The Evil Dead series has fascinated me since I first discovered it in the early 1990s. I was aware of the films for a number of years but never bothered to investigate them, because I didn't know anybody else who had seen them. That changed one night on a Halloween when I was at a friend's party and we watched "Evil Dead 2" after the kids had gone to sleep. I laughed and screamed at the ridiculous amounts of blood, body parts, and Three Stooges jokes that were being thrown at me. These were my people.
I've seen the Evil Dead, and Army of Darkness, on the big screen multiple times. This may have only been the second or third time I have seen "Evil Dead 2" in a theater. But as with most theatrical experiences, the presence of an audience as well as the big screen, and the requirement that you stay engaged, makes the experience something that is far superior to home viewing.
I've been to two or three presentations where the "Man God" Bruce Campbell, has appeared in person to talk about the films we are watching. 3 years ago in this same theater we came for a screening of the original "Evil Dead", and Bruce was there. We had sprung for an extra couple of bucks in order to get a picture opportunity, but it was Covid and the pictures required social distancing, which makes it look a little bit like it's photoshopped. I don't care, we were in the presence of greatness. The talent of Bruce Campbell is especially on display in "Evil Dead 2". His performance involves a physicality that most actors in an action film would have a hard time achieving. In addition he has to convey some of those emotions that are going on in the character while under a layer of makeup and appliances that would make most of us cringe to think of having on our bodies. He is really quite effective and there are so many close-ups on his face that require him to communicate those emotions in a humorous way but in a way that is also quite immediate. He Nails it.
Some of the storytelling and much of the acting is deliberately ham-fisted in order to gain as much humorous power as possible. The audience last night laughed uproariously at each situation that required Ash to come up with another solution that was ridiculously violent. Most of those moments occur after he has decapitated his girlfriend with a shovel. I understand that budget limitations produced some of the slightly clunky stop motion effects in the film. I have always been a fan of stop motion special effects, I'm not sure that Ray Harryhausen would approve of the way the technique is used in the first part of the film. It's definitely brilliant, even if it isn't as polished as a Harryhausen film would be.
Even the cheesiest jokes work well in this film, because director Sam Rami, knows what he's going after. The goal is to shock and entertain the audience with the most audacious visualized or violence, and the silliest hero's journey you can imagine. There's just one word for the whole thing... groovy!
This has always been the controversial film, but especially at our house. My late wife rarely disliked movies but when she did she did so with a passion and "A Clockwork Orange" is one of the films that she loathed. The reason that makes it controversial at our house is that it's a film that I have loved since I first saw it in the mid-70s. Despite our difference of opinion on the movie I continued to watch it every few years. And last night's screening gave me a little bit more insight into why my dearly departed love disliked the film so much.
Not only is the film misanthropic it is highly misogynistic and rarely offers any sort of redemption for those attitudes. Alex DeLarge, the self-described hero and narrator of the film, is a loathsome violent criminal, who has disdain for any conventional rules, although he is capable of putting on a facade of politeness when it suits him. There are three distinct scenes where women are helpless as they're being assaulted by multiple criminals in the story. None of these woman are really given much of a chance to be a fully realized character. Although the defiance of the cat lady who is the final victim of Alex, is at least an attempt to give a female character a personality in the story.
The movie is a dystopian view of a not too distant future, and although the book was written in 1962, and the movie came out in 1971, 2024 does not feel as if it is too far in front of a world very similar to the one depicted in this story. The plot goes a long way toward trying to criticize the nearly fascist political party in charge of Britain and its criminal justice system. And although Alex suffers as a result of the treatment that he receives, it's awfully hard not to sympathize with the victim that turns the tables on him at the end of the film. The whole tone of the movie is one of cynicism directed at irredeemable youth, intransigent bureaucracy, and conniving political creatures.
As much as she disliked the film, my wife would have agreed with me about Malcolm McDowell the star of the movie. He is perfect in this movie. Director Stanley Kubrick notoriously a perfectionist, must have worked McDowell to near exhaustion to get some of the scenes that resonate so well especially in the final sections of the film. When the Minister of Justice starts hand feeding Alex in his hospital bed, he is mocked subliminally by the smacking noise that Alex makes with his mouth each time he's ready for another bite of food. The political obtuseness of the minister is one of the points of the film. There is a theme in the movie that also concerns free will, but that feels like it is only there is as justification for making us feel guilty about the treatment that Alex receives.
Alex's parole officer, is not a particularly pleasant person, but he seems to have one of the most accurate views of Alex of anyone in the film. The corrections officer at the prison, is seen as a totalitarian tool, but he also has a keen understanding of Alex, although one that is so single-minded that it seems unreasonable. And that's in spite of what we know about Alex and his character. This may be one of the faults that critics of the film justifiably point to because it makes Alex a victim when what he really is, is a monster. The feckless parents and the manipulative Justice minister are reflective of the powerless society that has allowed this sort of crime spree to exist. Kubrick, and apparently Anthony Burgess the author of the book, seem to be trying to have it both ways, abhorring the aberrant behavior of the young thugs, but also averting our eyes in horror at the brainwashing of those same thugs to condition them to be more social creatures.
The movie has the added bonus of a synthesizer heavy score that frequently manipulates classical music into its themes. There's nothing wrong with a little Beethoven to go along with your ultraviolence.
Once again we are back at the Paramount for another Summer Classic film. This time it was the first film of this season in the "Robert Rodriguez Presents Series", "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Local hero Director Robert Rodriguez chooses films that he was inspired by or has some connection to and then introduces them with behind the scenes stories and tidbits about the actors. The villain in this film was played by Ricardo Montalban, who made a couple of the "Spy Kids" movies with Rodriguez. The director noted how the question always comes up about Ricardo's physique and whether he wore a prosthetic chest piece. That is in fact Montalban's own chest, and the costume designer was so impressed with his appearance, they created costumes that accentuated his look.
Director Rodriguez also recounted the sad history of Montalban's back injury and the surgery years later that confined him to a wheelchair. Of course movie magic allowed the actor to run in one of the "Spy Kids" films and that was a nice moment that he shared with us. The director has a long list of notes in a notebook that he refers to as he prowls the stage like a tiger, not from anxiety but rather enthusiasm. He surveyed the audience and found one person who saw Star Trek II when it opened, at the same theater he had done so back in San Antonio in 1982. That audience member was presented with a nice picture book about the making of the movie. I suspect it was also autographed by our host.
"The Wrath of Khan" was a follow up to "Star Trek the Motion Picture", which was financially profitable but at a huge cost. The sequel was done with a miniscule budget in comparison, and the production was taken over by the TV unit of Paramount to hold down costs. Still, there are several great production moments in the movie, including the battles between the two starships and the Genesis Project video. There are several spots where shots are cribbed from the first movie but it is not egregious. The fact that "Khan" was a continuation of an original series episode was discussed and Rodriguez had edited together a ten minute version of the episode for us to watch before the movie.
You can read my thoughts on the movie here, and here, and here. This is a movie that I adore and every chance to see it on the big screen should be jumped at. There are two things I would like to add about the screening. Robert Rodriguez explained that another way to save costs was by skipping the more expensive Jerry Goldsmith as the film composer and hiring James Horner. The future Academy Award winning composer was the go to Roger Corman and Star Trek II was his big break. Ironically, Director Nicolas Myer said he was hired because they could not afford Goldsmith, but when Meyer returned to the series for Star Trek VI, they could no longer afford Horner.
The other thing I wanted to mention was the beautiful artwork done by Bob Peak. The prolific film poster illustrator did images for all of the original cast movies, but his work on Trek II was superb. So good in fact, that I draped myself in it for the Sunday night show.
It's been almost a week since I saw this film, and I'm still not sure how much I liked it. To be honest, the faults of the movie are largely a result of a screenplay which is based on a book. Unfortunately, it is a photography book and it has no narrative structure. Writer/Director Jeff Nichols has attempted to create a story to match the looks of the 60s motorcycle club, but it feels like a set of tableaus rather than a fully formed plot. The choice to have it told through a series of backward looking interviews, by a subject who would not be privy to some of the details or events, is also a bit befuddling.
The three stars of the film all have something to offer, but there is also a drawback to what they are doing. Tom Hardy plays Johnny, a motorcycle racing enthusiast who commits to forming a riding club. The people who join this club are largely outsiders who are looked down on by others and frequently spurned by their own families. Hardy has the attitude and look of a tough guy who is really a family man, but his articulation in the film comes with a voice that sounds like a feckless Elmer Fudd, more than the cool Marlon Brando that the character admires. Everything he does feels like he has to be pushed to do. The most powerful action he takes, in retribution for an attack on his protege Benny, is done as a collective action, and it is clearly their numbers which gives him the upper hand. Is that power going to be used for somethin? Can Johnny hold onto the power? Will the authority of his position corrupt him? Some of these get a little attention, but are not deeply developed because there really is no story. Johnny is an incomplete character.
Speaking of incomplete characters, Benny is basically just a cliche dressed up as Austin Butler doing James Dean. As a laconic, nearly mute protagonist, Benny has the look of the character he is supposed to be, but there is even less depth to him than to Johnny. Butler is promising enough early on, where his good looks and quiet demeanor suggest sexy bad boy. As the film plays out, we just know him by his anti social ways, rather than his character. He is a walking stereotype of the dangerous sexy boy that the girl is attracted to. When it comes to physicality, Butler is great, when it comes to emotions, there is only one scene, near the end of the picture, where we get the slightest insight into how he really feels.
Jodie Comer is the real star of the film. Her character, Kathy, is the narrator for the events, and she has a couple of incidents in the movie where she gets to show her chops. Her choices may be the most controversial because of the accent that she uses for the character. I know that it is based on the actual voice of the real Kathy, because of an interview we got after the advanced screening. In the live stream event, she told the story of listening to a tape of the woman who was the source of the material about the club/gang. The approach is disconcerting at first but I thought she sold it pretty well. Others may have difficulty living with it.
The movie looks terrific. It is shot in a way that accentuates the images so that they look like they came from a picture book. This choice may also undermine the drama of the film. There are dozens of needle drops that reflect the times and the subculture of the motorcycle club. Very few of them are the biggest hits of the artists that are being played, they rather are strong lesser known tunes that fit the themes and images of the film. You won't be hearing "Leader of the Pack" by the Shangri_Las, but you will hear that group frequently in the film. Steppenwolf is nowhere to be found but Gary U.S. Bonds is. These were good choices to avoid a paint by the numbers motorcycle movie. It's just too bad that the narrative and the visuals make the movie feel like a slideshow rather than a story.
It is no secret that the Ti West film "X" was my favorite movie of 2022. Along with the immediate prequel "Pearl", director west has created an indelible set of characters, tied together by sexuality and a desire for fame. In two weeks we will be getting the next chapter in this franchise, "Maxxxine", and it is my most anticipated film of the year. I am always happy to see a movie that I love on the big screen, but this week's screening was special because at the conclusion of the film, we get the five minute opening of "Maxxxine" as a dessert. The amazing Mia Goth, should have been nominated for an Academy Award for the tremendous work she did in "Pearl", and it looks like there will be more of that caliber work in the new film. The tone of the clip we saw was perfect, and the exit line that leads to the titles, tells us that this character is a force to be reconned with. I can hardly wait.
As for "X", this movie continues to impress me with it's verisimilitude of the late 1970s film scene. The rag tag band of pornographers runs into a older couple that has a dark history and a misanthropic perspective of the world. The movie provides a variety of horror thrills, from slashers, to animal attacks and body horror. That it does so with a great sense of style and humor is what makes the film so memorable. The aforementioned Mia Goth has a dual role in the film, and she hits the right marks of both a scream queen and a horror villain.
The obvious horror influences are "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Psycho". The setting at an isolated farm in Texas with a weird family of residents is supplemented by the group arriving in a van, and going through some of the same stages of travel as were found in that 1974 classic. The "Psycho" connections are slightly more subtle but also more plentiful. There is an infirm old lady, watching from an upstairs window. Voyeurism is at the heart of the story as we peek at the sex being filmed for a low budget porno, the main antagonist does some peeking as well. "Psycho" gets name checked by the film student/director of the movie within the movie, and he has a shower scene that anticipates the Janet Leigh treatment he receives just a few moments later. The stud film star, who is acting sympathetically to the old man in the story, gets the Martin Balsam treatment.
In an early scene in the movie, we are treated to a Peeping Tom's overhead view of Maxxine taking a nude swim. Included in the overhead shot is an encroaching crocodile, which is disappointed at the last minute, but Director Ti West knows that Chekov's crocodile must play a part in the mayhem, and he does not disappoint. Brittany Snow plays the cocksure actress who can both make it and fake it. Martin Henderson as the ambitious film producer manages to be slimy but also somewhat charming and polite. Jenna Ortega was in her third horror film of the first half of the year when she gets tempted to the dark side of sexual fame. Her hysterics in the final act are one of the things that make the climax feel so much like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".
Although there is gore a plenty in the film, the sense of terror does not rely on those bloody images. Two example perfectly explain what I am talking about. Wayne, the producer has a encounter with a rusty nail that invokes more horror than his final confrontation with a pitchfork. Ti West knows how to milk that suspense, and when the sudden puncture away from the foot happens, it is almost a relief and comic by comparison. The second scene that shows off the horror bona fides of the director comes when Mia Goth encounters Mia Goth in her bed. It is as disturbing as is possible while also having some sympathy for the horrible Pearl.
I hate that I have to wait an extra day to see "Maxxine", we have some other commitments. I guess being an adult carries the weight of responsibility with it. Although I have to say, loving these movies may undermine all that I do in the rest of my life to prove I am a grown up.
There is a long history of seeing "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" on Father's Day. Here is a link to a video blog post on one of those visits several years ago.
This film has a couple of great ideas, that play out perfectly for a Father's Day screening. The opening sequence, featuring a Young Indiana in what must have been his first big adventure, sets up both the character, and his somewhat contentious relationship with his father. We hear Dad's voice but barely see the back of his head. When Sean Connery returns in full force later in the picture, he is the personification of the impervious father figure. It is as the adventure plays out that Junior and his dad start to mend fences and build bridges to a more familial relationship.
I love the sequences in Venice, the Austrian Castle and the rally in Berlin, they all remind us of the time and places that Dr. Jones lived in and how he boldly traversed the world. The action scenes that take place in the deserts of the Middle East however, are the most memorable, including a tank/horse chase that is choreographed brilliantly.
The film is loaded with memorable moments, some of which have become memes that are used all over the internet. This is not a full blown review, but there are other remarks you can find on the site if you like.
Another packed family movie, although this one was presented under the "Banned Camp" label that the film series is using this summer. Steven Janise, the programmer spoke at the start of the show, pointing out that the original book of "Alice in Wonderland" appeared on some lists of books banned by schools or libraries. It was not more specific than that so I can't tell you why.
The film experienced a renaissance in the late sixties when the drug counter-culture embraced all of the weird elements of the movie, and if you watch the movie, you will see why. This film is loaded with characters right out of a dream or a nightmare. The background flora and fauna are terrifically designed and would hold up in a contemporary film even if the form of animation was different.
"Alice in Wonderland" does not really have a structure. The main character of young Alice, simply wanders through the enchanted world, encountering odd stories and characters along the way. Although nominally chasing the white rabbit, there was no real purpose for doing so, and if she spends ten minutes listening to a story or song, it is perfectly acceptable because all that happens next is another story or song .The Walrus and the Carpenter is a little creepy, since the adorable baby oysters get eaten, but at least it happens off screen. The Queen of Hearts is a little shrill too often for my taste but the game of croquet was a lot of fun.
The Cheshire Cat and the Caterpillar are exactly the things that hippies smoking pot or dropping acid would relate to. They are surreal moments in an abstract kind of film that feels very ahead of itself, until you hear the songs. The songs are all standard child friendly 50s fare that have no hooks but are not unpleasant.
Lush backgrounds, fluid characters and amazing designs are the reason you want to see this movie. It is a lot of fun at times, but it does get a little tiresome with the story pattern repetition.
I admired the original "Inside Out" from 2015 but I was not really a big fan. Some of the bloggers I follow loved it the best of all the Pixar films, but I found it only modestly satisfying. I have never quite put my finger on why it failed to resonate with me more, until I saw the sequel, to which I had the exact same response. It is fine, with some very clever moments, but there is something not quite right. I think my ambivalence is a result of a very small story arc, that is breached only by a long series of nearly random elements. It's the exact same pattern in both movies.
The best part of the films, is the creative production design and visualization of the concepts. We are getting a simplification of a complex mental process, and if we keep it at that level it works. The problem is that every time a concept is established, a new variation comes along and changes the immediate direction of the story and the process. Of course you need to have complications, but they should grow out of the world that is being created, and not simply imposed on the characters or scenario. As a result, each solution is less of a journey accomplished than an ex-machina imposition. There are simply too many of them to stay compelling, it undermines the drama.
Another reservation that I have detected, is an inherent flaw in character development. The emotions don't really have any legitimate range. Joy needs to stay joyful, because that is her whole reason for being. If she can have other emotions, why do all of the separate characters exist? Her best line is that :"Maybe that is what happens when you grow up—you feel less joy." She utters it mournfully. She also has a breakdown and becomes frustrated that she needs to be joyful all the time. The scenario is clever but it sets out some impossible to meet rules for a story to work.
There is a lot to like about the film. Anxiety as a character is a good add, but needs a little bit of moderation from the other new emotions. The Brainstorm sequence made me laugh out loud, as did the parade balloons of future occupations. The stream of consciousness continues to be a clever idea integrated into the world that has been created here. Visually, the movie succeeds at every turn, with creative imaging and beautiful execution. The sequences of Riley skating and playing hockey are exquisitely presented, and as I've said before, I'm not really a hockey fan.
All of us have gone through the things that Riley is facing in this film. It is tough to balance the conceit of the emotional universe with the daily experiences of the main character. I thought it was a bit more involving in this version of the movie, because we spend so much more time with Riley as a whole character. Joy on the other hand, is basically repeating the same mistake she made in the first film, with a different set of complications that just get resolved arbitrarily. I'm happy the film is doing well, I want the movie business to continue and hits make that happen. I just wish this hit was a little more deserving.
Midweek we enjoyed a double feature of horror films from the 1930s. The classic "Bride of Frankenstein", and the lesser known but very stylish "Dracula's Daughter". It's been less than 18 months since I saw the Bride of Frankenstein in a theater. Back in 2022 I saw The Bride with "The Mummy" in a Fathom event and I wrote about it then and you can read about it here.
The "Bride of Frankenstein" is one of the most stylish films from the 1930s. Filled with what might be described as German expressionism, the lighting and shadows are dramatic and exactly the kind of thing that foreshadows film noir coming in the next decade. Of course there are also the over-the-top performances of Dr Frankenstein and Doctor Septimus Pretorius. The one actor who clearly outshines everyone in the film continues to be Boris Karloff. Although he was against it, this version of the monster developed some language skills, and it helps the story take on some even greater moral dilemmas.
Where is Henry Frankenstein stitched together body parts of the Dead and used electricity to try and bring them back to life, Dr. Pretorius seems to have been using recombinant DNA to achieve his goal, and this is well before the concept of DNA was understood. He appears to have been using cloning and some kind of genetic Magic to produce his set of miniature living beings. That sequence is mostly used for humor, but it does set up the idea that they're going to grow a body around a bone structure as opposed to trying to assemble one from body parts of others. Of course the one exception as they get close to creating the bride, comes when they have to have a fresh heart. Now we're not dealing with grave robbers but murderers.
The Bride of Frankenstein does continue to raise the question of man's control over life and death, and whether we are crossing a Rubicon by trying to create life. The film is all the better for the prologue that features Byron and Shelly and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly telling the stories on a dark and stormy night. Byron in particular is portrayed as a romantic in a very theatrical way, which sets up the rest of the story very effectively.
"The Bride of Frankenstein" relies on a variety of special photographic effects, miniatures, and production design that creates a Gothic image in a faraway place to give us the creeps. "Dracula's Daughter" is much more sparse in its use of any special effects. They are one or two moments where the process of hypnosis is visualized using some photographic techniques, but when they get to Dracula's castle it's a very basic sequence that is not drawing attention to itself the way the exploding Laboratory at the end of the "Bride of Frankenstein" was doing.
I know I saw this movie two or three times as a kid, but I remembered only a few particular moments. I remembered the ring the Countess Zeleska uses to hypnotize and subdue her victims. I remembered the creepy familiar, Sandor, with his pasty face greased down hair and deep set eyes. He looked like a vampire well before being given eternal life. I also remembered the sequence where the Countess is testing herself with a girl she acquires as a model. When the young woman takes off her blouse and drops down the straps on her chemise, there is a moment of desire that overcomes the Countess, and that largely accounts for the films Sapphic reputation.
The film is atmospheric and has some nice visuals, but it feels like a very straightforward drama with a few horror elements added. The opening and closing of the coffin at the count is sleeps in, and the wrap that she cloaks herself in, revealing only her eyes are as close to transforming into a bat or revealing fangs that we are going to get. We never even see the puncture wounds that doctors refer to on the victims. So everything is played very subtly. Of course that's part of the story The Countess thinks now that Count Dracula is gone, that the spell she is under is broken and it is only her mental state that forces her into continuing to live the nocturnal vampire existence. Thus her interest in the mealy mouth psychiatrist/doctor that she begins to consult and ultimately decides that she wishes to make her Eternal mate.
I had completely forgotten that Van Helsing appears in the film, and that the reason the doctor is involved in the story in the first place is to help his former mentor escape conviction for murdering Count Dracula. The chief of Scotland Yard is portrayed as barely competent, and completely skeptical, but surprisingly accommodating to both Van Helsing and his young former pupil.
There are no big action scenes, we don't get a stake through the heart, at least not on screen. The Countess is betrayed by her familiar rather than the hero. And the vampire doesn't melt in the sunlight at the last minute. The movie ends with very little in the way of dramatic climax, and although we're supposed to have some sympathy for countess Zaleska, we're mostly left with a feeling of sadness for everybody involved. For a movie with very limited horror effects it manages to have the desired outcome on our emotions. A a very worthwhile sequel to the original Dracula.
So in the last 2 weeks we have been able to see three of the Best Picture winners from the mid-70s. A week and a half ago it was "Godfather Part 2", two nights ago it was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and last night was our chance to see "The Sting" the film that won the award between the other two. I've seen "The Sting" on the big screen several times, and it is always a pleasure. But seeing it with a full audience adds an extra dimension. Let me explain why.
When the auditorium is packed you can hear the reaction of other audience members around you. I could tell from the gasps and laughter of people sitting behind me and down a few rows, that they were seeing "The Sting" for the very first time. Those who are familiar with the movie are aware that there are several surprise twists in various spots in the film, but most especially in the last Act. It is a complete delight to listen to people who are surprised and amused at the twist that shows up next. Another one of the reasons that seeing a film with an audience on the big screen is so important to me.
The event had some special extras to go with it, in addition to our usual popcorn, a drink coupon was provided for us. We also had a selection of Halloween sized candy that we could pick up before we went into the theater. That stop also gave us a chance to wave at and say hi to Danielle who we had met the week before. Erin, the community outreach member that we met last year, greeted us as we were getting our popcorn. She also shared that our picture was used in the latest email to all of the film fans who signed up for Paramount notifications. That was cool.
Before the film started, a series of screen slides provided some trivia information about the making of the film. Included was a detail that Jack Nicholson had been offered the role of Hooker, ultimately played by Robert Redford. Yeah, I think this was a good outcome, having Jack in the part would have been a completely different kind of movie. The biggest draw for me has always been the outsized villain played by Robert Shaw. is Doyle Lonnegan is a joyless mobster who simply cares only for money and being the top dog. Any action that undermines his pride becomes a motivation for him to seek revenge. That's why the poker game on the train is so important. It provides all the incentive that Lonnegan needs in order to accept a chance at getting back at Newman's character. It allows the subterfuge to go undetected because of his desire for revenge. Shaw plays the part with barely a single smile in any of his scenes. Once in awhile a small smirk appears to indicate to Hooker or to Loneaggan's lackeys that he has the upper hand. It's a joy to see that smirk it wiped off of his face two or three times in the course of the movie.
Director George Roy Hill won the Academy Award for this particular film, and although he is a respected technician, you don't hear many people speak of him with the same degree of awe as Scorsese, Coppola, or Spielberg. He did some amazing films in the '70s and later on this summer we get a chance to revisit the movie that he made with Paul Newman and Robert Redford prior to this, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". I recently saw the film "A Little Romance", which he made with Lawrence Olivier and a very young Diane Lane, and it's absolutely terrific. Combine that with the fact that he made the greatest sports movie ever, "Slap Shot", and turned my favorite book into a fairly reasonable film version, "The World According to Garp", and I feel he deserves a little more cache with film fans.
It's not even the middle of June yet, and I feel like I've had a summers worth of great movies already. I'm looking forward to several things in the next few weeks, and you can expect continued updates on the Paramount classic film series 50th anniversary.
I wrote about this film just a few months ago on the Thursday 1975 Throwback project that I am doing. So I will give you that link (here) if you want to see more complete thoughts on the film. For this screening, let me say it was nice to be in a theater full of adults, although I was surprised at the people behind me who had never seen the film before. Their quite cries of anguish when the s*** hits the fan was indicative of the power of this film, even after nearly fifty years.
Nicholson's performance is so much more physical than I remembered and those moments of pain, rage and enthusiasm are all the things that make his character work. In contrast to the cool Miss Ratched played by Louise Fletcher, McMurphy is an angry bag of cats, waiting to be unleashed. The supporting actors are all excellent as well. Director Milos Forman took actors with very distinctive looks and allowed them room to be "off" if not entirely crazy. DeVito, Lloyd, and Schiavelli have great individual moments, Sydney Lassick practically steals the movie from everyone else. Of course Will Sampson is magnificent when he simply utters an unexpected "Thank You". Brad Dourif as Billy will break your heart.
The screening was at the State Theater instead of next door at the Paramount. They had a live show booked in there this last evening.
It is almost beyond comprehension to me that the first time I saw either of the Paddington films was not in a theater. It is however sadly true so this is the first time I get an opportunity to properly write about one of them on this project. For those of you unaware, "Paddington" is the name of a bear who has migrated from Peru to London, and is taken in by a kindly and quirky family, the Browns. The stories are full of fish out of water moments as Paddington moves from being a stranger in a strange land to a loved member of the family and community.
Everywhere you look in the movie, there are charming images and clever little visual prompts. Paddington hops on a bicycle, driven by a local, makes a quick connection to a trash collector's truck that he hitches a ride on, and then meets a bus where he can end up at his destination. There is always a slapstick moment or two for the kids, but adults will smile at the good natured way that Paddington gives everyone he meets the benefit of his trust. Of course we know that doing so is a dangerous thing and the poor bear ends up in trouble as a consequence.
There were frequent moments in the film, where I was reminded of a Wes Anderson movie. The sets, the camera angles and the movements of the actors in the scenes mimic some of the tropes of an Anderson film. The color palate of the prison where Paddington ends up, with the accidentally pink inmates garb is especially reminiscent of some of those Anderson films. Here however, we have an exceedingly polite bear as our central figure, rather than one of the grotesque figures from "The Hotel Budapest".
Enhancing this second Paddington movie is the presence of Hugh Grant, playing the heavy part, but doing so with an incredibly light touch. In many places in the film, you can spot him mocking his own career and joking about his thespian skills. The first film had Nicole Kidman as the villain, and her plot line and tone were quite a bit darker than might be fitting for a kid's picture. Grant however is a perfect, goofball style foil for our intrepid bear with the positive attitude.
This film was at the State Theater, next door to the Paramount. Several of the Family film series pictures will be screening here rather than in the grand movie palace next door. I was happy to see the theater full of families who had small children, most of whom were very cooperative with the idea of staying seated and quite during the film. The delightful howls of laughter when Paddington cuts hair in a barbershop or cleans windows at a high rise, were an extra bonus for a Sunday afternoon. I know some people don't like kids, but those people are deranged. A kid having a good time at a movie is one of the joyous things we should share in our culture.
I subscribe to a Pop Series at the Austin Symphony Orchestra and the final show in that series this season was a concert featuring music from my favorite film composer, Jerry Goldsmith. I looked forward to this evening all year long and it did not disappoint.
The opening of the concert was a fanfare, like you might get from one of the Major Studios at the start of their films. I'm not sure, but I think it might have been the fanfare written by Goldsmith for the Oscars. It was not credited in the show notes, but I do have a link for you if you want to hear it.
The Opening piece was from the Science Fiction film "Total Recall". It uses some non-traditional instruments, which was typical for Goldsmith. It sounds a little like a Basil Poledouris piece.
It is a powerful and driving theme that fits with an Arnold Schwarzenegger film. Loud and Bombastic with some banging percussion that gets you in the mood for spy games on Mars.
Long before I knew his name, Jerry Goldsmith had scored films that in my youth I saw on television. "The Blue Max" with George Peppard is a WWI flying movie about a German Pilot. seeking to become an Ace while also having a love affair with his commanding officer's wife. The flying sequences are quite good.
As the program went through each selection, Robert Faries, a writer, actor and dirctor from the Austin Arts community, introduced each piece with a little history and background on the film and how Goldsmith's work was used. His information was enlightening and enhanced the music selections greatly.
There was a medley of motion picture themes that were strung together in an effortless manner that made the styles that Goldsmith worked in seem incredibly vast. This included pieces from "The Sand Pebbles", "Chinatown", "Air Force One", "A Patch of Blue", "Poltergeist", "Papillion", "Basic Instinct" and my favorite Goldsmith work, "The Wind and the Lion".
The first half of the evenings program finished with a suite of music from "Gremlins". I mentioned it in a couple of posts in the past, "Gremlins" was the inspiration for me to write the only fan letter I ever composed. I sent it to him at Warner Brothers. I have no idea if it ever reached it's target but I am pleased to remember that I did reach out to this music giant when his work moved me.
After the intermission, we quickly dove back into some great science fiction music from "Capricorn One".
Goldsmith always tried to find the contrasting themes to the characters and scenes that the movies he wrote for presented. "First Blood" certainly needed action music, but there is a contemplative theme that permeates the movie. The show notes say "Rambo: First Blood II" but the tune is from the first film, this is an instrumental version of the theme song sung by Dan Hill.
Goldsmith and "Alien" director Ridley Scott did not agree on the tome for the theme of the film. Goldsmith reworked it to the satisfaction of Scott, but as Robert Faires explained, there were also old themes from previous Goldsmith compositions that got used as temp tracks and then stayed in the picture. Regardless of the controversy, the end title music is used in several spots in the film, it is a Goldsmith classic.
Many people will know Jerry Goldsmith because of his connection to "Star Trek". He composed the music for "Star Trek The Motion Picture" and the theme became the theme for the television series "Star Trek The Next Generation". He subsequently scored a few more of the Star Trek Films and TV Shows.
The encore consisted of two themes from movies about American Heroes of WWII. I have never seen MacArthur, but "Patton" is the film that made me fall in love with Goldsmith's music. A Fitting end to the show.
The Paramount continues to try topping itself with great programming on Friday evenings. This week we get a double feature featuring the great actress Pam Grier. The two films that are presented are at the far ends of her career. "Jackie Brown" was a prestige project from Quentin Tarantino that earned Pam Grier a Golden Globe nomination and should have earned her an Academy Award nomination for best actress. This movie was paired with a film from 1974, at the peak of her career in exploitation films, it is actually a pretty decent forerunner for "Jackie Brown", This one is called "Foxy Brown".
Let's start with "Jackie Brown". This is a Tarantino film based not on an original idea of his, or a hybrid of exploitation films that he saw as a child, but rather on the novel Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. Tarantino adapted the book into a screenplay and made the central character a black woman so that Pam Grier could play the part. I haven't read the original text, I only know the screenplay from having seen the movie several times, but I can't imagine that the book is superior to the very clever screenplay that we get with this movie.
To Briefly summarize, Jackie Brown is an airline hostess for a low budget Mexican holiday flight operation, and she also makes extra cash by smuggling money for a gun Runner into and out of Cabo San Lucas. When things go wrong for Ordell, the gunrunner played by Samuel Jackson, Jackie looks like she is in the crosshairs of both the ATF and the violent Ordell. But you would never say that Jackie Brown was in over her head. This woman is whip smart, and fearless. And she devises a plan to get herself out of trouble with both of those sides.
The film is loaded with those Tarantino touches, such as mundane conversations turned into philosophical questions, expletive filled declarations of both love and hate, and a variety of characters that you don't really like but find very interesting. So it is clearly under Tarantino's thumb, and he makes the most of adapting somebody else's work to his kind of film. In addition to Jackie, there is one other character that is smart and sympathetic and that we will find interesting and ready to root for. Max Cherry is a bail bondsman who is being used by Ordell to make his targets available after they have been arrested. Robert Forrester, plays Max as a sympathetic and wise older man, who does play by the rules but finds himself attracted to the charm of Jackie Brown. Forester has to sell the idea that he is falling in love with the least amount of dialogue possible, in often very brief scenes. That he does so successfully accounts for his nomination as best supporting actor that year, the only Academy Award nomination that the film received.
As usual, Samuel L Jackson is full of expletives and attitude, and his character Ordell is one of the most loathsome psychopaths that we have seen in a mainstream story. This is a movie that plays it straight, and although Ordell looks like a comic book villain at times, he really does seem to feel like a real person, just not one that's very nice. Also along for the ride are Robert De Niro, as Ordell's dimwitted partner in training, and Bridget Fonda as the beach bum girl that Ordell likes to have around as eye candy, primarily because she is white. The dialogue between Fonda and Jackson is frequently brittle and very funny. Fonda's character is an attractive woman who is slightly over her youthful beauty and is now hardening into a harridan rather than a beach girl.
The cast is filled with very confident supporting actors including Michael Bowen, Chris Tucker, Tiny Lister, and most important of all Michael Keaton as the ATF guy that is interested in Jackie both professionally and romantically. Keaton and Bowen are the cops who are trying to manipulate Jackie into betraying Ordell, and Jackie has to outwit them as well as the dangerous gun dealer.
The film turns into a caper/con game movie in the last act, as Jackie and Max try to work out an exchange of money that implicates Ordell, frees Jackie from being under the thumb of the ATF, and also manages to separate the bad guy from his treasure. They do a dry run of the exchange so that the audience gets a sense of what's going to be happening, but of course Tarantino twists it around when they get to the big exchange, and he gives us the process from three or four different perspectives, starting at different times, but ultimately overlapping. It's a complicated sequence, but a good director has managed to make it completely understandable while still keeping us in suspense about what exactly is happening.
All of this only works because Pam Grier is a solid actress, who is finally getting a chance to play a smart character who doesn't rely on belligerence to get her way but rather on cleverness. She is terrific in the scenes where she has to face down Ordell, or when she is flirting with Max. She does get to do the belligerent bit a couple of times in the film, but interestingly she is playing a part with that belligerence, sort of a meta reference to earlier characters that she's played.
I was a guest on the Walt sent me podcast several years ago, where Todd Kristen and I talked about this film. The fact that Disney had bought Miramax, brought this movie into the house of Mouse, and the idea that Tarantino is responsible for a Disney movie just tickled us. I could not locate the episode, but believe me, we talked thoroughly about the film.
The second film in the program was from 1973, Foxy Brown. It's not as intricately clever as Jackie Brown is, but it does give Pam Grier a chance to show the badass that we will be seeing 25 years later in the other movie. I'm going to do a separate post covering Foxy Brown on my site "Grindhouse Alley". When that goes up I will link it here so you can see my thoughts on the second film in more detail.
I'm happy to say that even though it became a late night because of the double feature, most of the audience stayed for both movies. And everybody was very appreciative with Applause at the end of both films. I'll say once more, the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series has hit the mark.
We had a special trip to the Paramount this evening, see Superman 2, but that was not the thing that made the trip so special. We were invited to a tour of the theaters projection booth before the movie. This tour was supposed to be for several guests over the course of the evening, but we were the only ones who showed up and as a result we got a special personal tour, including a half hour conversation with tonight's on duty projectionist Chad. More about the tour in a minute, first a few words about the movie.
Superman 2 is one of the first movies that I heard people say as a sequel, it was superior to its original film. For a number of years I've believed that it was certainly a good film and maybe it rivaled the original film. This evening though, looking at it through fresh eyes, I have to say it's not nearly as good as I remembered it being. There are still some great sequences, and Christopher Reeve continues to be the definitive Superman, but so much of the movie is spoiled by clunky exposition, cartoonish bits that have been soldered onto the good action sequences, and a severe shortage of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.
Mr. Hackman's hammy performance as Luther was one of the joys of the original Superman. His scenery chewing and one-liners were enough to make the film feel fun, even well a truly dastardly plot was being carried out. Hackman gets to flex his muscles a little bit in the early part of the film, and then disappears for the entire second act of the movie. He does get a few zingers in during the last section of the film, but he should be getting more screen time. Maybe if there were fewer jokes about ice cream cones flying into faces, or roller skaters being forced backwards by the breath of the villains, or worst of all a guy continuing a phone conversation as the phone booth is knocked over and blown Away and he keeps talking while lying on the ground. These were dumb bits that could have been disposed of, and then Gene Hackman could have a little bit more screen time.
Unfortunately that kind of humor permeates several sections of the film. The opening sequence of the three escaped villains from The Phantom Zone actually plays pretty well even when there are some jokes. They never seem hokey. Once we get to Earth however, the hicks that the villains encounter in a town called East Houston, seem like stereotyped caricatures from the very beginning. We are supposed to be laughing at them even before they do anything funny. I never felt like laughing during this sequence. I did like the scene where General Zod and his two accomplices come to the White House to confront the president. When the president finally steps forward and takes a knee in the hopes of protecting human life, he utters the phrase "Oh God", and the general corrects him by simply saying his own name... Zod, now that was funny.
After establishing Lois Lane is a fearless reporter in the first act during the terrorist take over of the Eiffel Tower, she and Clark gets sent to Niagara Falls to cover a story for the magazine section of the Daily Planet. This is really just a justification for building the romance between Lois and Superman and setting up the dilemma that Kal-El faces when he has to choose between being Earth's protector or Lois's lover. Some of it works, some of it is a little too clunky. You do feel Clark's frustration and desperation when he has given up his powers and discovers that the three villains from Krypton are now on Earth. The trek he makes back to his Fortress of Solitude, is a little on the nose and of course unrealistic for a mere mortal. Those are questions however that don't really matter, because there's a bigger story coming.
A fight in New York City/ Metropolis is actually pretty nicely staged given the effects that were possible at the time. The problem is that the director, Richard Lester, keeps inserting moments of humor which take away from the drama of the sequence because they don't reflect something witty, but instead something that is too on the nose and preposterous. In the final act, Superman manages to accomplish several things with powers that we never knew he had before and that just feels a little too easy as a way of resolving the conflict. Oh, by the way, we are left wondering what happened to Gene Hackman's character after the villains are dispatched. We really don't know. But everyone was happy to cheer Superman returning the flag to the roof of the White House.
Back to the tour for a minute, we arrived promptly at 6:00 p.m. believing that that's when we were expected, but it turns out that it was open for an hour and that any group could arrive during that time for the tour. We waited a few minutes for somebody else to arrive and while we waited we chatted with several of the employees of the Paramount Theater. Krystal was one of the guides/ hosts for the tour and she was happy to listen to my stories about old movie theaters and the kinds of movies that Amanda and I like to go to. Danielle, who's in charge of the fan services for the Paramount was also quite happy to talk to us as she turned us over to one of the other employees to take us upstairs to the projection booth. Wendy was responsible for giving us the tour of the projection booth, and she introduced us to Chad who is the digital projectionist, and is working on becoming more proficient with the film projectors. They have some 35mm projectors and are also going to be doing five 70 mm presentations during the summer.
Chad was very good about telling us the history of the projectionists at the theater and he balanced the history with some nice technological information about the spotlights, the projectors, and the other equipment that we were getting a chance to see. When we got back downstairs we got a chance to chat with Monica who was the bartender in the Houdini Lounge area where the guests were supposed to congregate. It was a smaller crowd than I was expecting in the theater, and it was an even smaller crowd upstairs in the lounge, since it was just Amanda and me.
The employees were all interested in listening to us as we talked about theaters and movies and streaming and assorted other cinematic issues. I was very grateful that they took the time to pay attention to us. We felt special just getting a chance to do the tour, and when it winded up that it was just the two of us, we felt even more special. We got to hear a couple of ghost stories, see the scary bathroom for the projectionists, and got treated to some new friends at our favorite place in Austin Texas, the Paramount Theater.
When I wrote about this movie 10 years ago, I suggested in my post that the songs from this movie should have filled all the categories for best song at the Academy Awards. I stand by that statement because these songs do what a music piece in a film is supposed to do, advance the story, illustrate a problem faced by the characters, or tell us more about the characters themselves. All of the songs played by the band Spinal Tap in this movie do those things. I was reminded of this as I watched the film last night, and found myself tapping my toes and mouthing the words while simultaneously laughing.
This Is Spinal Tap is a documentary/ Mockumentary that tells the tale of a band that went from 60s pop to 80s heavy metal and suffered ups and downs like all musical groups do as the fads that they ride go in and out of fashion. Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer accomplish the task of making characters that we can laugh at and simultaneously identify with, at least to a point. Everyone has felt stupid doing something that others applaud, at the same time we love doing stupid things because we get to get away with it. Rockstars is a notorious for doing exactly this.
When this film came out we were at the height of hair metal popularity, and aging bands playing the nostalgia circuit. Spinal Tap may not have been a real band before this, but after this movie came out the actors who are also the songwriters discovered that their characters had an exterior life, and they have done subsequent tours and special events, and there's even a sequel in the works. Frankly this movie produces more laughs per minute than most other films are able to accomplish in 90 minutes. The only other movies that I've ever felt comparable to the laugh ratio are Mel Brooks films, Monty Python films, and a few early seventies gems. I sure hope that Tap can sustain the laughter in a new entry.
Once again I was at the beautiful Paramount Theater in downtown Austin enjoying a classic movie on a summer evening with several hundred like-minded folks. The audience at last night's screening laughed continuously and they all seem to get the joke. I could tell that several people in the audience were seeing this for the first time because their laughter was simply too spontaneous to reflect any memory. The movie is a brisk 90 minutes, with several performance set pieces that will leave you chuckling. If the shenanigans that take place during the Stonehenge number don't make you laugh, you probably have no sense of humor.
Let's be happy that metal music still exists, that rock bands from the 70s still make the rounds, and that fans of that genre can laugh at themselves when watching a film Like This Is Spinal Tap. Let's face it, if you can't enjoy someone else's amusement at your own foibles, then you were too stuck up to really be a rock fan. Let's tap into the next great song.
If you look elsewhere on the site you will find a list of my 10 favorite films. I cheated on one of the entries by listing both The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 as a single unit. That's because I always think of them as one big movie that just got separated by 2 years. The stories integrate so incredibly well, and the casting of the younger versions of characters that we come to know in the first Godfather is so spot on, that it feels like it was planned from the very beginning.
I'm so happy that the Paramount scheduled Godfather Part 2 on its 50th anniversary, because this is a movie that should be celebrated regularly. I don't usually wait for a round number to rewatch the film, I think I saw it just a couple of years ago when I was doing my binge on "The Offer", the streaming series based on the creation of the original Godfather. I like to catch up with this movie as often as possible although it is 3 hours and 20 minutes, which means that I'm not sitting down for a casual watch. Fortunately this is an opportunity to see the film on the big screen and once again it is as impressive as I remember.
Actor John Cazale famously made only five movies, all of which were nominated for Best Picture, and three of them won the award. It's amazing to me that Cazale himself was never nominated. The only reason I can think that his performance in this film was overlooked is because there were three other supporting performances that were also pretty spectacular. It would have seemed odd at the Academy Awards if four out of the five slots had been taken up by actors in this film. Regardless Cazale's performance as Fredo, is both heartbreaking and frustrating. If you've never seen the movie I certainly am not going to spoil it for you, but let's just say that Michael never lets an offense to the family go unpunished.
The parallel structure of the two stories in this film starts with the rise of Vito Corleone as he and his family build a foundation in the early part of the 20th century in New York City , it is phenomenal. Robert De Niro, who did win this supporting actor award for his role in this film, actually looks like Marlon Brando might have looked in his leanest and hungriest years. He starts off as a naive waif, uncertain of where he fits in among the immigrants that he lives with and works around. When he encounters a young Clemenza, played with great personality by the late Bruno Kirby, Vito finds his way to his true destiny. Young Don Corleone was building his family up, but Michael Corleone in his desire to control his family completely, basically dismantles its core. In Godfather Part 3 we will get to see how it all plays out, but even without that pictures existence, we have a pretty clear idea of the wasteland that Corleone's life had become.
It's hard to imagine that Francis Ford Coppola was reluctant to do a sequel to the movie. He had so much success and a natural affinity for the material that it seemed inevitable that he would take on the task. The fact that he was able to use the studios desire for him to continue the story as a way of financing the film that he made between the two Godfathers, "The Conversation", is just an extra bonus. When you watch the scenes of young Vito Corleone stalking Fanucci across the rooftops of the Italian neighborhood that this supposed member of the black hand was in control of, it's like watching a tiger follow its prey. Inevitably there is violence, but Don Corleone does his best to keep the violence away from his family all of whom are all incredibly young at this point.
Michael's story is of course a huge contrast, he starts off with all kinds of Power, but can't keep the violence from intruding on the most personal parts of his life. The machine gun attack that takes place near the beginning of the film, highlights for his wife Kay, that the family is not really capable of going legitimate. Michael's inability to confront problems with his son, or understand his wife's pleas, makes him seem cold-hearted, when what he really is is a rock hard leader of a criminal organization. He lacks the warmth that his father had with his associates. There's a great scene where he seems to be calling his adopted brother Tom Hagan on the carpet for fielding a job offer from another Institution. He comes across as bitter, and unsympathetic. Contrast this to the scene in the first Godfather when Vito actually comforts Tom when Sonny is killed. The difference between Father and Son is subtly displayed in these two scenes. Vito always played the humble part very well. Michael on the other hand is arrogant and self-assured, and never once allows anybody to see him sweat. Hell even in Cuba Michael has a hard time relaxing a little with his brother or the business associates that he is working with.
Coppola gives us fantastic set pieces, featuring hundreds of extras in elaborate costumes with distinctive music that clearly sets the time and place of the scenes that are playing out. The street festival where young Vito is stalking Fanucci, the confirmation party in Lake Tahoe, and the New Year's Eve Revolution in Havana, are all spectacularly staged and probably a big part of why Coppola received the directors award that he was denied two years earlier. This was a big picture put together beautifully, with a huge degree of thought and care as to how the story was going to integrate the two lives.
I've told the story before of taking my girlfriend to see The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 playing together back in the late 1970s. When the first film ended as we got up for an intermission to use the bathroom and maybe get something to drink, but the lights went down again and the second movie started immediately. We both sat down, skipped getting a drink, skipped going to the bathroom, and watch the second movie. We were hypnotized by the artistry of these two films. The fact that this woman sat with me for six and a half hours without a break only cemented my certainty that she was the woman I should spend my life with. So there's that story again, hope you enjoyed it.
.jpg)
.jpg)
