Fortune".
It also doesn't help that the whole thing is played at half the speed. It is absolutely leaden which is disastrous for a farce - a genre meant to be played in faster than top gear.
Nicholson and Beatty are clearly uncomfortable in this type of comedy anyway. Their performances are what a person whose never seen a farce thinks performances in a farce should be like. They're ill-adept at slapstick as well. There's a scene in which Nicholson is meant to be getting ready for a day in the sun. He lathers himself up with suntan oil, puts on his sunglasses, and sits in a deckchair which then promptly gives way under him. This could be a funny throwaway moment were it not for the fact that we clearly see Nicholson push the chair back to make it fall!
"The Fortune" is so awful and so unpleasant to sit through it made me think of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore bomb which is still the top contender for the worst movie I've ever seen relative to its budget. Both films have two terrific performers making absolute fools of themselves by bending over backwards trying to make jokes out of material that wasn't funny to begin with.
Both films are also poorly directed. I don't know what Mike Nichols thought he was making here - a Saturday morning cartoon perhaps? - but his direction is leaden in pace and lacking in restraint. Instead of eliciting sharp, precise, funny performances from his actors, he seems to have encouraged them to go too far over the top, to ramble and improvise in a genre they're clearly uncomfortable in.
I finally laughed watching "The Fortune" at what is one of the film's final lines. I won't spoil it except to say it comes 84 minutes into the picture. If you can stand sitting through 84 minutes of pure agony as a pair of actors mug at you and prod you to make you laugh for just that one moment of true comedy be my guest and watch "The Fortune". Otherwise, avoid this trash and go watch a Polonia Brothers film. At least those are genuinely funny.
0.5/4 - DirectorJohn SturgesStarsRock HudsonErnest BorgninePatrick McGoohanUSN nuclear sub USS Tigerfish must rush to the North Pole to rescue the staff of Drift Ice Station Zebra weather station.16-06-2023
I have a real soft spot for these megamovies of the 60s with their huge named casts, lavish sets erected on back lots and sound stages, and epic orchestral scores all rolled into an expansive three-hour runtime. God knows they're often bloated, preposterous, and never as clever as they pretend to be but there's an endearing sense of wonder to them. Like a child who's just built a LEGO set, it feels like the movie is presenting you all these grandiose elements with an "isn't this cool" type of grin. And you know what, "Ice Station Zebra" is kind of neat for the most part.
The first half of the picture before the obligatory intermission is especially fun. It's a terrific maritime adventure set on board a nuclear submarine commanded by a statuesque fellow by the name of Ferraday (Rock Hudson). His mission is to rescue the survivors of an explosion which has destroyed most of the titular Arctic research station. No one knows what caused the mysterious explosion since the rescue signals which have been received from there are severely garbled.
The good news is that "Ice Station Zebra" has some of the very best underwater footage I've ever seen. Especially dazzling are the beautiful shots of the camera diving along with the submarine which look so good that for a second I thought my BluRay featured some newly made CGI shots.
The interiors of the sub are also splendidly done with their oppressive grey walls and prison-like iron grates. The military-speak spouted by the cast further lends a feeling of authenticity the likes of which we wouldn't see again until "Crimson Tide".
The bad news is that the plot of "Ice Station Zebra", based on a novel by Alistair MacLean, is as thin as they get. Recycled from various other MacLean novels, there's precious little mystery or suspense at play here.
The premise is that there's a saboteur on board the submarine who is ready to kill the entire crew along with himself in order to prevent it from reaching Ice Station Zebra.
The suspects include three mysterious passengers added to the crew at the last second. The first is a cagey British spy going under the assumed name of David Jones (Patrick McGoohan). McGoohan is brilliantly cast as the sinister man who is always shown lurking in the shadows of the submarine enveloped by cigarette smoke. He is so good in this picture that he absolutely steals the show even outshining the superb underwater footage. "I have no character," Jones says of himself, "I assume one."
The second passenger is a Russian double agent Vaslov (Ernest Borgnine) who now seems to be working for the Americans. Vaslov, however, is so slippery and unpredictable that there's simply no way of knowing.
Finally, there's the American Marine Anders (Jim Brown), a tough drill sergeant-type commander who says that he judges the weakness of an officer by the number of his men who like him personally. If that's so then Anders must be one hell of a strong officer.
The characters, however, are terribly underwritten, distinguishable only by their accents. Besides McGoohan, none of the rest of the actors do much to make them come alive.
The mystery plot, meanwhile, is so underdeveloped that I kept forgetting it was even there. There are no clues to solving the identity of the saboteur and there are so many arbitrary twists along the way that the film could have told me I was the Russian spy and I'd have believed it.
Now, the bad plotting is not much of a problem in the first half of the film which is quite entertaining with its gorgeous underwater photography, rousing Michel Legrand score, and some fun back-and-forth between McGoohan and Hudson.
Significant problems do arise, however, in the film's second half which is set at the actual Ice Station Zebra. Here the film comes to a complete standstill as the characters deliver long and overwritten exposition to each other. There are more twists which become increasingly more idiotic culminating in the arrival of a contingent of Russian soldiers who further stall the action out to 150 minutes.
The final 30 minutes of the film feel longer than the previous two hours. Alf Kjellin in a thankless role spends the whole lot of them standing in place delivering threats in a shaky Russian accent as McGoohan, Borgnine, Brown, and Hudson mill about pretending they know what they're doing. It's a startlingly boring conclusion to what started out as such a fun movie.
"Ice Station Zebra" thus gets a mixed review from me. I really enjoyed the film's first half - a well-made and entertaining maritime adventure with some amazing underwater footage. The second half, however, is a real snooze fest. A hodgepodge of half-baked spy cliches set on a surprisingly unconvincing mock-up of an Arctic station (you can even see in close-up that the snow is actually confetti).
Is the first half good enough to make the boring second half worth your time? For a general audience, probably not. But for fans of the 60s megamovies and especially for the fans of McGoohan and Hudson, there's more than enough material there to enjoy. Those people, and I am definitely one of them, should either fast forward through the last hour or grit their teeth and bear the boredom but they should definitely not miss the first half of "Ice Station Zebra".
2.5/4 - DirectorEric BressJ. Mackye GruberStarsAshton KutcherAmy SmartMelora WaltersEvan Treborn suffers blackouts during significant events of his life. As he grows up, he finds a way to remember these lost memories and a supernatural way to alter his life by reading his journal.18-06-2023
The concept of chaos theory has for a long time now been a fixture of science fiction. "The Butterfly Effect" explains it using the old allegory of the flutter of a butterfly's wing causing a typhoon halfway around the world. I suppose that's also whence the film gets its title even though a better parallel would be with Ray Bradbury's seminal short story "A Sound of Thunder" in which a time traveller accidentally steps on a butterfly and irrevocably changes his own future.
The central question behind the premise of "The Butterfly Effect" is whether our protagonist, a college student named Evan (Ashton Kutcher), can manipulate the chaos theory in order to save the life of his childhood sweetheart Kayleigh (Amy Smart) who committed suicide.
In order to do that, Evan has to travel back in time and as he himself puts it "heal her scars". Here the film gets really clever. Instead of having Evan build some kind of a fancy time machine or long-forgotten magic, the film comes up with a really clever solution. By reading his old journals and watching old home movies, Evan can hypnotise himself into literally reliving his most powerful memories and potentially changing them for the better.
This idea by the filmmakers Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber is a terrific one. It intriguingly builds on a similar notion introduced in "Somewhere in Time" in such a way that it grounds the fanciful notion of time travel within the bounds of a single man's trauma. It is fertile ground to build and expand upon for the rest of the film.
Unfortunately, Bress and Gruber overload "The Butterfly Effect" with inappropriately heavy subjects for what ultimately turns out to be only a mildly more intelligent take on the old-fashioned time travel adventure yarn. The film is extremely top-heavy tackling such themes as parental abuse, mental illness, suicide, and prison rape which drown the movie in an oppressively bleak atmosphere.
Furthermore, all of these inordinately heavy scenes are handled in such an overwrought and hammy manner that they produce laughter rather than compassion. Especially ludicrous is the character of Tommy, Kayleigh's bully brother, who is portrayed as a 13-year-old raving psychopath. It doesn't help that the actor playing him chews scenery like he's in a particularly campy production of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".
Other unintentionally funny moments include a visit to a fortune-teller who seems to be channelling the old woman from "Dracula", a rip-roaringly pathetic sequence in which Evan wakes up in an alternate timeline in which he has no arms and a scene in which Tommy sets fire to Evan's dog which plays out as if it's been lifted from one of Stephen King's lesser novels.
Eventually, in its second half, the film lays off the "Radio Flyer" homage and actually begins having some fun with its premise. Evan goes back in time but every event he fixes causes several other events to go wrong meaning he has to keep time travelling.
All of this could have been a lot more entertaining and a lot more interesting if only the film wasn't burdened by such serious and dour topics which feel awfully out of place in a film which also contains frat jokes, comic relief in the form of an overweight goth with a liberty spikes haircut, and a sly reference to "Dude, Where's My Car".
There are two cuts of "The Butterfly Effect" available - the theatrical cut and the director's cut. The two are almost identical besides some minor additions until the ending which is so different in the director's cut that it essentially makes it a different movie.
I won't spoil either ending except to say that predictably the theatrical ending is safe, heartwarming, and uninteresting while the director's cut has an ending which is so memorable, so fascinating, and so affecting that it made me like this movie a whole lot more.
It is such a bold and original conclusion that it made me wish it were attached to a better movie. Sadly, "The Butterfly Effect" is too overwrought and silly to be taken seriously and far too dour and heavy to be any fun.
Even though I can't quite recommend the film, I will say that if you do decide to watch "The Butterfly Effect" make sure you pick the director's cut.
2/4 - DirectorJohn R. LeonettiStarsEric LivelyErica DuranceDustin MilliganNick Larson discovers a supernatural way to alter his life and travel back in time to key moments in his life by looking at photographs.18-06-2023
I decided to watch "The Butterlyf Effect 2" not because I particularly liked the original (I didn't) but because I loved its premise of a man who decides to alter the past by quite literally reliving his most intense memories. Seeing how that film ended the way it ended there was no possibility for a direct sequel but the premise was broad and interesting enough to be a jumping-off point for a kind of "Final Destination"-style anthology series of movies.
I was immediately impressed when I realized that "The Butterfly Effect 2", a straight-to-DVD low-budget sequel, isn't a mere rehash of the first film. In that movie, Ashton Kutcher played the time traveller who has to repeatedly change the past in order to save the life of his childhood sweetheart. The sequel also begins with the death of the protagonist's girlfriend but quickly moves down a completely different path.
You see, Nick (Eric Lively), our new time traveller, manages to save his girlfriends' life on his first try but instead of being happy in his comfortable new timeline, our savvy businessman realizes he can use his newfound abilities for personal gain. The rest of the film sees him rewinding time in a bid to climb the corporate ladder and become rich but the more successful he becomes the more he grows apart from the woman of his dreams (Erica Durance).
Although most people didn't, I found myself quite enjoying this sequel's twist on "The Butterfly Effect" formula. Be honest. If you could time travel wouldn't you go back and lay a few safe bets?
I was also relieved to see that, unlike its predecessor, "The Butterfly Effect 2" didn't encumber itself with serious, movie-of-the-week topics. It is a lighter, more palatable film that doesn't take itself seriously and actually has some fun with the sci-fi concepts it's peddling.
Unfortunately, in solving some of the problems I had with the first film, "The Butterfly Effect 2" creates some all of its own. For one, Nick's quest to become richer obviously isn't nearly as compelling as Ashton Kutcher's life-saving mission. What this film needed was to be funnier and twistier in order to make its story more engaging.
What it also should have done was embrace the fact that its protagonist was not a terribly nice guy. Instead of trying so hard to exonerate him for his selfish actions, the film should have leaned into his villainy giving us a protagonist similar to Biff from "Back to the Future II" - someone who was shameless in his quest for wealth.
Unlike the first film, "The Butterfly Effect 2" begins to come apart in its uninspired second half. Clearly lacking a good idea for a climax, writer Michael D. Weiss introduces increasingly ludicrous twists and turns including a bizarre subplot about a gay gangster who (in a scene so inappropriate it might as well have been a deleted scene from the first film) rapes Nick to remind him that "his ass belongs to the mob".
Director John R. Leonetti is similarly out of his depth here. His direction lacks atmosphere or visual style. He also fails to imbue the film with any sense of immediacy or suspense which could have ferried us through some of the script's flatter parts.
"The Butterfly Effect 2" gets as much wrong as it gets right. With its lighter tone, it is a more watchable film than the first one was but it is also more forgettable and, ultimately, less satisfying. I applaud it for trying something different but the result does not go above a decent straight-to-video flick for a rainy day.
2/4 - DirectorSeth GrossmanStarsChris CarmackRachel MinerMelissa JonesSam Reide uses his power to time travel to solve the mystery of his girlfriend's death.18-06-2023
"The Butterfley Effect 3: Revelations" has absolutely nothing to do with the previous films except that it too has time travel as its central conceit. In the other "Butterfly Effect" films, however, the protagonist could only move within his own lifetime and experience through literally reliving powerful memories. Here, our protagonist Sam Reide (Chris Carmack) jumps through time at his own will. He's able to manifest himself in specific places and at specific times by concentrating hard and lying in a bathtub full of ice. Don't ask me how any of this is meant to work since the film never bothers to give us even a sub-pseudoscientific explanation.
The one interesting idea in this otherwise dull movie is that Sam goes back in time in order to solve tough murder cases. He watches them, sees the killer's face, and then jumps back to report him to the cops pretending that he's psychic.
He has a strict non-interference rule but, of course, he decides to break it in order to prevent the murder of his girlfriend Rebecca (Mia Serafino). His motivation for doing so is murky and thin since Rebecca's been dead for years. Why is he doing this now? Well, because Rebecca's sister Elizabeth (Sarah Habel) asked him to. About as stupid a reason as the filmmakers could have come up with for a character to break the rule he lives by and completely destroy reality as he knows it.
Motivations and logic are not the strong suit of writer Holly Brix. The previous films all relied on the formula of a protagonist constantly going back in time in order to achieve a strict goal. The goal here at first appears to be to save Rebecca but that goal changes somewhere along the way and Rebecca disappears from the picture entirely.
The other lynchpin of the series thus far was the titular butterfly effect. When the protagonist changes one thing in the past his whole future changes. "Revelations" attempts to do the same but the changes to Sam's life make no sense. Several times in the film, he goes back in time, changes nothing and yet his entire life takes a different course. The film repeatedly establishes no causal link between the events Sam changes and the effect it has on his life. How does Rebecca's survival suddenly make him a sofa-surfing bum when her death did no such thing?
The big mystery of the identity of Rebecca's killer is just as weak. There are no real clues anywhere in the film. By the time the killer's identity was about to be revealed, I realized anyone could be the killer. There was just as much evidence against Sam's sister as there was against his mentor and the two cops investigating the case. Hell, Rebecca herself might have done it for all the sense this film makes.
"The Butterfly Effect 2" was a straight-to-video movie but "Revelations" breaks new ground in minuscule budgeting. The film looks and feels like a fan-made production or someone's home movie. The photography is flat and has that unprocessed digital chilliness.
More distractingly, the film is woefully unconvincing. The whole thing has an air of dress-up playacting and when the actors talk about "jumping through time" they look like they're barely keeping a straight face.
Speaking of the performances, Chris Carmack is a bad lead - wooden and dull. The sole good turn comes from Rachel Miner, an actress who really deserves to be in better films, as Sam's loving sister Jenna.
There's very little of interest in "The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations", a sluggish and poorly constructed thriller that fails to engage or entertain. With its below-cheap production values, uninteresting protagonist, and headache-inducing plot twists, this is a sequel to skip.
1/4 - DirectorNicholas MeyerStarsMalcolm McDowellMary SteenburgenDavid WarnerH.G. Wells pursues Jack the Ripper to the 20th Century when the serial murderer uses the future writer's time machine to escape his time period.19-06-2023
Nicholas Meyer is a versatile fellow. Even though he's best known for writing and directing the best three "Star Trek" films, I have always been a bigger fan of his novel "The Seven Per Cent Solution", the finest Sherlock Holmes pastiche of all which was turned into an equally excellent film in 1976.
In "Time After Time", his directorial debut, he cleverly blends the two genres he is best known for. The film begins in the foggy, dark alleys of Victorian London before turning into a time travelling adventure which takes its protagonists all the way to the far future of 1979 - which was then the present day. A sort of an inversion then on the Meyer-scripted "Star Trek IV" which begins in the far future and then takes its protagonists into the distant past of 1986 - which was then the present day.
Another clever little addition is the identities of the time travellers borrowed from a novel by Karl Alexander. The inventor of the time machine is none other than HG Wells (Malcolm McDowell), the visionary author of such novels as "War of the Worlds", "The Island of Dr Moreau", and, yes, "The Time Machine".
The other time traveller is a name not recorded in history. He is Dr John Leslie Stevenson (David Warner), the chief of surgery at St Bartholomew's Hospital and one of Wells' closest friends. One evening, during a dinner party, Wells tells him that he has discovered the secret to time travel.
Unbeknownst to the genial and rather naive writer, his friend is better known under the alias of Jack the Ripper. Stevenson hijacks the time machine to evade the police and be free to continue his bloody reign of terror in another age. But Wells, feeling guilty for unleashing such a monster onto a world he believes to be a utopia, decides to follow him there.
The premise of "Time After Time" alone is gripping and promises a film full of excitement and suspense. What I didn't expect, however, is just how delightful and quirky this movie is.
Unlike many other time travel movies, "Time After Time" actually has fun with its premise by genuinely exploring the question of what a man from 1893 would think of the 20th century. Meyer rightfully positions Wells as an explorer, an adventurer venturing into a strange world, and he treats the 20th century like H. Rider Haggard would a jungle - a mysterious world equally full of wonder and threat to be investigated.
Seeing 1979's San Francisco through Wells' eyes is a hoot. The first half of "Time After Time" is a gloriously entertaining yarn equal parts satire and a Boy's Own Adventure. He visits a museum dedicated to him, goes to a quaint Scottish restaurant called McDonald's, and is astonished by the speed of these modern motorcars.
This material, as entertainingly handled as it is, is quite familiar. What is more intriguing, however, is a sharp satirical undertone which Meyer deftly weaves throughout the picture. You see, Wells, the dreamer, doesn't fit in all that well in the world he thought would be a pacifist utopia. He is shocked to learn there was a World War (let alone two!), he is baffled at the availability of weapons in general stores, and his once progressive ideas now generate snicker and scorn.
But Stevenson - the dreaded Jack the Ripper - fits right in. There is a brilliant scene in which he shows Wells a device called a television where each channel is portraying an increasingly more brutal act of terrorism, war, and general violence. "Ninety years ago, I was a freak," he says, "Today, I'm an amateur!".
In his directorial debut, Meyer does an admirable job of blending a whole variety of tonal shifts. The film is a lot of fun (I was grinning and laughing all the way through) but there is a tangible undertone of menace as well. David Warner is astonishingly effective as Stevenson - a villain who is rarely seen but whose looming presence is always felt.
I think the reason why "Time After Time" works so well despite all of its disparate elements is that you can feel that everyone involved is having a blast. It is also smart of Meyer not to dwell on the horror elements but to use them sparingly to give the film a sense of urgency.
Instead, he focuses more on a charming love story that develops between Wells and a forward young bank teller Amy (Mary Steenburgen). All trips are more fun if taken with a friend regardless of whether you're travelling to Glasgow or the future and Amy is a delightful, witty, loveable companion.
"Time After Time" is a disarmingly charming, delightful, and entertaining adventure film that seamlessly combines its many tones and styles through the medium of fun. Instead of being heavy-handed or trying to be poignant, it peppers its satire and suspense into a touching, quirky little story about a love affair out of time.
4/4 - DirectorJan EliasbergStarsRutger HauerNatasha RichardsonClancy BrownBen's paroled after 15 years prison for killing his pregnant wife. His social worker helps him find work. She doubts his guilt and investigates.20-06-2023
"Past Midnight" is one of those thrillers like "Defenseless" and Sidney Lumet's "Guilty as Sin" that came in the wake of "Jagged Edge" in which wide-eyed, caring women fall for dangerous, sinister men who may or may not be guilty of crimes they're accused of.
In it, Natasha Richardson plays a social worker who falls for Rutger Hauer's recently paroled killer. He spent many years in prison for murdering his pregnant wife but after seeing actual footage of the killing and interviewing some witnesses, the social worker becomes convinced he's innocent.
In the meantime, they begin a reasonably steamy affair - there's nudity but little passion - which greatly disturbs her ex-boyfriend and co-worker played by Clancy Brown. Hee pretends he's shocked by her unethical behaviour but we all know he's just jealous.
The film is marketed as a thriller but there's precious little that's thrilling in it. I'm not trying to be glib, "Past Midnight" is one hell of an uneventful film. Knowing the formula of these kinds of thrillers I thought one of two things was going to happen. Either, the social worker would begin investigating the murder and trying to find the real killer or the real killer would come back and kill again.
Well, after an interview with two witnesses, the victim's brother, and a sleazy lawyer, Natasha Richardson abruptly decides Rutger Hauer is innocent and completely drops her investigation. In fact, after the first 25 or so minutes she never so much as voices the possibility of further looking into the murder. Maybe she was distracted by all the sex.
As for the second possibility, the killer does return but it takes him 75 minutes to do so. Before that, he isn't even a suggestion. We don't get so much as an ominous shadow on the wall. And when he does return, he has absolutely no reason to do so because neither Richardson nor Hauer has any plans to try and uncover his identity. I guess he got bored waiting for them to remember they're in a thriller.
So what does happen in "Past Midnight" then? Not much. Richardson and Hauer trade some witty barbs at each other and then have sex. She argues with Clancy Brown whose character is a real jerk. Meanwhile, Hauer stalks around almost as if he's intentionally trying to be creepy. Every time he shows up in the film he does so uninvited and without bothering to knock.
The film is not much of a romance either. Hauer and Richardson share little chemistry and because the film is determined to keep his innocence under question he remains a vague cypher throughout. Hauer plays him like a socially awkward savant full of twitches so we don't ever understand why Richardson falls for him and why she does it so quickly. The first act of the film is hardly over and they're already at it!
"Past Midnight" is one of the classier films from Rutger Hauer's 90s filmography. It at least puts up a decent effort to be intelligent and subtle even though its subtlety quickly leads to boredom. It is nicely directed by Jan Elisaberg, features some terrific, fluid camerawork from DP Robert D. Yeoman, and an appropriately overwrought orchestral score by Steve Bartek.
However, there's so little mystery, threat, or any kind of happening in "Past Midnight" that I was past caring by the time the first on-screen murder happened. The third act eventually degenerates into a predictable slasher climax and the killer reveal is a big disappointment but there are so few clues and almost no suspects that I honestly can't think of an ending that wouldn't have been disappointing.
The film is now best remembered because the script by Frank Norwood was heavily rewritten by a young Quentin Tarantino. Unfortunately, beyond a few pop culture references there's little evidence of his style here.
2/4 - DirectorTony MaylamStarsRutger HauerKim CattrallAlastair DuncanIn a flooded future London, Detective Harley Stone hunts a serial killer who murdered his partner, and has haunted him ever since. He soon discovers what he is hunting might not be human.21-06-2023
What is there integlient to write about a movie that starts with a close-up of Rutger Hauer grabbing his junk? What wisdom may you hope to gleam?
The movie is called "Split Second" for no other reason than because it's the most generic action movie title they could think of.
The poster has Rutger Hauer, dressed in all black with a rocking leather trenchcoat and boots in his preferred pose - walking nonchalantly with a giant gun resting on his shoulder.
The tagline is simply "He'll need bigger guns".
In the film, Hauer plays a cowboy cop named Stone. Still reeling from the death of his partner, Stone has become a loose cannon. A paranoid wreck who survives on a strict diet of "coffee, chocolate, and anxiety". He spends the whole film growling, eyes blazing, nerves twitching, as he chain-smokes while brushing his teeth, washes his mouth out with coffee, and waves his giant gun about.
And then, wouldn't you know it, the serial killer who killed his partner is back. This guy is one sick individual - a seemingly omniscient butcher who rips the hearts out of his victims, chews them, and then mails them to Stone.
Stone is, of course, the only cop who can catch him. For reasons not entirely explained, the two share a psychic link meaning that Stone can predict where the killer will strike next but not, apparently, soon enough to prevent the murders.
In a bid to control the uncontrollable Stone, his perpetually angry chief Thrasher (Alun Armstrong) assigns him a new partner - the Oxford-educated expert on serial killers by the alliterative name Dick Durkin (Neil Duncan).
Gary Scott Thompson's script, thus, cannot be accused of even a shred of originality. Every plot element has been imported straight from the big cliche book from Stone's partner's beautiful ex-wife (Kim Cattrall) right down to the dialogue. "They say he's the best," asks Durkin of Stone. "He is," Thrasher gravely replies.
However, in a bid to spice up the film, the producers moved Thompson's script into the far-off future of 2008 when, as we're told by the film's opening scroll, London has been flooded by the effects of global warming or something like that...
The idea is that Stone is a cop in a London which has become an apocalyptic hell-hole. A water-logged wasteland, rat-infested, and mostly dilapidated - a kind of a "Blade Runner"-esque vision.
Unfortunately, the film's budget just doesn't support this bold idea. The devastating floods look more like mildly annoying puddles, the wasteland consists of people wearing leather BDSM gear, while the London we see in the background looks... well, like regular London. Notably, all the scenes actually shot on the streets of London look fine except for some greyscale tinting which is, I suppose, meant to give the film an apocalyptic look.
Tony Maylam's direction is shambolic anyway with scenes which just barely come together and action sequences so poorly edited that it often seems like Rutger Hauer is jumping and flipping into a time loop.
And yet, against all odds, the film actually works in a B-movie kind of way. It's an incredibly entertaining ride mainly because it doesn't take itself in the least bit seriously. It's goofily over-the-top, intentionally overwrought with every element ramped up to eleven. The cast is clearly having a ball playing up the sheer insanity of the script.
Especially fun is the relationship between Hauer and Duncan who slowly morphs from a professorial nerdy type into yet another cowboy cop. The two play off each other with ease and humour often resembling a pair of feuding cartoon characters. An especially hilarious scene has them trawling through the police arsenal looking for the biggest guns they can find. Just look at the scenery-chewing glee on Duncan's face as he picks up an automatic shotgun. It's pure bliss.
The film achieves a good comic book atmosphere with its over-the-top performances, stylized world-building, and some surprisingly good creature effects. It also nails that weirdly nostalgic feel of old-school B-movies, their cliched dialogue and wonky sets. It's a surprisingly effective combination which gives us a hugely entertaining film.
Coming at a trim 90 minutes, "Split Second" is just about the perfect B-movie. Dumb as a box of bricks and entirely unoriginal but with a healthy sense of humour about itself and an appropriately over-the-top style. Hauer and Duncan are a joy to watch and I even liked the fact that it isn't as action-packed as you'd think. Thompson and Maylam wisely lay off the shootouts and give more room for the actors to have fun playing off of each other and exploring the world the film is trying to create.
3/4 - DirectorJohn HustonStarsJack NicholsonKathleen TurnerRobert LoggiaTwo professional assassins fall in love.22-06-2023
Honour is a bgi deal in mob pictures. People get killed over it, deals are made and broken over it, and once a character uses it - you know bad things are gonna happen. What then must go down in a movie that has it in its title?
"Prizzi's Honor" is a mob picture but it's not really a movie about the mob. It uses a richly drawn, grotesquely comical landscape of the mafia world as a backdrop for a captivatingly honest and intriguing love story. Now, most romantic comedies introduce two characters who are firstly at odds with each other before being drawn together by their feelings. Here, however, that formula is inverted. We get to meet a couple who are perfect for each other and who love each other but who are slowly drawn apart by the world they inhabit. Can true love survive such a test? "Prizzi's Honor" offers a fascinating, believable answer to a difficult question.
The man is Charley Partanna (Jack Nicholson), a soldier for the titular Prizzi family. He's the kind of guy who gets things done. If you need someone iced - get Charley. If you need some pressure applied to the right people - get Charley. If things start going south and someone needs to speak for the family - get Charley. His father is the Prizzi's consigliere and his godfather is Don Corrado Prizzi himself. So you see, Charley's not just a heavy, he's in as deep as you can be.
The woman is at first a mystery. Her name is Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner), or so she claims and Charley first spots her at a wedding. She disappears before he can even get her name but he can't get her out of his head so he hunts her down to her Californian home.
In a terrific early twist, it turns out that Irene is not an outsider to the family herself. She's an outside talent - a contractor - whom the family hires to carry out hits too dangerous even for Charley.
What's a man to do? He loves her madly but not only is she an assassin, she's also a Polak. Charley's former fiancee Maerose (Anjelica Huston) solves his problem. "Marry her," she tells him, "Just because she's a thief and a hitter doesn't mean she's not a good woman".
It's so exciting to watch a movie that takes a great premise and actually explores it. A lesser movie would take Charley and Irene, two assassins in love, and run them through some cockamamie plot, impose a three-act structure and a happy ending on their lives. "Prizzi's Honor", based on a novel by Richard Condon, does no such thing. It shows us the troubles and the joys that arise from such a marriage.
It also doesn't shy away or try to soften its characters. Charley and Irene are killers and thugs and we see them kill a fair few innocent people. This is the aspect that made me fall in love with this movie. It takes us, the audience, seriously. It presents an engrossing situation before us and doesn't try to make it easy or palatable or "feelgood".
Of course, "Prizzi's Honor" is not a romantic comedy. It's closer to a really dark farce. The kind in which comical misunderstandings don't lead to banging doors but firing guns. Death is the punchline to most of the gags in "Prizzi's Honor".
The film was directed by 79-year-old John Huston, a good director who lost his touch along the way and then unexpectedly regained it and became a great director in his twilight years. His last three films, "Under the Volcano", "Prizzi's Honor", and "The Dead" are his most self-assured and certainly equal to his more popular masterpieces "The Maltese Falcon" and "The African Queen".
I was constantly amazed by his work here. Look, for instance, at the brilliant scene in which Charley and Irene first meet in California. He gives the actors all the room in the world. He never cuts - the whole scene plays out in a single take - but he brilliantly blocks them in camera. At first, they're sitting stiffly side-by-side, then Turner turns around to face Nicholson, he puts an arm around her chair, they move closer together and the camera follows them into a close two-shot. By the time the take ends, they're in love and so are we.
The performances in "Prizzi's Honor" are superb once you realize that no one here is going for realism. Huston directs this picture like a Commedia dell'arte - a grotesquely over-the-top comic play in which all the characters are stereotypes. He makes everyone play in hilariously over-the-top Italian accents. He sets the film in the 1980s but has all the Mafiosi dress as if they've just walked out of "The Godfather". The entire film is underscored with goofy arrangements of famous pieces from Italian opera by Alex North.
Once you pick up on the operatic style of the film and its darkly farcical humour, "Prizzi's Honor" becomes a rare pleasure. It's a smart, hilarious, and devastatingly honest take on a love story which might not have been meant to be. Charley and Irene truly love each other and are having a blast blasting other people together but the world around them seems determined to tear them apart. Can their love survive such pressure? The answer the film gives is certainly not one which will please the dumbed-down rom-com audiences but it's the honest and true one.
4/4 - DirectorBob SwaimStarsRob LoweMeg TillyKim CattrallA recently orphaned heiress meets a young racing yacht captain in the Long Island Hamptons. He shows interest in her, but love may not be the reason.23-06-2023
Bob Swain's "Masquerade", written by TV's favourite crime writer Dick Wolf, has a fetishistic kind of admiration for the Hamptons, its riches, and the people who live there. It has not a satirical bone in its body neither towards its well-worn genre cliches or the lives of the rich and famous. Instead, it focuses on a fear of outsiders - the envious working class - coming in and stealing what rightfully belongs to the millionaires who are frightfully naive, lonely, and just looking for someone who'll love them for themselves rather than their money.
The perfect example is the film's protagonist, the relentlessly sweet and loveable Olivia (Meg Tilly) who, as we're told, owns half the Hamptons. She has recently inherited an immense fortune and eight houses after her mother's death but her wicked stepfather Tony (John Glover) won't let her enjoy her fortune in peace. It's a real surprise that any of the eight houses are still standing after 30 minutes of John Glover's relentless scenery chewing. He is one of the fwe oases of humour in an otherwise disappointingly po-faced film. Whenever he drunkenly stumbles into a scene wearing nothing but a Speedo, you can feel the film's energy level rise.
Anyway, one evening at a dance, Olivia meets a poor young lad by the name of Tim (Rob Lowe) who works as a boat captain for the Hamptonians. He's everything a rich girl like Olivia needs: he's charming, he's hot, and he doesn't care about her money. Of course, the two start having sex pretty soon and decide to marry much to the chagrin of Speedo Tony.
There's another man in the equation, however, and he's another one of these suspicious poor types who are allowed to live in the Hamptons on the proviso that they bow when a rich person passes. His name is Mike (Doug Savant) and he's a new police officer in the local force. He's also Olivia's childhood sweetheart who came back to the Hamptons after a stint in law school hoping that she'd marry him but, for reasons never explained, she's fallen out of love with him.
Of course, by the very nature of the genre, we know that twists, betrayals, and double-crosses will ensue but one of the smarter moves on behalf of the writer is that we don't really know who's conning whom until the third act. Is Tim stringing Olivia along for her money or does he truly love her? Is Mike all that he seems? Is Tony really such a good-for-nothing drunk or is he masterminding some kind of a swindle?
Despite all of these questions, I found "Masquerade" difficult to become invested in. It's a very slight picture, one that feels more at home on cable or VHS rather than the big screen. The characters are stereotypical and barely fleshed out. The plot relies more on sudden twists than logic and careful storytelling. The twists themselves feel more like cheats than genuine surprises. A good film twist is one that is carefully set up and teased throughout. The ones in "Masquerade" only surprise us because they come out of nowhere. Dick Wolf drops them on us without bothering to lay the groundwork for them.
Furthermore, the film is full of "wait, but why..." moments which are impossible to discuss without spoiling the movie. Each twist requires an increasing amount of good will which eventually stretches disbelief so far it snaps.
Bob Swain's direction lacks the stylistic flourishes or the intense pacing required to make a torrid story like this entertaining. His work is stiff and televisual and the film doesn't have a memorable visual identity besides some nice postcard shots of the Hamptons. The John Barry score, meanwhile, sounds like it has been compiled from much better John Barry scores.
The biggest problem with the film, however, is its protagonist Olivia. She's that worst kind of movie lead - the one without any agency or much of a mind of her own. Throughout the film, she is bounced around through the plot by the three men around her like a rag doll who seems to be clueless as to the machinations of the plot even when they're all unfolded clearly before her. This should by no means reflect on Meg Tilly's performance which is serviceably likeable and charismatic but rather on Dick Wolf's thin characterizations and plotting which is more intent on surprising the audience than challenging its protagonist.
"Masquerade" came out at a time when erotic thrillers were still big business. It has its fair share of erotica (courtesy of Kim Cattrall whose sole function in the film seems to be to undress) but very few thrills. It lacks the steamy atmosphere of "Body Heat", the suspense and menace of "Basic Instinct", or the social commentary of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Mainly though, it lacks a sense of humour which maybe could have lifted this torrid and wholly unbelievable material.
2/4 - DirectorBob RafelsonStarsJack NicholsonMichael CaineStephen DorffA man who has failed as a father and husband commits a heist to make money for his fledging business, but things become complicated when his wife interferes.23-06-2023
The best part of Bob Rafelson's film "Blood and Wine" is the interplay between Jack Nicholson and Michael Caine. They play a pair of ill-matched partners in crime but they're not just your typical movie odd couple. No, these guys genuinely hate each other and if they didn't have a million-dollar jewel necklace to find they'd happily kill each other.
Nicholson plays Alex, a wine merchant who is a complete failure as a businessman, as a husband, and as a criminal. He's deep in debt to some very bad people so he concocts a plan to steal a priceless necklace from one of his customers.
Enter Caine who plays Victor, a British safecracker and an all-round psychopathic villain who is caught in the loop of chain smoking and convulsive coughing. As he's all too happy to tell anyone within earshot, he's dying and he has no intention of doing so in a community hospital. He wants to kick the can on some tropical beach with a pair of senoritas on each arm and Alex is the only person offering him that possibility.
As I said, Alex and Victor absolutely despise each other and spend most of the film deliciously grabbing at each other's throats. Alex is way out of his depth in this ill-fated criminal endeavour and Victor's mercurial, violent nature is something he simply cannot deal with. On the other hand, Victor is a highly impatient man whose time is running out and he has no intention to stand by while Alex cocks up their perfect plan. As he himself puts it, "There's no honour among thieves".
The theft of the necklace goes smoothly enough. Problems arise, however, after Alex hides it in one of his suitcases.
That very same evening, he gets into a vicious fight with his wife Suzanne (Judy Davis). He ends up slapping her and she ends up putting him to sleep with a fire poker. Then she packs up her things and runs away, of course, unknowingly taking the necklace with her.
What ensues is a cross-country chase between the desperate Alex, the insane Victor, and the clueless Suzanne. Also involved in this increasingly complex plot are Alex's Cuban mistress Gabriela (Jennifer Lopez) and his bratty stepson Jason (Stephen Dorff) who meet unexpectedly and start falling in love. Whom will Gabriela pick? The 60-year-old insecure wine merchant or the buff 23-year-old with great plans and a devious mind? What a conundrum!
"Blood and Wine" was written by Nick Villiers and Alison Cross with the intention of it being a kind of David Mamet thriller in which a group of colourful characters try to outwit and con each other in order to gain possession of a priceless McGuffin. The film bears certain similarities with one of Mamet's later films, the lean and poetic "Heist". Unfortunately, "Blood and Wine" doesn't ever quite reach those heights.
The film does have interesting characters and great actors to play them. Caine is especially good in one of his best late-career performances as the neurotic, sadistic Victor. Nicholson, on the other hand, brings out his usual bag of tricks - his familiar twitches and twisted smiles - but it's a good performance, convincingly emasculated. Also terrific is Jennifer Lopez who before she became a star was a promising actress. Her turn as the indecisive mistress is energetic, passionate, emotional, and even witty. She brings a much-needed shot of youthful verve to "Blood and Wine".
A film with such good characters and actors should be much smarter, faster, funnier, and more suspenseful than "Blood and Wine" is. The problem is that Villiers and Cross take these fascinating characters and run them through a bog-standard, utterly unconvincing plot. Instead of exploring their idiosyncracies and their conflicting personalities, the film separates them and forces them into a surprisingly boring runaround the result of which I never grew to care about.
Maybe the problem is that the film asks us to care about these people which is impossible since all of them (bar Lopez and Davis) are quite unlikeable. I didn't want any of them to end up with the necklace because they didn't deserve it in the first place. Either the screenplay should have given us more time to meet and grow to care for these people or it should not try to build tension over which of these thieves and crooks gets the stolen item.
I also found Bob Rafelson's direction of the film curiously listless. The film is wonderful in its dialogue scenes, especially the "quieter moments" between Caine and Nicholson or the terrific scene in which Lopez tells Dorff about how she made her way from Cuba to America. But whenever the film shifts into thriller mode it becomes sluggish, uninvolving, and predictable.
"Blood and Wine" is worth seeing for the performances but I wish the film would have just observed these characters rather than force them into such a predictable, uninteresting thriller plot. I wish it further explored the root of Alex's failings, Victor's desperation in the face of an ignoble death, and Gabriela's quest for financial stability. Instead, we get car chases, fight scenes, and a lot of frantic running around Florida none of which ever comes together into a convincing and fun thriller.
2.5/4 - DirectorJeremiah S. ChechikStarsSharon StoneIsabelle AdjaniChazz PalminteriThe wife and mistress of the sadistic dean of an exclusive prep school conspire to murder him.25-06-2023ž
There's an old joke (from the days when such jokes were acceptable) which says that a man's worst nightmare is his wife and his mistress meeting. Well, it would seem that Guy Baran (Chazz Palminteri), a sadistic and authoritarian schoolmaster, is living just such a nightmare. Not only has his wife, the school's headmistress Mia (Isabelle Adjani), become best friends with his mistress, the math teacher Nicole (Sharon Stone), but the two have conspired to murder him.
The first act of "Diabolique" has a rather choppy quality to it so the provenance of their friendship and the details of their conspiracy are vague at best. The film speeds past such issues as Mia's placid acceptance of her husband's affair and her openness and affection for his mistress. But this is a movie that's more concerned with actions than motivations and such minor trifles that other people could build whole movies around are dispensed with.
Anyway, much like the movie itself I'll cut to the chase and say that their plan works. Guy is dead, drowned in a bathtub, and the women dump his body into the school's swimming pool. Now the wait for it to be discovered begins. As the days go by and no one finds the pesky corpse, Mia orders the pool to be drained but Guy's body is mysteriously nowhere to be found.
"Diabolique" is based on the same Boileau/Narcejac novel that has already spawned one masterpiece in the form of the superbly atmospheric and groundbreaking Henri-Georges Cluzot film "Les Diaboliques". Even though it is tempting, there's little point in comparing the two films. Of course, the remake doesn't even approach the spooky, subtle original but it never even tries to since this is a very different take on the same material. What "Diabolique" wants to be is yet another lurid, overwrought 90s erotic thriller.
Oh, sure, it puts up a front of feminism and progressivism with its lesbian subtext (why not make it text?) and a silly girl power twist ending but what kind of a feminist movie begins with an extended gratuitous nude scene?
The biggest hint to the film's intentions is its cartoonish characters. The naive Mia with her saintly pale makeup, long black dresses, and giant cross hanging around her neck; the sexy Nicole in the shortest, tightest, and most colourful skirts and blouses the costuming department could find constantly posing with cigarettes and speaking in sultry, raspy tones; and Guy with his self-satisfied grin, sharp suits, and brutish manner - a character more at home in a speakeasy than a school.
The idea of these two women, victims of the same abusive, narcissistic man, falling in love is fascinating but the film merely skirts over it. It suggests a lesbian affair between them with such skittishness and chastity you'd think the Hays Code was still in effect. If this were a heterosexual love affair, they'd be having sex on the roof of the school in broad daylight and to hell with black dresses and crosses.
As a thriller, "Diabolique" is a flat affair. Director Jeremiah Chechik fails to give it a sense of suspense and urgency. For one, he completely wastes the film's terrific, gothic setting. There are some very nice visuals in the film but as a whole, it lacks atmosphere or tension.
Why? I think it's because writer Don Roos commits a cardinal sin when it comes to writing thrillers. He makes Nicole and Mia too passive. After the murder, they lose all agency. Instead of investigating Guy's disappearance and trying to solve this impossible situation they have found themselves in they merely sit around and wait for bad things to happen. Meanwhile, detectives, witnesses, and even Guy's former mistress, all come to them almost as if they're pleading with them to actually shake a leg and do something! But they never do. Everything in the film merely happens to them rather than having them be the cause of the events.
At the time of its release, "Diabolique" acquired a poisonous reputation which persists to this day. In truth, it is not all that terrible. I've certainly seen much worse thrillers from the same period that get more of a pass. As I said, I like the film's visuals and its creepy score by Randy Edelman. I also quite like Kathy Bates' excellent performance as a snooping detective even if she's criminally underused.
The problem is not that "Diabolique" is actively bad, it's that it is quite forgettably bland. It has the ambitiousness of a Showtime cable movie and it never manages to reach above that level with its thin, cartoonish characters, lack of suspense, and unwillingness to dwell deeper into the issues it is nominally tackling. I was never offended by this film but I kinda wish I was. I think a negative reaction is preferable to being amiably bored which is what I was while watching "Diabolique".
2/4 - DirectorGeorge A. RomeroStarsTimothy HuttonAmy MadiganMichael RookerA writer's fictional alter ego wants to take over his life...at any price.27-06-2023
It amazes me how, regardless of who the director or adaptor is and even whether the movie is any good or not, every film based on a Stephen King novel perfectly replicates that unique Stephen King small-town atmosphere with its kooky inhabitants, little routines, and endless plaid shirts. I mention this first because the best scenes in George Romero's "The Dark Half" are the ones portraying the life in Castle Rock, a fictional Maine town which pops up so often in King's books that it has now received a spin-off TV show all of its own. I especially like the local photographer Homer Gamache who, in his spare time, is preparing a book on the American way of death consisting of photographs featuring teddy bears in coffins. He is played by Glenn Colerider whose performance is so deliciously weird and yet utterly convincing that it deserves to be praised before the rest of the film is criticised.
What also amazes me, and pretty much most of his readers, is King's ability to stretch out a fascinating premise for a short story into an overlong and increasingly ridiculous doorstopper of a novel. Unfortunately, George Romero's film of "The Dark Half" perfectly replicates that aspect of his oeuvre as well.
The facilitating premise revolves around a novelist (surprise! surprise!) Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton) who spends his days writing violent, nasty thrillers under the pen name of George Stark and his nights dreaming about writing "serious" novels. When Thad finally plucks up the courage to kill off Stark, stop writing pulp stories, and start working on his magnum opus, he is shocked to discover that his nome-de-plume has taken on a life of his own.
George Stark (also played by Hutton) is a nasty piece of work - as brutal and as unscrupulous as the novels he writes. He starts murdering people Thad cares for one by one until the reluctant novelist agrees to revive Stark's career.
The premise is intriguing but the film throws it away very soon in favour of becoming a slasher goon show and settling into a tediously repetitive rhythm.
For one, the film tips its hand far, far too early. We know what's going on right from the start so we spend most of the runtime waiting for the characters to catch up. Despite some convoluted scenes in which Thad tries to figure out how Stark came to be, there's no mystery in this picture. Instead of slowly unravelling Stark's nature to us, Romero tells us exactly who he is before the credits are finished rolling.
Secondly, I think Stark would have been a far more interesting villain had he been less corporeal. Having him become an entity separate from Thad turns him into nothing more than a boring slasher villain instead of having him be a neat twist on the Jekyll and Hyde story. The idea of a writer's alter ego being brought alive by imagination is much more interesting than the sub-Cronenbergian nonsense put forward here.
Third, the film never truly examines the duality of Thad's nature. Like most adaptations of Jekyll and Hyde, "The Dark Half" ignores the fact that Stark must have come from within Thad and that he must, in some way, be an integral part of him. The novel does actually deal with this subject better suggesting that Thad secretly likes and admires Stark but the film sadly doesn't go there.
Eleven years later, David Koepp would make "Secret Window", another movie based on a Stephen King story which would deal with all of the same issues but in a much more interesting, intelligent, and imaginative way.
What George Romero has made here, however, is a crass and shockingly dull slasher movie that fails to make up in thrills what it lacks in intelligence. It's slow, unsurprising, and full of unimaginative scenes of violence which should be the film's centrepieces.
Also ineffective is Timothy Hutton's dual role. He is a charming, charismatic, smart actor whose performance in "Ordinary People" will forever rank him among my favourites, but his turn as George Stark here is frankly an embarrassment. He speaks cliched, humourless dialogue in an affected Southern drawl while strutting around unconvincingly like a man who's either just come off a horse or defecated in his jeans. He is never threatening or creepy.
"The Dark Half" is too flat and uninterested in its premise to work as a psychological thriller and it's too long and soft to be a fun slasher flick. What it ends up being is a boring rehash of Stephen King's worst tendencies that desperately needs a jolt of energy to shake up its listless, predictable story.
1.5/4