Movies I Want Everyone to See: Westworld (1973)

This is another entry in the Pre-Star Wars inventory of great science fiction movies of the early 1970s. While the story moves forward in some slightly clunky ways, and there are some premises that defy logic in order to get to the climax, the crux of the concept is exciting and fun. The even more important point is how significant the movie is to future films in the genre. It continues to reverberate even today and makes a visit to this retro futuristic amusement park a necessity for anyone who loves the action and adventure of films from Spielberg and Cameron.


The premise is simple and enticing for anyone with a sense of adventure and a lot of cash. For a $1000 a day, adults can play in a fantasy world called Delos. The park has three distinct themes, Roman World, Medieval World and Westworld. Visitors are fitted out for cosplay and given the opportunity to indulge the pleasures of the times they have chosen. This would include the orgies of Rome, the loose serving wenches of a castle and the prairie angels that  serviced the weary cowpokes with a poke at the end of the trail. In addition there will be gladiatorial contests, sword duels and shootouts on the dusty streets of a western town.


Richard Benjamin and James Brolin are Peter Martin and John Blane, two affluent businessmen on a vacation designed to get Benjamin's character over a recent nasty divorce.  John has visited Westworld before and Brolin plays the opening sections of the film as an experienced visitor amused at his friends enthusiasm and his other various trip anxieties. Peter is the naive, gee whiz neophyte who wants to enjoy all the parks amenities but is a little concerned about potential embarrassment and danger. Delos is able to provide such adult fantasy play by loading it's parks with the latest technology, lifelike robots that are fully functional in all the important ways. The promise is that the fantasy is 100% safe. Famous last words.

Michael Crichton, the writer/director of Westworld, was a well known novelist making his directorial debut. He had written other highly entertaining films before this, including the Science Fiction technology thriller "The Andromeda Strain". His milieu was technology and many of his well known books feature stories of technology going wrong; "Sphere", "The Terminal Man","Congo". The most successful movie made from one of his stories is "Jurassic Park" about an amusement park where science is not able to control it's attractions. Basically, "Jurassic Park" is "Westworld" with dinosaurs.  Everybody probably remembers that great line from Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcom, "Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists". It was actually the second time such a concept was used by him. Reportedly, Crichton was inspired to write "Westworld" after a visit to Disneyland where he was impressed by the animatronics in "Pirates of the Caribbean".

The movie would be a voyeuristic dud if they had stuck to the simple premise of the park. In order to create suspense and thrills, the rules of the park will breakdown as the technology does. As a result, that which is supposed to be a naughty rich man's fantasy turns into his nightmare. The explanation for how things start to go wrong sounds suspiciously like a computer virus; which at that point had not really been thought of. So Crichton's  work is oddly prescient, although his film language was a little bit crude. In the early part of his career, the film stories often feel a bit clumsy as they try to bring to life a great idea. "Coma" and "Looker" are two other examples of this failing. They each have solid premises but hit some bumps along the way. If you thought it was weirdly convenient that all the technicians  were off the island in "Jurassic Park", you will notice how it is even more awkward the way  the employees at Delos are handled in the story.



Peter and John engage in the fantasy play that they paid for. The have a bar fight, spend the night with the ladies of the bordello where they are staying, they even get to do a jailbreak. On multiple occasions they face down the gunslinger character that is their nemesis. The first of those events comes in a traditional barroom standoff. It makes perfect sense. The second confrontation is more visually interesting but it is largely unexplained. The point is that Brolin and Benjamin begin to take their conflicts and the outcomes for granted. There are however some warning signs that foreshadow their danger. In a parallel story set in the Medieval section of the park, a lecherous   customer also sees some faults in the system. His animatronic paramour actually rejects him which goes against all the fantasy he is paying for. When Mel Brooks said "it's good to be the king" he had apparently not visited Delos Medieval World before.

It takes an hour of the near ninety minute running time to get to the real drama of the story. As everything is being set up we get a backstage view of the technology and some of the problems that the administrators faced. Like John Hammond twenty years later, they are convinced that they can manage their dream despite the overwhelming technology challenges they face.  This is another place where the story telling has to rely on less than smooth technique from the first time director. The guys in lab coats talk out problems instead of visualizing them. The futuristic aspects of the park come down to long hallways filled with inadequate lighting. There are only a couple of moments where we see the robots in their true form as they are being repaired. These moments are handled well on a limited budget but they feel somewhat stilted.

Westworld is a simple story that is told in a basic, sometimes crude manner. It was successful enough to have a sequel, "Futureworld" where the plot is more intricate and the acting and motivation a lot more polished. So if the film is not a masterpiece of cinema technique, why is it a film I want you to see? Well I have already mentioned the story line is the crib sheet for the more successful "Jurassic Park". There is however a second feature that portends future science fiction lexicon; the unstoppable killing machine. It can't be argued with, it can't be bargained with and it will not stop until you are dead. Yul Bryner plays a variation of his "Magnificent Seven" character here. The foreboding shootist with few words all dressed in black.



As our city slickers once again confront the tin target set up for them to take down, the outcome changes. This is when the movie basically becomes "The Terminator" for the last twenty minutes. Just as Sarah Conner learned, a robot is never finished when you want it to be, our hero struggles repeatedly to finish off and outwit the mechanical man pursuing him. Eleven years before Arnold Schwarzenegger donned the black leather, unholstered his weapon, and chased down his prey, Crichton had his mechanical harbinger of doom do the same thing in almost exactly the same manner. When you watch the machine like swagger of the gunfighter, it is easy to see the future Terminator walking relentlessly toward us. There is an early computerized point of view shot from the gunfighter that consists of heat signatures and fuzzy pixels. Both of these ideas will be used in future films featuring robots or aliens tracking down their targets.

You should find it easy to ignore the plot loopholes on park safety and the scarcity of assistance toward the end because you will identify with the customers. They came for a good time and they are getting so much more than they bargained for. This film will find ways to give you your monies worth even when it frustrates you with amateur film mistakes. The story concept and the vision of the wild west as a robot will echo forward to better films that are all well loved by the movie audience, but those films owe a huge debt to Westworld.



Richard Kirkham is a lifelong movie enthusiast from Southern California. While embracing all genres of film making, he is especially moved to write about and share his memories of movies from his formative years, the glorious 1970s. His personal blog, featuring current film reviews as well as his Summers of the 1970s movie project, can be found at Kirkham A Movie A Day.

Cold Pursuit

I'm more that two weeks late on this post. Life has gotten in the way of many of my pursuits these days, so it is appropriate that this is the film who's trail I have let grow cold. If I need to be kept warm in the winter months, I need to see Liam Neeson kill people who deserve to die. It warms my heart to see rough justice since we so often miss true justice in real life.

The set up of the film is not complicated. Neeson's son is murdered by being given an overdose of heroin. The authorities think he was just another drug user who didn't know his limits. Neeson's character's wife thinks they didn't know their son at all. It is only as he is about to end his own pain that he discovers what really happened and begins to seek retribution on those responsible. Nels Coxman is not an ex assassin, a CIA agent, or a well trained bodyguard. He is a snowplow driver. His approach is not sophisticated, and the fights are not highly choreographed. He is however methodical and intelligent. Nels simply works his way up the food chain, and fresh fish fall into his lap.

At a certain point in the movie, the deaths start piling up as a consequence of his actions rather than his deliberate execution of offenders. Because his motive is not understood, and the bad guys have no idea why these things are happening, they make assumptions based on their vocation which leads to huge complications. This reminded me a great deal of the 70s films "The Stone Killer" and "The Seven Ups". Gangland crooks mistake their real enemy and start eating their own.

The nice part about this is that just about every crook who we see get his, earns the death that comes to him. The most effective part of the story other than Neeson is the characterization of the low lives. As each one does something horrible, we just get to start anticipating, "OK, you are next". The film is based on a Norwegian film "In Order of Disappearance". In the credits, the character names and actors are all listed and the  names vanish in reverse order in listing. It was a clever capstone to the running tally that we have been given during the film.

Laura Dern appears as Nels wife, but she also vanishes from the movie after barely making it into a couple of scenes. The criminals are all the focus in the film. They all have colorful nick names and while the actors are not household names, they add enough personality to make the movie feel worth a watch. William Forsythe shows up as Nels mob connected estranged brother. He provide a little exposition and a satisfying moment with the main villain, but he has only a little to do with the story.

A woman walked out at the end of the movie proclaiming this was the worst movie she's ever seen, [clearly she has not seen "Vice"]. I did not think it was a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I was entertained...and it kept me warm.

Vice

“I can’t wait to see the new Fast & Furious movie. It’s going to be so lit.”

February Blues

This has never been a great month for new releases but there are several films I would like to have seen but simply did not have time to get to. I hope that you have been visiting with the podcast that I co-host, because that has been where most of my movie activity has been in the last few weeks.

As a birthday gift, I was able to choose the films to be considered for MOTM on the Lambcast. The Community selected Tombstone, so I hosted that show and you can catch up with it here:



We then embarked on an ambitious year long journey to cover all of the "official" James Bond films before the release next year of "Bond 25". Loyal readers know of my obsession with 007 and you can hear it being indulged, along with proof that obsession can be genetic here:





Frankly, I was so underwhelmed by the Academy Awards nominations this year, that for the first time ever since it began, we skipped out on the Best Picture Showcase. I did however provide some discussion on the awards on the Lambcast Oscar Prediction show. It's sell by date is rapidly approaching so if you want to hear before the results are announced, you better hurry.




Finally, I was the featured guest on the sister podcast on the Lamb, Acting School 101. Our subject for February {The Subjects celebrate a birthday in the month that they are discussed} was Laura Dern. My friend MovieRob hosts the show and we had a nice time talking about this fine actress, in a relatively short show [At least in comparison to the Lambcast].





This should bring you up to speed with the rather lazy month's work. There will be an upcoming podcast on the "How to Train Your Dragon" Franchise coming later this week. I will be hosting and I will put it up so i have one more entry in February at least.

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

Fans of this franchise have nothing to fear from this new film. Although Third episodes are notoriously underwhelming, The "Dragon" franchise has managed to avoid a blunder as they head to the finish line. "The Hidden World" is as well made as it's predecessors, with the expert talents of Dreamworks Animation team and the director Dean Deblios. The look of these films is consistently amazing, with inventive characters and habitats all colored and detailed like nobody'd business.  The Hidden World of the title turns out to be a relatively minor setting in the bigger picture, but the sequence in which it is featured will be a highlight roll for people's home theaters because it looks spectacular.

The heart of these movies have always been about the relationship of the two main characters and how they have reflected each other in the passage of time. Here is the line from the first movie that defines the theme of these stories. "I looked at him...and I saw myself." From the moment that Hiccup acknowledges this, the pair not only bond but they mature together. Toothless and Hiccup both have to move forward with their destinies in this story, each one committing to a bigger role as the leader of their individual group.. There is also the romantic component which requires them to decide on a future that will include a partner.

The two sequences that will have the audience continuing to be pleased with the looks of the films include a flying courtship sequence between Toothless and the newly introduced "Light Fury". Their trek across a nighttime sky and the use of lightning effects is very beautiful. The second moment is the discovery of the title location. The Hidden World provides a chance for the artists making these movies to show off their color palate and indulge in some creative art design as well. The florescent and neon colors found here will seem familiar to anyone who once had a blacklight poster on their walls. 

Maybe the one drawback to the story is the fact that for a second film in a row, the Dragons and people of Berk are threatened by a dragon hunter with the goal of controlling all of the dragons. It ends up hitting some of the same beats as the second film did, with only some variation in character of the villain, a marvelously Teutonic F. Murray Abraham, and his technique and personal goals. I like the fact that the characters are aging in the film. They don't exactly change their personalities but physically the kids are more mature and the humor stems more from awkward social interaction than physical slapstick (although there is plenty of that still). The parallel stories of Hiccup and Toothless also allow their female counter-parts to have more influence on the story. They may not pass a Bechdel test but they both play major roles in how the story develops.

There is a bit of retconning so as to keep Gerad Butler as Stoic the Vast in the story through flashbacks. It works but it helps if you have not watched the first film immediately before seeing this one. Jay Baruchel continues to be the unlikely voice casting hero of the film. His milquetoast manner of speech and vocal inflections ,that sound adolescent,  are just right for the fledgling leader that Hiccup has to become.  I did find it interesting how fearlessly the movie features the character of Tuffnut when the voice actor from the first two films has been eased out of the role for a variety of reasons. It was not a big deal but I did notice that it had happened.

While I am not sure that a trilogy in this series was necessary, i certainly enjoyed it. It leaves off at a spot that seems to end the need for further films, but it does not foreclose that option entirely. "How to Train Your Dragon The Hidden World" is a satisfying trip to the animated world of dragons and vikings. I think we can dispense with additional dips into the storyline and still feel solid about how complete all of it turned out to be.

The Kid Who Would Be King

Back in the 1990s, I saw dozens of kids movies because I had kids that were just that age.  "That Darn Cat", "The Mighty Ducks", "Three Ninjas", "Casper", "Matilda", "The Indian in the Cupboard"..., the list seems endless. Many of them were fine films, especially for a kids audience, but I have never felt a need to revisit them after my own kids grew up. It may be true that nostalgia will only carry you so far. There were however films from my own childhood that I can still watch as an adult and treasure despite the fact that they were kids movies. "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", "Swiss Family Robinson", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", Mysterious Island" hold up pretty well. I think that "The Kid Who Would be King" fits better into my list of childhood style films than those of my children.

This is a retelling of the Arthur Legend and it puts the concept of Excalibur and the Lady of the Lake into modern times in Great Britain. A schoolboy named Alex discovers that he is able to draw the sword from the stone and is going to be called upon to save the country from the evil witch Morgana who has been trapped in an underworld since banished there by the original King Arthur. The story does have to come up with a couple of contrivances to allow the threat to exist without the whole world being aware of it, but once that is explained, the idea that a 12 year old and other kids in the middle school will be a new set of knights, is not that outrageous. This is a wish fulfillment type of movie and instead of being a super hero, the kids get to role play the part of chivalrous defenders of the realm.

When I first saw the title and the poster, I thought it looked a little cheesy, even for a kids movie, but it turns out that it really is well done. The writer-director of this movie is Joe Cornish, who contributed to screenplays for "Ant-Man" and "The Adventures of Tintin" as well as his own picture. the excellent "Attack the Block".  In fact, this concept is not too far astray from the premise of this movie, so it is a natural fit for his way of thinking about young people. This is maybe a little more sanitized, but it is a younger audience that it is seeking. The four principles are new to me, but they nicely fit into the stereotypes that the film counts on us seeing as a shortcut to character development.

Merlin does age backwards. In his older version he appears as Patrick Stewart in just a few scenes. Usually, the young Merlin is on hand and he is played by a David Tennant doppelganger who provides guidance and exposition for the younger leads. There is a little inconsistency concerning the rules under which Merlin can operate during the day, but most people won't notice that, instead they will be amused by the comic bits that this gawky teen finds himself in. Alex, the lead, is played by Louis Ashbourne Serkis, who happens to be the son of actor/director Andy Serkis of Marvel/Lord of the Rings fame and actress Loraine Ashbourne, a well known performer from British television. The kid actually looks like a real kid and not just a pretty face to put in the lead spot. Bedders, his chum is played by a newcomer who seems to be channeling the sidekick character from the recent Spider-Man movies, a graft that works pretty well.

There is just enough derring do and scary special effects for the family audience this movie is seeking. Like cream rising to the top, I suspect this will be a winner down the road even if it does get pushed aside this year by other family fare. The opening comic illustrations are excellent, the spirit of the movie and it's ultimate theme are admirable, and the youngsters are game. This is a charming family film that I can recommend to parents to take their children to. I took mine, shes 30 and she enjoyed it too. 

Stan & Ollie

Sometimes it is just nice to sit and watch a film that can entertain you without any explosions, car chases, political satire or smug irony. "Stan & Ollie" is the sort of picture that adults used to be able to see at a movie theater. Most films of this sort get shuttled off to a streaming service where older audiences can enjoy them without having to mix with the youthful riff raff. Fortunately, some film makers are still interested in providing a theatrical experience and some older audiences are still interested in venturing out of the house on a Friday night.

This is basically a biopic about one of the great comedy duos of the Twentieth Century. I do worry a little about the next generation having no context for films however, when the young lady taking my popcorn order asked me what I was going to see and I told her, she asked "What's it about?"  Of course my students probably think the same think when I ask who or what is Post Malone? So the problem does flow both directions, but I don't work at a radio station or record store, she is working in a movie theater. I guess since she is not at the ticket counter, the only product she needs to worry about are the Sour Patch Kids.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there. This movie focuses on a period of time where Laurel and Hardy were past their prime. It opens with a flashback to 1937 when at their height, they are involved with a contract dispute at RKO. Fifteen years later, they have returned to Great Britain to do a theater tour of their bits live on stage. It seems as if this is primarily to set the stage for a film project being put together but it has a whole set of events surrounding it to make it worth investigating. Unlike "The Sunshine Boys", this is not about two old timers who hate each other getting back together out of necessity. The two have had their differences but are still deeply connected to each other and have many warm memories and patterns that they play out. There will be a boiling point over some old issues, but that is not the main focus of the story, it is about how these two men complement one another and value their professional relationship.

If you need another reason to be irritated at the Academy Awards, take note that the excellent script, production design, make-up and performances were all ignored in this years list of nominees. I have nothing against Willem DaFoe, and I have not seen the movie for which he has been nominated, but if he gave a better performance than John C. Reilly or Steve Coogan, then he should be the favorite, and I know he is not. These two actors have embodied the real life characters so well that the physical transformations that come with hair and make-up are almost unnecessary. The genteel mannerisms, the quiet voiced frustrations of real life, seem to be legitimate extensions of the more exaggerated screen presence of the two. The two actors also play out scenes from Laurel and Hardy's repertoire with sincerity and aplomb.  The two leads are matched by actresses playing their wives who are equally excellent, although we have a harder time confirming veracity because we know those characters less. Shirley Henderson, who most of you will recognize as Moaning Myrtle, plays Ollie's wife Lucille. She is as loving and engaged with her husband as a woman can be. Nina Arianda is Stan's wife Ida, a domineering and aggrandizing presence in the life of the comedy duo. 

At the end of the film, you can feel your heart being warmed as everything resolves itself in a manner that reasserts the love that these two have for each other. It also feed our desire to see the two as true friends rather than just business partners forced into a relationship of convenience. The movie does not move mountains or dazzle us with technique. Rather, the film allows the actors to communicate as their characters, and we get to feel like we are there. After seeing the film, you will almost certainly want to bath in the waters of the nearly 200 hundred features and shorts that the two did together. That is reason enough to love the film.