Monday Night we returned to our summer house, the Paramount Theater in Austin Texas, to enjoy a 35mm screening of "Sunset Blvd", from writer/director Billy Wilder. This poison pen love letter to Hollywood is suspenseful and reflective of the cutthroat nature of the film business. The industry has changed a lot since 1950, but some things remain the same. Writers are neglected by audiences as part of the film making process, in spite of the fact they are essential. Older stars are abandoned with indifferent cruelty, after all, who wants to see the elderly in a romantic clinch? And finally, the grasping secondary people will sell off their self respect to make it in the world.
Norma Desmond is a rich but washed up silent movie star, who clings to a dream of being relevant and being adored by an audience. Gloria Swanson does a magnificent job of conveying her delusional self image while also grasping at the desperate attempts she makes at holding onto the dream. William Holden is cynical and callous enough as the down on his luck screenwriter, who allows himself to be snagged like a fly in Norma's web. He is not guilt free, but we can empathize with every character in the movie, and he is our main protagonist.
The black and white photography, the dark themes and a femme fatale all qualify "Sunset Blvd" as a Noir film. The floating body of the protagonist at the start of the film does the same in spades. The behind the scenes views of Hollywood in the golden age also make this film, unlike any other movie of the era. The below the line talent hangs out at Schwab's drugstore, they part like normal people on New Years Eve and they are malleable to circumstances like everyone else. Betty Schaffer may be an innocent run over by the system in pursuit of stepping up in class, but she was also willing to abandon her love interest for a more promising prospect, at least until she found out who he really was.
When my daughter was still in school at USC with a minor in film, we took in a screening of "Sunset Blvd" at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood. Just to show her how steeped in film the whole town was and is, I drove straight up the street that we turned out of the parking garage on, and drove four blocks up to Joe Gillis apartment. It is still there, exactly where he said it was in the opening of the film. That is a pleasant memory of Hollywood, "Sunset Blvd" reminds us all, that the fantasy comes at a price.
We missed the opening weekend of the Summer Classic Film Series because of our trip to NYC to see four shows (The Outsiders, Othello, Stranger Things, and Death Becomes Her), but we are back this week with a vengeance, seeing films three nights in a row. That might help explain why things are a little behind on the blog right now.
Sunday we saw "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb". This is one of my favorite Kubrick films but it was the first time I watched it in a theater with an audience and boy does it still work. People were laughing at all the little bits of satire and at the preposterous characters in the film. I did notice this time that about halfway through the film, the character of the President changes dramatically. This was mostly in aid of the comedy rather than fidelity to the story, otherwise I have no quibbles.
Here is an extended look at the film that Amanda and I did a few years ago.
There are plenty of posts about the movie Jaws on this site, and I'm going to be writing more in the near future because I'm seeing the film again at least twice this summer. So I'm going to digress a little bit on this post and just talk about the experience rather than the movie itself.
The screening was at the Alamo Drafthouse at the Mueller location on the east side of Austin . We have been to this theater several times before and frankly it's not our favorite. It requires that we park in a structure that requires us to login and pay in an online app. We do get validation for the time we're at the theater, so it's not the fact that we have to pay that is the problem, it's just the technical process that is a little annoying.
The theater is located about 30 miles from our house, and we left a good hour and a half early because we want to be at the theater well before the movie starts to take in the pre-show videos and trailers that Alamo curates for us. Also we usually order dinner so we want to get there so that our meal arrives before the movie actually starts. All of those plans went to hell when we got on the highway and the rain started coming down. We had a torrential downpour of biblical proportions, and it was complicated by high winds and hailstones that were usually golf ball sized but sometimes even bigger. I had to slow down on the drive, put on my hazard lights and struggled to see the cars in front of me on the road. We finally got a break in the rain and we got to the parking garage just in time for an even stronger deluge of hail, and rain that was mostly blowing sideways. We stood in the parking garage for about 15 minutes waiting for a break. When the hail stopped we made a run for it but we're careful not to run on the ice because it would have been easy to slip and fall. However that care meant that we were in the rain long enough to be completely soaked when we got into the theater.
The theater complex has individual bathrooms that are gender neutral and then sinks outside of the toilets that are available for everybody to use. They didn't have the hand blowers that would have been helpful in drying off our clothes before we went into the theater. I had to run a couple of paper towels through my hair to dry it enough to feel like I wasn't still swimming in the ocean.
This was a movie party, and as you've probably seen before the movie parties at Alamo include some props. We got a shark fin foam hat, we got a bath bomb in the shape of the Orca, and we got a small inflatable life preserver with a simulated bite taken out of it, maybe I can use it to float a drink in the pool. I also participated in a game before the show where two people competed for the prize shark head popcorn bucket. Unfortunately for me, the game consisted of a contest to draw on a chalkboard a shark. I need a ruler and a compass to draw a straight line or a circle, so I knew I wasn't going to be winning right from the beginning. I had fun anyway.
As usual the movie was great, and as I said before I'll write about it again a couple times this summer. I can say that when I'm looking for details that I didn't always pay attention to in my previous 137 screenings, I noticed that the kids on the beach at the start of the film did in fact have some crab legs that they were gnawing on.
Although I didn't win the shark head bucket, the hostess for the show did say that it was available for purchase at the concession or concierge stand. So when the movie was done we thought we would be able to finally get this prized addition to our popcorn bucket collection. Imagine our frustration however when the concierge station was closed and we looked at the buckets that were sitting across the counter on a Shelf and we're unable to purchase one. Another frustrating experience on this excursion.
2 days later we did make a trip down to the Lakeline Alamo, and Amanda dashed in in the hopes that she would be able to get one of those popcorn buckets. Lo and behold we scored.
For more than a decade now people have been making films that attempt to just string together long action sequences to make a movie that is definitively 100% active. Usually there's a brief set up followed by a long string of action set pieces, combat sequences, and a variety of gunplay. This formula works as long as the events make sense, and the actors are well cast. “Fight or Flight” does a pretty good job of these things and it makes the wise decision to cast Josh Hartnett in the lead role.
Harnett was at one time the next big thing, but he never quite crossed over as a success in a big movie. He has had a good career, but he's also had a bit of a Renaissance in the last couple of years. He was in last year's “Trap”, and he's had a couple of supporting roles in movies that have made good use of the screen presence that he offers. This movie fits him like a glove. It requires him to be a little bit older, appear on screen in a sort of a scuzzy form, and at the same time allow him to be a badass. It works.
There's also something about planes in the air in the last couple of years. Earlier this year we had the Mel Gibson and Mark Wahlberg thriller” Flight Risk". This took place in a small plane, whereas” Fight or Flight" takes place on a regular airliner. That means there is enough room to run around, occasionally hide out, and sometimes dispatch the bad guys in a bathroom or luggage compartment. Hartnett plays a former federal agent who is getting a chance to get back in the game and his controller, a former love interest, is manipulating him remotely. .
Of course there is a plot twist and the original goal of the mission gets somewhat inverted. Hartnett’s character ends up with a couple of unusual allies, which allows for a lot more martial arts action, including some of the wild variety of acrobatics that people have come to expect in modern martial arts sequences. Does any of it make any sense? The answer is no, but you won't care because you'll have a good time watching all of the Mayhem. Look, we get a pleasant lead, and a couple of fun turns in the storyline, for an action picture that is usually sufficient.
Don't stay home on Friday night to watch this on a streaming service, you should still go out and do something fun. However you'll be happy to watch this on a night when you shouldn't be compelled to socialize and you just want to veg in front of the TV.
Next week on the LAMBcast we're going to have a Tom Cruise draft. This makes perfect sense because essentially Tom Cruise is the last of the movie stars. There's not anybody close to Tom Cruise when it comes to opening a movie. He hasn't been able to make everything he's in a success, but his batting average is pretty damn High, and with the final Mission Impossible film on the schedule, Tom puts in his all as he usually does to give us some thrills.
Let me start out by saying that although I like this film quite well it does have a couple of significant problems. First of all it is almost 3 hours long and that seems excessive for what is mostly an action film. A second problem might be the thing that makes this feel long, the first hour of the film is filled with exposition narrative that is clunky and struggles to connect the events of the previous films into a single storyline. I'm all for fan service especially when it comes to the final film in a series, but only a couple of the things that they attempt, work very well.
The most logical extension that they have found for these films is suggesting that the MacGuffin from the third “Mission Impossible", is in fact The Entity, the AI Boogeyman that arrived in episode 7 “Dead Reckoning”. In the earlier film it was referred to as the Rabbit's Foot, and we never got to know what it was all about. The idea that it is some sort of blueprint for creating the AI that everybody is worried about here in the last film is a minor stretch, but one that works pretty well.
The connection between this film and its predecessor however is not as smooth. Many of the things that happened in the previous film are vaguely referred to, but none of it seems to be strongly connected to the events of this film. The exception being the location of the submarine that contains the original algorithm of The Entity. The way this problem was approached in the last film is completely different from the way it is approached in this film. That doesn't mean that it couldn't work, it just didn't.
The stakes in the film are, as always, a little elevated. It seems that Ethan Hunt has to save the world repeatedly like some comic book superhero instead of dealing with a more manageable problem that could offer us some thrills with a believable set of consequences. To be honest it's unlikely that any film of this ilk is going to have the audacity to let the world end. If that conclusion is off the table then given what has come before, “Mission Impossible Final Reckoning” feels like it is just a structure that exists, not to build suspense but to hang the set pieces on. At least those set pieces are really good.
I have no doubt that a number of other reviews will mention the two big sequences in the movie. I'm not clever enough or alert enough today to try to find something deeper so I will just repeat what should be obvious to anybody who's heard of this movie, the submarine sequence with it’s underwater photography is ambitious, and, come on the bi- plane sequence terrific. Along the way we get to see Ethan Hunt run, get punched, do a lot of punching of his own and give us a couple of fakeouts. The plan is outlined in its broadest sense. We usually get a description of what's supposed to happen, and then it happens .Of course there are always one or two complications along the way, but the complications that take place in this movie have less to do with the details of each individual problem and everything to do with just trying to move the pieces around on the board so we stay interested.
The IMF needs to be a little bit more engaged with Ethan to make us care about what's going on. In this story they seem mostly reactive and taking their time just to be sure that Ethan will be able to do what he wants to do. The only one of the team that really gets the opportunity to feel like a part of the story is Luther, the character played by Ving Rhames. Even then, the resolution of his storyline feels a little manufactured.
I will mention that one of the things that was different about this movie is where we saw it. We had traveled to New York for the holiday weekend to catch several Broadway Productions. We got there early enough on Friday that we could fit in a movie, so we got a chance to use our AMC “A list” membership and see a film right in Manhattan. The theaters are built vertically rather than horizontally, which makes getting in and out of them feel a lot more like a puzzle. You have to go up a level or down a level to find an exit or the bathroom. So it was an experience as much as it was a Mission Impossible movie.
Cruise is great and I'm glad that he continues to do his own stunts and care about the way the movie looks. His partner Christopher McQuarrie, directed and co-wrote the screenplay, and he was a lot more effective managing the filmmaking then he was getting the story ideas right. The movie looks great but doesn't always make a great deal of sense.
In the 30-year history of the franchise there have been some highs and lows. The first and third films are my favorite but both “Rogue Nation” and “Ghost Protocol” are excellent. I wish I could say the final films, which are direct sequels to each other, topped it off with the best, but they actually fit in the lower half of the eight films. At least they're better than MI- 2.
Have we set our final farewell to Ethan Hunt? It's hard to say. Tom Cruise is 62 years old, although he looks like he's much younger than that, and it appears that he is quite capable of continuing the action beats necessary for a movie like this to work. I just get the impression that the story lines have gotten a little tired and that there's a struggle to find something worthy to make as the subject of the film, and I'm not sure that's what is really important. It seems to me that the characters and the incidents are the things that make these movies work.
I've said it before, including a mention on the LAMBcastt, there must be something about us that is just wrong for enjoying these movies. The main reason that somebody goes to see a “Final Destination" film is to watch people die in elaborate convoluted accidents. The fascination with this sort of thing is easy to understand, since everybody does some rubbernecking when they pass that accident on the highway, or watches videos online where people get hurt doing stupid things. I suppose we can excuse this behavior in regard to the movie because we know it's an elaborate fiction, and that there is some malevolent force behind it. Still, when you hear people cheering for some gruesome moment in one of these Rube Goldberg execution methods, it does make you question Humanity.
A month ago on the podcast, we covered the entire “Final Destination” franchise. The people on that show all enjoyed it so much that they volunteered to come back and talk about the new installment, which arrives here 14 years after the last Edition. “Bloodline”s has a couple of twists on the formula which helps make it feel fresh and worth investigating. The biggest innovation is that the original disaster is in fact completely avoided, which leaves a whole lot of deaths unaccounted for in the Grim Reaper’s Ledger book. The storytelling gets a little convoluted and the explanation of how death is just catching up with everybody at this point is awkward. Almost 30 years after he was denied all those earlier deaths he is finally getting around to the main family involved. Those of you who have seen the previous Final Destination films know that there is an order in which the deaths are supposed to occur, and we get a trick here that shows how that has been pushed back for several decades. As you know however, the bill is going to come due.
One of the things that makes “Bloodlines" work is that we get some characters that we do in fact care about. The hero of the original disaster turns out to be the linchpin for this story, and once that plug is pulled we return to the inevitable line of disasters. Interestingly enough though, there are a couple more turns which create some humor in the story and a lot more suspense. Many of these come at the expense of audience expectations from previous entries in the series. Sudden bus deaths are narrowly avoided, and a complex series of events that is reminiscent of two elaborate scenes in the earlier films, turns out to be a red herring.
If you take the time to listen to the podcast that I'm going to post here, you'll hear everybody ranking their favorite deaths. Once again, our entertainment values are pretty morbid, but they are also satisfied with a well plotted story, some pretty effective character work, and a lot of fan service that turns out to work pretty well.
As horror films, these movies undermine the suspense and thrills a little bit, because we know eventually everyone is in fact going to die. The only questions we have concern how they're going to die and whether or not it will be entertaining enough to wait around for. This film is just about 2 hours and that's 30 minutes longer than most of the other entries. I never found my attention lagging, but I did wonder sometimes if in an attempting to create some dread, the filmmakers stepped on their own jokes. For example a character that's been holding off death for decades is holed up in a cabin that is surrounded by a yard full of things that would be happy to kill her. It feels like the exact opposite of what the character would probably choose. If you want an example of this you can go back to Final Destination 2 and see how Clear Rivers tried to do the same thing.
Minor quibbles aside, this film was a blast and it was exactly what I was looking for. What it says about me that I enjoyed it so much is not clear, but I suspect that most of you who love horror films will find plenty to justify spending your money and your time on “Final Destination Bloodlines”.
