Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Josie and the Pussycats

 

When I first saw this movie in 2001, I thought it was a fantastic satire of pop culture and consumerism. My opinion was not widely shared, as the film was a big flop and to rub dirt in the wound, prominent critic Roger Ebert gave the movie half a star as it's rating. I think after losing Gene Siskel as a partner, Roger got an inflated opinion of his own opinion, and drifted from the audience a little to often. This movie is a pop confection with a nice subverted message about pop culture, and the most well known film critic of his time, missed the whole point. 

Rather than rebut the review of the long gone Mr. Ebert, I plan on explaining my point of view, right here, right now. There are several ways that you can process the film, and I am going to talk about three of them. The first and most elemental take on the movie is that it is a teen comedy, made primarily for young girls and enlightened boys. Josie, Val, and Melody are three girls from a midwestern town, dreaming of rock stardom but fated to play at the bowling alley, mostly on spec. Josie has a crush on longtime guy pal Alan M, but is flummoxed about saying anything, just as he is. This is your usual case of pluralistic ignorance in a romantic comedy. By the end of the story will they overcome their mutual intimidation and get together? Of course they will, but guess what, this is barely the C plot in the story. If you are focusing on romantic comedy, you are going to miss the point of the film. Mel and Val don't get romantic counterparts, Alan M is mostly superfluous to the story, the usual rom-com tropes are missing, deliberately so. That is so not what the movie is about. 

The second way of looking at the film is as a rags to riches rise of a pop band. "The Pussycats" struggle to find a place in the music industry, and break through the barriers they encounter with gumption and talent. This is a little closer to the real story of the film because so much of the movie involves the songs and performances that the band create. There are recording sessions, promotional videos for MTV, and stage shows for audiences primed by their love of the music. Anyone who says the songs are not good enough to produce success, much less be entertaining, has not heard any pop music since 1962. Maybe every song is not a banger, but "Three Small Words", "Pretend to be Nice" and "Spin Around" are the kinds of tunes that could easily form the backbone of an album.  Each of those tunes could be the encore song for a popular girl band at the turn of the century. Song writers Adan Schlesinger, Adam Duritz and Kenneth 'Babyface' Edmonds are all part of the ensemble of producers, writers and music professionals, who made sure that the songs of the Pussycats were credible pop tunes. I will put their credibility and my personal taste, up against any of the naysayers out there. 

Still, in spite of the fact that the rise to stardom plotline is substantial, it is not the main paradigm by which the film can be judged. The third and maybe most important element of the film is the satire on consumerism and the influence of the media on teen culture. This film suggests a secret cabal of product manufacturers, government, and technical media wizardry could drive the economy with the money from teens. This is before Facebook, You Tube, and Twitter existed. The writers of this film saw that the rise of media influence would be the strongest force for consumption in the future. Everyone out there making a career as an influencer, can look at this movie and say, "that's how it starts". Replace the Head of the Record Company, Fiona, and her toady assistant Wyatt, with some You Tubers and a couple of media analysts, and you have the world of today.  (Of course none of them are as much fun as Parker Posey and Alan Cummings)

The whole opening segment with the boy band is a commercial for dozens of products, satirically.  That joke is extended through the whole movie. Amazingly enough, these were not paid placements, like they would have been in a hundred other movies, they were targets (Including Target) of the film makers suspicion of consumer manipulation. If you think "Smells Like Teen Spirit" from Nirvana was cutting criticism of youth consumerism, how could everyone miss the savagely aggressive takedown of product placement, teen fashion trends and celebrity worship that this movie took on? I don't know, but somehow they did. 

If the rise of Boy Bands, manufactured by record companies and supplemented by autotune and other technologies is a sore point with music lovers, why is it that the "DuJour" song "Backdoor Lover" from the fictional band in this film, not become a rallying cry against manufactured music? It is a great takedown of the form, and it is also hysterical. There might be some PC resistance to it these days, but a quarter of a century ago, it would be embraced by hipsters as ironically ideal.

The three girls in the power trio that make up the Pussycats are spot on. Rachel Leigh Cook has that punk girl next door quality. She has attitude but not bitterness and she is cute as heck. Rosario Dawson has been the thinking mans sex symbol for two decades now. She is smart, tough and attractive and her character is in tune with what is going on from the beginning. Tara Reid, was the staple hot chick of 90s movies and she is delightfully dingy and sweet as Melody, who loves puppies and plays the drums with gusto. 

"Josie and the Pussycats" has all the markings of a cult film. It was a flop initially, it has undergone re-evaluation and it has a devoted following of fans who are willing to humiliate themselves to show their love. That was evident Sunday Night as the audience was full of people wearing their cat ears through the whole movie. Me Included. I am not a late arrival to the cult, I could easily be the founder.  I have shouted praise for this movie for a long time. Back in 2013, I featured it in one of my posts "Movies I Want Everyone to See".   

Paramount Classic Film Series-Roman Holiday

I think it might be interesting to know the effect this film can have on a person by describing to you the context in which I saw it and the impact had on me last Sunday. We had a tight schedule, and so left for the movie with just an hour to spare. It is usually a 40-minute trip down to Austin from where we live, and then a 5 to 10 minute walk over to the theater. Typically we leave much earlier and arrive anywhere from 30 minutes to 60 minutes before the film is supposed to screen. Clearly we were cutting it close. When we arrived at the parking garage, the kiosk that distributes the tickets was not working and we had a backup of cars behind us who could not get into the structure as we could not. I used the call box and a voice said somebody would be coming down to take care of the problem, but I had no idea how long it was going to take them. The car is behind me finally backed up and left the structure which allowed me to do the same. As the time was getting closer to the start of the film, while I was stuck, I sent Amanda on ahead and told her I would find parking and just meet her in the theater. When I finally got out of the structure which has been my usual parking spot for the summer, and for which I have a prepaid voucher, I needed to find a place to park in downtown Austin. There was a lot on the corner three blocks south and I pulled in there, thinking that would be the solution. When I checked the QR code instructions I discovered that the fee for parking in this lot was $11 an hour, far higher than I had imagined it would be for a Sunday afternoon. So I pulled out of that lot drove around the block and pulled into another structure for one of the high-rises in downtown, it had a list price of $10 a day for weekend parking. That was much more reasonable but it was a slightly longer walk. At this point I was pretty irritable, and then somebody on the street with a political message that I don't particularly care for approached me and I lashed out. I rudely told them what I thought of their message and plowed on with as much indifference as I could muster after having blown my stack. I got to the theater made it inside and sat down next to Amanda 5 seconds before the lights went down and the movie started. I was still quite wound up and frustrated, but within 5 minutes my soul was soothed, my mind was at rest and the negative memories were far away. That's what this movie can accomplish almost instantaneously.

This effect is entirely responsibility of the ephemeral and eternal beauty and charm of the star Audrey Hepburn. As a put-upon princess who longs for connection with the real world, Hepburn is the epitome of grace and loveliness. We can instantaneously sympathize with her frazzled persona, as she stands in a presentation line with one shoe off, and she struggles to get it back on so as not too embarrass the nation she represents. The baroness and the doctor who are responsible for managing her, or micromanaging her, are supportive bureaucrats, merely carrying out their dictates. It's a miracle that she figures out how to escape the surroundings before she collapses from the drug that has been administered to help her sleep. Of course this sets up the cute meet with a journalist, Gregory Peck. Their first 10 minutes together are quite charming, and once he takes her back to his apartment to safely allow her to fall asleep, the movie takes on an almost slapstick nature. You're expecting sophisticated comedy from the film, and there's plenty of that, but there are also pratfalls in the small apartment, tumbles from the bed, and mistaken inferences by the housekeeper and the landlord. Gregory Peck is as solemn as he usually is but he does get a little bit more excited and in character when he realizes what he's gotten himself into and the opportunity it presents. This is a romantic comedy that plays with the idea of social status in a more serious way than any of the other royalty falls in love with commoner films you are likely to have seen. This is not the "Princess Diaries".

Once the journalist and the princess start off on their excursions around the Eternal City of Rome, the fun begins to be more consistent. Accompanied by his friend, a photographer played by Eddie Albert, Peck is trying to maneuver the princess into not only having a good time, but revealing things about herself that he would never have any chance of getting in a formal interview. The fact that he is being duplicitous is a little off-putting and it takes the dawning love between the two of them to show that his true nature is not really his harsh as we were led to believe. Nowadays it would certainly be a fairy tale to imagine that somebody working in this sort of journalistic format could be circumspect enough to choose not to publish some information. This may in fact account for the notion that this is more of a fairy tale than a romantic comedy. I still found it quite affecting when after the princess has returned to her role, she discovers that her partner was in fact a reporter, but that he has no intention of violating her trust. They played at a surface level that is just right for their stations in this story. And of course while all of this was happening, we got a little travel log of the city of Rome.

There was so much to smile about by the end of the film that I  nearly forgotten how crazy I  was when I first sat down. The rest of the day went so much more smoothly and I felt so much better having been entertained by two fabulous stars of the golden era of Hollywood. If anyone ever suggests that Audrey Hepburn didn't deserve to win the award for best actress in "Roman Holiday", just make them watch the 5 minutes seen at the end where she wordlessly accepts the circumstances of her responsibility, and the love that she's not going to be able to follow. It's a perfect example of acting for the screen. All hail the princess.

Reagan (2024)

We unfortunately live in a world where any sort of political position seems to result in backlash instead of discussion. There shouldn't be anything controversial about reviewing a biopic that covers the life of the 40th President of the United States. The man had a compelling story, starting with an impoverished childhood, running through the Golden Age of Hollywood, touching down on the Red Scare of the 50s, the counterculture of the 60s, and the threat of nuclear war as a result of the Cold War in the 1980s. The fact that there's so much to talk about May in fact be the key weakness of this film. The script tries to cover so much of Reagan's life and so many of the key events in his political career, that there's not really much time to reflect on any of it. This plays like a slideshow reminder for people who lived through the era, and a set of bullet points for younger viewers who only know Reagan from their history books or memes on the internet.

As I said, I hesitate to even discuss the film because people will have knee-jerk reactions to the mere mention of a political figure. On one side you'll have people who will react negatively simply because they identify with a different political philosophy. On the other side of course, worshipful fans might be too forgiving of the flaws of the film. Everyone will be looking to score some political points one way or the other from the movie. I remain committed to my goal of writing something about every film I see in a theater, so I'm not going to let the fear of opening a can of political worms keep me from putting some words down on this film.

Reagan is an interesting political figure because he was elected president with a 40 state Electoral College victory in 1980, and a 49 state victory in 1984. He was clearly a very popular president, and the film gives us several reasons to see why. The one thing that the film does which makes it worthwhile, is to focus on the character of the president, his sense of morality, and the ethos that drove him. Even if you don't care for that sort of philosophical bent, I think you'll have a better understanding of how it influenced Ronald Reagan over his lifetime. The other big thing that the film has going for it is the lead performance of Dennis Quaid. He's not quite doing an impersonation of the well-known president, but he does get his cadence and intonation pretty well covered. He also presents him as a cheerful advocate for his positions, rather than the impenetrable wall that many biographers have found. If there is a weak performance in the film it is probably Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy Reagan. Her performance feels a little brittle and stagy. Sometimes she seems to be shouting when it's not completely necessary. I'm sure she has Nancy Reagan's unfailing love for Ronald Reagan completely covered, but whenever her character steps out of the romantic entanglement and into the larger political sphere, it feels overdone.

There's a terrific supporting Cast in the film, many well-known character actors get a chance to shine in the spotlight during the course of the story. Nick Searcy is doing a great job as chief of staff James Baker. Xander Berkeley is George Schultz and Dan Lauria does a pretty reasonable impression of House Speaker Tip O'Neill. C. Thomas Howell is also in the film as part of Reagan's Cadre of advisors. The most significant role in the film, for an actor playing a character part, is the former Russian analyst portrayed by John Voight, using an accent it is a lot more clear than the one he used in Anaconda. This plot line is really the backbone of the film, in spite of its fictionalized nature. His character is telling the story of Reagan from the perspective of an adversarial spy, after the events have already occurred, in an attempt to explain the significance of Reagan's personality but especially his political ideology. Some of the things that get developed in the story might be the kinds of things that would justify some political shenanigans. This framing story however is not that central to the main character of the film.

Although the film comes from a specialty Film Production, the technical aspects of the film are very solid, and the effects, sets, and photography do not let down the professionalism of the movie. The story is a little schmaltzy because it is trying to cover the entire life of Reagan. It remains shallow as a consequence. I think this would have been a film which could be more successful artistically if it picked a significant event from Reagan's presidency and connected it to maybe his early anti-communist stance. That's the approach that Spielberg took with his Lincoln film, and it might have been a better choice for this movie. Regardless of the weaknesses of the script, I do think that the film achieves one of its objectives, namely making Ronald Reagan a real person for a large part of the audience that did not live in his times.

The Crow (2024)

 

I've never been the biggest fan of the original "The Crow" from 1994. It's a perfectly acceptable film, it's main attraction being the goth-like look of the city in decay that is haunted by the avenging spirit of Brandon Lee's character. The whole plot itself mostly consists of a revenge driven fantasy, which doesn't do much to build character, or make us loath the villains who are being given justice. It's a paint by numbers Vengeance film with a supernatural element to it. In that version of the film there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the character comes back from the dead. There is only some mumbo jumbo about crows leading the dead to the after world or back to this one if something is left undone. The impervious nature of Eric's body to weapons and punishment is clearly supernatural but not very clear as to why it is happening.

This version of the movie attempts to answer those questions and make the plot line conform to a more coherent structure. I'm not sure that that's completely necessary but I had a better understanding of what the hell was going on when watching this than I did with the original. That however is not enough to make this a good movie. The fact that we meet the hero and his lost love early in the film and spend some time understanding how they got together and what they mean to one another, does help a little bit, but it moves pretty slow and I'm not sure how much the audience really care about this. Apparently the whole plot that appears in this film concerning a minion of Satan using his powers on Earth to send innocent souls to hell is completely new with this screenplay. I didn't have any problem with this since it conforms to the other part of the story about why Eric comes back from the dead in the first place. It also makes the ultimate villain of the piece a little bit more interesting than in the previous film.

The slow moving first hour is not likely to endear this film to most viewers. A love story between two drug users, who break out of rehab and somehow managed to find an upscale apartment to stay in and unlimited resources to function with, is not really that appealing. The two characters are all right, with the female lead being more appealing than our main protagonist. There's a convoluted connection to the villain and why this young woman is being sent to hell and why Eric feels he must come back from the dead to try and save her. Blah blah blah.

I suspect what fans really want from a film like this, are the sequences where the hero makes the bad guys suffer for their sins. I know that's what I was sitting here waiting for. When it happens this film goes further in making the punishments seem harsher and more just, given what the criminals are responsible for. Eric doesn't seem so much like a righteous angel as he does an Angry Young Man who simply has an extraordinary power to survive deadly force. Apparently death also makes him an expert at using a sword and firing a gun. It doesn't matter how he got so good with those tools, all that matters is that he uses them and we get to see. So there are dismemberments, piercings, and face shooting galore at the start of the third act, and damn it that's what we've been waiting for.

Bill Skarsgårdis is in fact a perfectly acceptable replacement for Brandon Lee and the role of The Crow. He has a washed out hollow look, and the lanky frame of a drug user, who's still possesses a little bit of physical capability. He never comes across however as anything other than an angry man. There is very little depth to his mission, even when it appears that he has to accept a truly negative consequence in order to pursue it. Little thought has been put into whatever intellectual concepts might have been relevant in a revenge story of this type. Danny Houston is particularly reptilian as the minion of the evil one, who is trading the souls of hundreds of Innocence, for his continued existence on Earth. He seems to have some Supernatural persuasive voice, like some Hellbound Bene Gesserit, convincing the innocent to do something that will damn them. It's all a little fuzzy, as are most of the things in this story.

As I've already said, the main difference between this film and the previous iteration of "The Crow", is the look of the film. So much of this version occurs during daylight hours, maybe the skies are cloudy, but it is certainly not as dark is the 94 film was. The original Crow had the death of Brandon Lee hanging over it, which probably also accounts for its cult status. This version of the movie will probably not achieve that standard. I guess is it will be forgotten after this last weekend, in fact I nearly forgot that I had seen it myself.

Paramount Classic Film Series Double Feature-The Breakfast Club and 10 Things I Hate About You

 

We are heading into the final week of then Summer Series and the Double features are piling up. Friday featured two teen films from different decades. "The Breakfast Club" is a Gen X staple from 1985 and "10 Things I Hate About You" is catnip for millennial girls. The show was well attended and the audience stuck around for the second movie.

The Breakfast Club (1985) 

I must have seen this movie a couple dozen times over the years. That is largely because I used a section of it in my Small Group Communication Classes and my Interpersonal Communication classes. Regardless of how credible the personalities in the film are, the process by which they interact is a good illustration of several communication concepts I was trying to teach my classes. Most of the students I taught were not too distant from the high school experience in the film, so some of the instigating events would likely feel relevant to them.

How do you see yourself as a person? Are you capable, a clown, superior, a leader or a toady? Why do you think of yourself that way? In the film, the strongest influence that writer/director John Hughes came up with is the power of the family and parents to shape who you see when you look in the mirror. Emilio Estevez as Andy, sees a jock, who must live up to the experience of his father. Anthony Michael Hall as Brian, is the smart kid, who has never failed a class, is an A student, and who has a family that expects him to excel. Molly Ringwald is Claire, a princess, who has been pampered by her parents and coddled through life,, with unhappy role models. John Bender played by Judd Nelson is an anti-social misanthrope, who has been formed by an abusive set of parents, and Allison, the introverted outsider is ignored by her family and craves the love she doesn't get at home. True, they are all stereotypes, but they clearly illustrate some of the principles that our self concept derives from.

When they finally break down some barriers, the subject of self-disclosure becomes the focus of the film. You can see each of the kids testing the safety of the group when thinking about honestly sharing something about themselves. Bender is slower to share because he fears a loss of power in the relationships, Claire on the other hand is concerned with status. Brian and Andy disclose to the group as a form of catharsis, trying to lessen the burden they carry on themselves. Allison shares false information to manipulate the others and then reciprocates with some truth when she knows that others have made themselves vulnerable. I would run these scenes in class and usually, someone would pick out something connected to what we had talked about and for a few minutes, there would be some actual conversation.

The movie is also filled with entertaining moments, sometimes the kids dance, sometimes they obfuscate with the vice principal monitoring them during their detention. Paul Gleason was maybe tied with William Atherton as the go to actor for the asshole character in a film. Mr. Vernon is mostly an adult, who resents the kids for putting him in the position he is in. Although in the closing essay that Brian wrote for the group, where they mock his assignment and assumptions about them, it is in fact the assignment that they have been completing in the whole film. Maybe they will never use algebra, but they will use these lessons in life. There are some very funny moments and some painful ones. They may not always be credible, but they work for the most part.

10 Things I Hate About You

One of the many films that updates stories from William Shakespeare in the 1990s, "!0 Things I Hate About You" would be a film I saw multiple times twenty four years ago, because I had teen and tween daughters who loved it, and we had a DVD player. This movie was a go to for gatherings with their friends, rainy Saturday afternoons or days spent home when they were sick. Heath Ledger planted the seeds of his future fandom and legacy in the hearts of girls everywhere with this movie. Julia Styles may very well have turned one of my daughters into the heinous bitch version of her character simply by presenting that attitude as being so cool.

If you are familiar with "The Taming of the Shrew", you will recognize how closely this hewed to the original plot structure. There are occasional names, and lines that will connect the film to the play as well. While this is still a teen romantic comedy, it is one that goes much deeper than usual in those types of films. The nature of popularity is not just treated as a joke, but as an actual dilemma that teens must confront in some way or another. The two male leads find that truth is a better path to happiness than pretention, and of course the pretentious one gets a comic comeuppance.

Larry Miller plays the father of the two female leads, and he has had a prolific career in film and television as a character actor. This role may be his most memorable because of the way he plays his scenes with star Julia Stiles. He goes from comic foil to supportive father in one really memorable scene. Allison Janney is about to start her time on "The West Wing" but the goofy, wannabe romance writer as vice principal was a fun role in just a couple of brief scenes.  

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and David Krumholtz are a terrific comic duo with great timing in their scenes together. Krumholtz probably steals more scenes than he should, but he does pay for it when he has a penis drawn on his face, and Andrew Keegan may have typecast himself perfectly with his performance as the self centered antagonist in the film. If you are a fan of indie's rock music of the 90s, you will find it in abundance on the soundtrack of this film.

In the packed audience last Friday, it was clear there were a number of women reliving their youth. Every time Heath Ledger did something in the film that was charming or cute, you could hear sighs and cheers throughout the auditorium. If I was thirty years younger, I might have considered it a prime situation for hitting on women who liked the film and wanted to experience the exuberance of young love once again. I'm not that young or stupid, but I smiled every time some woman let out a small moan of pleasure during the film. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series- The Man who Knew Too Much (1956) Hitchcock Week

 

Jimmy Stewart returns to the Paramount with another Hitchcock thriller, a very rare remake of his own work "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This is an international intrigue with a political assassination as the MacGuffin. The settings include  London and Marrakesh, and there are authentic location shots mixed with rear screen projection. Most of the interior shots were done in Hollywood on sound stages, but the film has an international flavor to it because of all the extras and the supporting roles.

The title gives away just enough to let us know that it is information which drives the plot. Stewart and Doris Day play the married couple, Doctor and Mrs. McKenna. He worked in the army Mash unit in North Africa during the war, and she was a well known pop singer when they met in London. They are returning to those haunts on a medical junket/vacation, with their little boy. They get connected to a man, Lois Bernard, who speaks Arabic as well as French and English, when he helps them with a cultural misunderstanding on a bus ride to Marrakesh from Casablanca. Bernard turns out to have been some sort of spy, who for is not clear, the local French authorities are suspicious of the Americans having any contact with him. It turns out there is a conspiracy, and the son of the nice American couple is used as a tool to keep them from sharing what they know.

Maybe the idea of an Indiana Doctor and his pop singer wife, turning into spies who travel to London, seems far fetched. The real strength that drives them is their love for their little boy and the animosity they feel toward those who betrayed them and threaten their son. Stewart gets tense in some scenes, clutching his fingers in anger below the surface of a table, struggling to contain his frustration. Day is more openly desperate and the scene where her husband has to sedate her before he can reveal their son's abduction is frightening and sad. 

The British security authority who wants them to trust his agency, is incapable of following up on their promise. The bureaucratic mind of the police officers who could potentially have stopped the plot by taking an active crime as enough justification to enter a building is almost as infuriating as the assassination plot. Of course, social niceties are also why Jo McKenna and the Doctor, don't disrupt a concert performance where the murder is supposed to take place. The final scream of warning comes at the last minute, which is thrilling for a drama, but makes little logical sense.

Having seen "Notorious" just two nights earlier, it is striking how much the descending staircase image dominates the climax of both movies. It seems to be a Hitchcock trope so when you watch "Psycho" remember, he has done this before. I think this is one of the few Academy Award winning songs that is actually relevant to the plot. Doris Day was a crossover star of the era, a singer and actress, and she took a simple little sing along tune and turned it into a moment of tension during the final act. She was famously uncertain about how she was doing in the role, but when you watch the screen, it is clear, she has command of her part.

This is another mystery thriller that mixes murder, espionage and ordinary people together in a well written script. The execution of the drama and suspense cannot be faulted, and the performances are top notch. If you ever get a chance to see this on the big screen, take it, you will be in the hands of a master.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series Double Feature-Dial M for Murder and Rope (Hitchcock Week)

 

Dial M for Murder

A double dose of Hitchcock last Friday night, with two films based on plays that take place in a limited setting. First up, the star studded "Dial M for Murder" from 1954. Ray Milland, the Academy Award winning actor from a decade earlier in "The Lost Weekend", plays a retired English tennis player, married to a socialite American played by Grace Kelly, who would win the Academy Award this same year for another film. There is however a love triangle going on as she is still emotionally involved with a former paramour, played by Bob Cummings.

The plot involves an elaborate murder plot that goes awry and deepens the sinister nature of the crime. Tony is a conniving dilettante, who is unsatisfied with his life as a married man who has retired from his sport.  He maneuvers an old school acquaintance into his plot through a blackmail threat. His goal is to do away with his wife, inherit her money and be safely alibied by his wife's former lover. Things don't go according to plan but Tony is a clever man if not an ethical one, he improvises a scenario that results in an even more solid cover for his crime.   

The Paramount Program Director, Steven Jannise, correctly lauds Grace Kelly as the victimized woman in the story, but I am not sure you can say she steals the picture because Milland as the villain, is unctuous, quick footed, and capable of making the most seemingly innocent things look bad, while also explaining away his own bad actions in a reasonable manner. The part is very cleverly written and Milland handles it with aplomb. Kelly does the distraught wife and victim role well, but there needs to be a little more to her indignance at what transpires.

There are two supporting performances that deserve some attention away from the shade of the stars. John Williams portrays the suspicious Chief Inspector Hubbard, who follows a false trail at first and then doggedly pursues the truth on a last minute bit of subterfuge. Williams is brilliant in the part, side eying everyone and  smiling at his own suspicions. It is exactly the kind of performance that makes a movie special. Also deserving some kudos is Anthony Dawson, who plays the shady schoolmate recruited by Tony to be his weapon. I hadn't recognized him immediately, and I should have, perhaps the moustache was in fact a perfect disguise. Dawson is the actor that plays Professor Dent in Dr. No. He is on the receiving end of James Bonds Walther, when his Smith and Wesson runs out of ammo. As 

Charles Alexander Swann/Captain Lesgate, Dawson is sinister and charming as he loses a battle of wits with the well prepared Tony. 

The film is set largely on the apartment of Tony and Margo, with brief exteriors in front of their building and a couple of scenes set in the police headquarters of Chief Inspector Hubbard. The part with the key switch was a memorable moment in "The West Wing" one of my favorite TV series. The President is screening "Dial M for Murder" and trying to connect with his middle daughter Elle, who is resisting his fatherly sense of humor. The resolution of the scene with the Hitchcock film in the background is one of the warm moments from the series.

Rope

The second feature was another movie based on a play, and it is a grand experiment for the master of suspense. Set entirely in the apartment of the two killers, "Rope" is a psychological tug of war between the killers and their former mentor, the head of their house at prep school. Jimmy Stewart was a frequent star in Hitchcock films, and this was his first foray into the thriller territory that Hitch was the ultimate authority in. 

Pseudo intellectual entitled miscreants Brandon Hall and Phillip Morgan, murder a former classmate and friend as an intellectual exercise in power and superiority. They have taken the late night bull sessions with their teacher, way too seriously. Swallowing whole the philosophy of Nietzsche's "Superman", they kill as a way of affirming their own superiority.  Brandon, a narcissist with a sadistic streak, secures the body of their victim in a  wooden chest that he turns into a center piece at a party he is hosting with Phillip in their apartment. The dead man's father, Aunt and fiancé, as well as his former best friend are all in attendance.  When Rupert Cadell, their school house head and mentor, comes to the party, the intellectual cat and mouse games begin. Jimmy Stewart as Cadell, starts to suspect his former students are guilty of something as the snarky Brandon drops hints of his intellectual pretensions while the unnerved Phillip, drinks himself into a morose shell of himself and practically confesses to the crime repeatedly.

The movie is shot in continuity, as if it is all one take. The transitions between the film cuts, necessitated by the limit of ten minutes worth of film at a time, are covered by fades into someone's back or shots cast into a shadow. The movie also plays out in real time, a brief eighty minutes of tense talk and camera movements limited by the setting. The conclusion is a little melodramatic but the film is a fascinating experiment and it features an interesting set of performances from the two villains. The idea that they are superior to a character like the decent Mr. Kentley , played by Cedric Hardwicke, is ultimately laughable. Their twisted self rationalizations are thin and not even convincing to the man they think they are taking inspiration from.

I've seen the film a couple of times, including a theatrical experience at a revival house back in the 1980s. I can't quite remember if it was at the Rialto in South Pasadena or at the New Beverly in West Hollywood. Regardless, it is a great way to see the film, but it may be one Hitchcock that is not diminished by viewing on a TV. 

Alien Romulus (2024)

 

Ever since James Cameron's "Aliens" I have been excited about a new entry into the franchise, and then disappointed with the product. The second film was the last time I walked out of an Alien movie, completely satisfied. That pattern is not entirely eliminated by the new entry "Alien Romulus", but I can say that the level of disappointment was much lower than the previous two films produced. "Romulus" is basically a remake of the original premise, but after a strong first half, it falls into rapid action sequences that don't satisfy the tension levels the way I would like. People, study your Spielberg/Hitchcock films a little more, you are imitating but not replicating the suspense.

Director Fede Alvarez has tread this territory before. In 2013, he took the original "Evil Dead" movies and remade them as a smashing example of horror and practical effects. That film not only stuck to the formula, it upped the ante on suspense. With "Romulus", he has basically replayed the same plot in a slightly different location, with a slightly modified crew, but ultimately, you can pick out the beats of the film that follow exactly from the original. We get six characters (plus one) in search of a death by Aliens.  

One of the reasons that I like the slow burn first hour, is that it contains the biggest difference in the plotline from the original. Instead of going down to a planet to investigate a derelict ship , our crew is going up from the planet surface to ransack a derelict space station. The artificial person starts of as benign, and has a surprising story arc. The Weyland/Yutani Corporation continues to be the enemy in the story, but in the initial launch of the plot, they do so in a completely different way. Somehow, indentured servitude has become a legitimate employment practice.  Ridley Scott's film "Blade Runner" could easily be a companion piece to what is going on here. If someone wanted to make a political thriller out of these two film conceits, it would be a great story.

That slow build structure is a lot like the original movie, with an opportunity to meet and start to care about the characters we are doing to watch be massacred. None is given a complete backstory, but we get a good sense of who they are during act one. The young colonists are determined to obtain the material on the station, to facilitate their exit from the mining world they are trapped on. It is not essential to know some things, but I would like to understand why Rain, our lead character and Tyler, her ex-boyfriend broke up. What is Tyler's job on the planet and why does he have a spacecraft? Bjorn is the designated ass, and we get a little about his resentment of synthetics, but nothing about why he and Navarro are together. Kay is Tyler's sister, and she just seems to be along for the ride as non-essential personnel. The most interesting character is the artificial person, Andy. When so much energy is put into making the robot the sympathetic character at the start of the film, you know there are going to be some manipulative moments later on.

I liked that the film tried to use practical effects as much as possible. Including, up to a point, a second artificial person. When we finally get a closer examination of that character, who is named Rook, we know that A.I. has crept into bed with the puppets and models that have been the mainstay of the film up to that point. There are lots of Aliens as the story goes along, many of them in the form of face-huggers that add the earliest creep elements to the movie. When we get to the climax, there is a big shift in the imagery and our suspension of disbelief is sorely tested.

If I were ranking all of the Alien Films, this one would come in behind "Alien" and "Aliens", but quite a ways behind them, although in front of all the others.  I don't think there was a jump scare that got me, and only a couple of the fx moments were gruesome enough to make this feel like a horror film. Go see it, you will probably have a good time, but keep your expectations in check.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series- Notorious (Hitchcock Week)

 

It's Hitchcock Week at the Paramount Theater and last night was a chance to see one of the best from the master of suspense, "Notorious", the 1946 spy thriller starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Raines. Set mostly in Rio after the war, "Notorious" is about an attempt to penetrate a Nazi spy ring, operating in South America. Grant plays Devlin, an equivocating intelligence agent, who recruits the daughter of a German Spy, convicted of treason in Florida. For the romance element of the story to work, we have to believe that he is in the dark over exactly what his superiors want from Alicia Huberman. 

The world of espionage is particularly dark in Hitchcock's films. Although we want the American agencies that he vaguely refers to to succeed, they do so through one of the most unpleasant means available. In both "Notorious" and "North by Northwest", party girls with emotional vulnerabilities are asked to seduce the targets in order to gain intelligence. With Eva Marie-Saint we don't get a lot of backstory, but Ingrid Bergman's character is all backstory, especially for the first act of the film. Alicia has rebelled against her Nazi father and in drowning herself in booze, she has become a loose woman, who is taken advantage of by a variety of men. At the depth of her humiliation, Devlin, the character played by Grant, insinuates himself in her circle of friends and begins the process of luring her into an assignment in South America. I find it interesting, that Grant is the man who falls for the loose women turned spies in both films. In "North by Northwest" he is an innocent, caught up in plans beyond his ken. Here, he is a calculating cad, who learns the dangers of his own callousness. 

"Notorious" is at heart a love triangle, the third party being the erudite Alexander Sebastian,  a key member of the Nazi group. It seems that years earlier, when Sebastian was friends with Alicia's father, he had a massive crush on her, and the U.S. and Brazilin intelligence group wants to take advantage of that by inserting her into his life. In essence, pimping her out for Uncle Sam.  The fact that Devlin has fallen for Alicia and she for him, is a big complication. Devlin is cold to Alicia, as a way of distancing himself and her from the unpleasantness of her activities. Regardless of what Devlin says to her however, he is defensive on her behalf with the intelligence group in private. In an excellent illustration of true movie dialogue here is an example:

Paul Prescott: [about Alicia] I don't like this, I don't like her coming here.

Walter Beardsley: She's had me worried for some time. A woman of that sort.

Devlin: What sort is that, Mr. Beardsley?

Walter Beardsley: Oh, I don't think any of us have any illusions about her character. Have we, Devlin?

Devlin: Not at all, not in the slightest. Miss Huberman is first, last, and always not a lady. She may be risking her life, but when it comes to being a lady, she doesn't hold a candle to your wife, sitting in Washington, playing bridge with three other ladies of great honor and virtue.

Devlin gives himself away to his superior Paul Prescott, played by veteran actor Louis Calhern, with a dash of charm and a bureaucratic mind. Prescott has a clever scene revealing a little of his humanity when Devlin comes to him worried about Alicia, and the discussion takes place while he is prone in bed, eating cheese and crackers. Not the tightly controlled mission boss, but a man who has to kick his shoes off an dine alone in bed sometimes. He knows what he is doing with Alicia, but he is not the monster that he could be. A decade later, Leo G. Carroll will fill a similar role in the other spy film I mentioned.

My admiration for Claude Rains as an actor has been expressed before. In "Casablanca", "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Invisible Man", Rains has been one of the consistent lights of the golden age of Hollywood. He is the sweetest and most vulnerable Nazi in films, as a besotted member of this cabal, he is both murderously awful and sympathetic. That is a piece of cognitive complexity that only an expert performer like Rains could pull off. The defeated resignation of his denouncement is perfect for the character and the film.

There are several moments of tension in the movie. Bergman's acquisition of a key without her husband discovering it is one of those sequences. Of course the search for the secret in the wine cellar is gripping as well. You could hear the audience last night, collectively inhaling and holding their breath, as a wine bottle teeters on the edge of a shelf. Finally, the elegant bluff and turning of the tide with Grant rescuing Bergman from the clutches of Rains, and his loathsome Mother. The mother, played by actress Leopoldine Konstantin, is one of the Mother's that Hitchcock used as a tool for manipulating his male leads in the movies. While not as famous as Norman Bates mother, Mme. Sebastian, would certainly belong in a rogue's gallery of villains. 

As usual with a Hitchcock film, the production design is impressive. Although the scenes set in Rio rely on rear projection, they still look convincing. Alicia's house in Florida, and her apartment in Rio, swim in the deco elegance of the era and her outfits do the same thing. The camera work is impeccable, I liked the trick with the coffee cup in the foreground as Alicia is in the background, both in focus. There are a number of moments shot from above that also establish the pecking order of power in the household, but allowing us to track the activities of the characters as well. The final descent on the staircase is an excellent visual complement to the plot tension in the script. 

From 1945 to his death in 1980, Alfred Hitchcock made 24 films and in that thirty five year period, a dozen of them are essential and another half dozen are excellent. "Notorious" deservedly belongs on the top shelf with a cast of stars that were at the height of their powers. A big screen visit is always called for when a Hitchcock film is involved. Tonight, two more of the top tier films. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series Double Feature-Romancing the Stone/Three Amigos

 

Robert Rodriguez is a local Austin hero. As a film maker, he has worked extensively in the Austin area and used local crafts people and locations for his films. He has been able to select a group of movies for the Summer Classic Film Series, and present them to the audience with a live introduction for a few years now. This last Sunday, he had three films that he wanted to talk about that featured Mexican Actor/Director Alfonso Arau. Rodriguez was inspired by Arau when he was just starting out and he got a break, which allowed him to spend a week or so as a young man, assisting and hanging out with Arau. They have since become friends and it is fitting that Rodriguez selected his friend to feature in this summer's presentations.

There were actually three features on Sunday that concerned Arau, unfortunately, we could not stay for the film he directed "Like Water for Chocolate". I have it in my collection and we will catch up with it soon. The two films we were able to see were movies that Alfonso Arau had an acting role in. He is not the star of the films but he is an important featured player in both of them

Romancing the Stone

"Romancing the Stone" was 20th Century Fox's entry into the Indiana Jones clone films. Everyone was looking for an adventure film with comedy, romance and stunts, to pull in audiences the way the Steven Spielberg films had done. The movie was a big success and it cemented the stardom of Kathleen Turner and created a partnership with Michael Douglas that would continue up to today. If you are interested in a more detailed look at the film, let me direct you to my post on the 30 Years On Project. This movie is a delightful summer entertainment, and holds up pretty well.

First lets talk about Alfonso Arau's part in the film. He plays the role of a drug smuggler, who controls the local area that Romance Writer, Joan Wilder (Turner) and her guide/partner, Jack Colton (Douglas) find themselves stuck in. Through one of those wonderful movie coincidences, he knows her work and becomes a quick ally in her goal of escaping from the evil pursuers that are hot on their trail. The vast majority of his role involves him grinning as he drives them in his off road truck through the fields and jungles as they are chased by jeeps with machine guns.  Arau is probably not in the movie for more than seven or eight minutes, but like most good character actors, he makes those minutes count. 

I also have to say that Kathleen Turner was the draw in the film. Douglas was the producer and first listed star on the film, but Turner is the character that we spend the most time with. She starts off as a mousy pawn in the story, but as her successes in confronting complications grow, so does her self confidence and natural beauty. By the end of the film, she has truly become the heroine of her own romance novels. It's pretty obvious that Michael Douglas also worked in the film as adventurer Colton. This movie set him up as a romantic lead for the next twenty years, in thrillers and dramas as well as comedies. 

The cast also included Danny DeVito, who was a buddy of Michael Douglas after appearing in the Academy Award winning "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" which Douglas produced. He later directed both of the stars in the excellent but sometimes forgotten "War of the Roses". So it was a fortuitous collaboration for all involved. Director Robert Zemeckis had had a hand in three films that had bombed for Steven Spielberg and his production company. He took this job to try and get a hit outside of the Spielberg umbrella, so his career did not dissipate. Robert Rodriguez told us as part of his introduction to the film that Zemeckis had said this was the hardest location shoot he had ever done, and that he instructed his agent that if ever he was given a script that started "Exterior:   A vast Jungle", the agent should just automatically pass. 

The Three Amigos !  

The second of our Double Features includes a much bigger role for Alfonso Arau. He is the antagonist in the story, a bandit named El Guapo, modelled after the character played by Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven". Of course this is a comedy, so the character will have a number of features that would not likely appear in a real bandit of this ilk, including a love of sweaters. John Landis directed this film and it is a loose adaption of "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Seven Samurai". A village, terrorized by a gang of bandits, seeks outsiders as defenders. The conceit in this film is that the woman who contacts the supposed heroes, has misunderstood what a movie is (the film is set in 1916). The three actors who star in a series of Westerns set in Mexico during the silent film era, are playing landowners who are heroically on the side of peasants in many of their films. When the actors lose their jobs at the studio, they take up an ambiguous offer from the woman in the village, a heavily edited telegram leads them to think they are putting on a show, not that they are confronting real criminals.

Of course the film is pretty silly at times. There is a singing bush, a singing tortoise and singing horses in the film. There is also an invisible swordsman, and the actors skills as action stars in the movies, turn out to be useful. The cross cultural jokes are not offensive, and it's hard to be put off by anything the three leads do. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short  are the three actors who get in over their heads. The sequence where they realize the reality of their situation is quite amusing, and they do a nice cowardly retreat that will provoke a smile or two. The consistent smile generator however is the Amigos salute, you can probably do it yourself if you have seen the movie. 

Alfonzo Arau gets to ham it up as the leader of the bandit gang, and he gets a lot of mileage out of his broad smile and subdued line readings. If you have seen this movie before, you will probably remember the dialogue that features a "plethora" of jokes about the meaning of the word. Actor Tony Plana plays "Jefe" the second in command to "El Guapo" and he and Arau have some nice timing in their scenes together. 

This is a lightweight movie, that has nothing on it's mind other than making us laugh at some absurdities, and it does that just fine. It is the only screenwriting credit that composer/songwriter Randy Newman has, that may be in large part because of the songs he contributed to the story, although he is also credited as contributing to the payoff joke of the birthday presents for El Guapo, so I won't say he was not writing outside of the songs. 

It was a minor hit at Christmas time in the year of it's release, but it has never been a critical favorite. It is probably fair to say, that like a lot of other 1980s movies, it achieved a reputation because of repeated cable showings and now has a cult following. It's nonsensical and sweet, with enough energy for it's running time. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series- The Goonies

I never thought of myself as the biggest fan of "The Goonies", in spite of the fact that it came out in the mid 80s, and was directed by Richard Donner from a script by Chris Columbus, and produced by Steven Spielberg. Those would all be things that would be going in its favor, and seem to make me the target audience for the film. The big exception being that I was probably 10 years too old to experience the movie the way it was meant to be consumed. This is a movie for kids and teens, and although my adult self often feels nostalgia for adventure stories like this I've always been a little detached from it. After today's screening, I'd say that's a little less true, I liked it a lot but it still seems slightly off base to me.

The biggest problem for me is that the kids who star in the film are made to be overly loud, and talking over each other constantly. This was a choice that was done I'm sure to create energy for young people, but it had the opposite effect on me. I have the same problem with Steven Spielberg's "Hook", too many Lost Boys yelling over one another. However when we do get to moments where Sean Astin's character is trying to figure out a clue, or young Josh Brolin is engaging in some physical activity designed to show his alpha male status to a bunch of kids, the film works pretty well.

Corey Feldman and the other two kids who form the core of the Goonies are the most fun characters, but they are also the ones that do the most shouting and that's really what puts me off a bit from the movie. Chunk, the pudgy kid who makes friends with the giant member of the bad guys family, is pretty sympathetic as the conduit between "Sloth" and the rest of the characters. The late John Matuszak manages to give a sympathetic reading to the misshapen Fratelli brother. The make up overwhelmed his face but the small movements combined with some animatronics made it work anyway. 

A lot of the cast went on to solid careers in film. Astin starred in the "Lord of the Rings" films as everyone's favorite Hobbit,  Josh Brolin has been nominated for an Academy Award and played the ultimate antagonist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Martha Plimpton continues to work and had her own TV series. The great surprise in the group is Ke Huy Quan who plays the 007 inspired "Data". He was largely absent from the screen after his child roles in this and the "Indiana Jones" film, but made a big screen appearance and won an Academy Award for "Everything, Everywhere All at Once".  So whoever was the casting director for the film, seems to have done a good job in assembling child actors.

The treasure map, pirate ship and the booby traps are the things that make this movie worthwhile. Kids on a treasure hunt is a fun idea, the traps are all Rube Goldberg style setups that give the movie some visual excitement. The production design for the caves and the pirate ship in a hidden cove look great. The backsrory about the homes of the kids is a little clunky, and the performances of the adult parents was weak. Robert Davi, Joe Pantoliano and Anne Ramsey are a bit over the top, but the tone they set is right. It's a solid and fun film. Maybe not the classic some of it's fans think it is, but definitely worth a watch. Oh, and I got to wear my shirt. 

Borderlands (2024)

(by the way, no ELO in the film itself, just lying to us here in the trailer)

I couldn't help but feel flashbacks to the 1983 film  "Space Hunter Adventures in the Forbidden Zone", and the 2017 movie "Valerian and the City of a thousand Planets", as I was watching this film about a dystopian planet that contains a secret pursued by all of the characters. This film is apparently based on a video game, and it feels like one of those early 1990s / 2000s films that used video games as their launch point. It has some of the visual panache of the game but can't overcome the simplicity of the plot or the obviousness of the characters. So it has a good look, but that's about it. The characters who are supposed to be quirky and unique, just miss the mark like they did in "Space Hunter" and "Valerian".

The unfortunate thing that this film will most be remembered for, is that it proves that Cate Blanchett can in fact deliver a bad performance. She is the lead character in this story and Blanchett approaches it as if she's completely bored and it's just waiting for the director to call cut so that she can go home and read something interesting or look for a better job in the next movie. She's an admirable stand in when they're grafting her into a CGI action scene, but outside of that she is just boring, and that's not something I thought I would ever say about Cate Blanchett. The material is weak, but she does nothing to elevate it.

Jack Black does the Voice of the robot in the movie, named Claptrap. It's an unfortunately prophetic name given the way this character feels thrown together and written. He's supposed to be the comic relief, but too often he comes across as the irritating exposition dump for the movie. The producers of this film hired Kevin Hart to play a part that would have been better cast with Dwayne Johnson. Why you hire a comedian like Kevin Hart to play part where he has no comedic lines and his delivery should be serious, but remains dull instead, is a mystery to me. I'm not saying that Hart should only be relegated to comedic roles, but I am saying that he is outside of his depth here, and there is somebody else who probably could have played the part better.

This is a chase/action film set on a planet that looks like it was designed to house the film extras from a Mad Max movie. In "Thor Ragnarök" we got a similar kind of planet but there were interesting characters and there was some funny bits with the inhabitants of the trash dump that our heroes found themselves in, that is not the case with this film. The people who populate this planet are barely represented at all, they're not particularly interesting, and the set design is inexplicably dull in spite of the fact that it is meticulously recreating a trash dump very much like we saw in that Thor movie.

The film is full of energy that is misspent, acting that is indifferent, and creativity that is wasted on things that are unimportant. This movie just feels stiff from the very beginning. It's hard to put your finger on exactly what went wrong but it's easy to say that something clearly has gone wrong because I should be having fun and I'm not. I actually fell asleep for 5 minutes at a time in two different sections of the film one of which involved a chase and the other involved a shootout. If you can't keep me from dozing off during those kinds of sequences something is clearly wrong. Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't fix any of it. So it's easy to say about this movie,  "something is clearly wrong".  

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series- Oceans 11 (2001)

A good heist story is always entertaining as long as it is executed effectively. Stephen Soderberg's Oceans 11 is a big screen remake of a heist film from the 1960s, that had a hip reputation but was not a terrific heist movie. The remake corrects that. A heist movie depends on a clever plot, multiple complications in the execution of the heist, and usually a twist the audience didn't see coming. This version of Ocean's 11 has all of those in abundance, and it also has a great cast of characters to round out the story.

It may be true the George Clooney is not the star he once was, because his films have not drawn the box office numbers that they did Once Upon a Time. However he still has charisma, and this 23-year-old film demonstrates that in spades. Along with "Out of Sight" from two years earlier, Clooney was at the apex of charming criminal masterminds at the turn of the century. The plot here, involves a complicated intrusion into the vault that contains the cash flow of three major casinos in Las Vegas. The crew is attempting to steal the money from that vault, which is impenetrable and is protected by a vast security force. How will they do it, and will they get away with it?

The first two acts of the film set up the characters and the situation that they are faced with. We are given as much as possible to sympathize with them. The mark they are after appears to be a brutal, heartless, chiseler who has double crossed one of their team, and is stealing love of the team leader. Clooney, as Danny Ocean, is cool calm and collected as he assembles his crew with the assistance of his friend played by Brad Pitt. The two of them create enough cool in this movie to make it competitive with the Frank Sinatra movie that it's based on. When you layer on top of it, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Elliott Gould, and as the villain, anxious cold-eyed Andy Garcia. You can put your beer in the refrigerator now because this film is cooler than anything you're going to see this year.

The twists in this movie are fun, and well plotted. Like all movies of this ilk, the plot depends a little bit on certain characters behaving in a way that is anticipated by the other characters, to a T. Other than that old trope, the movie works well in disguising what's really happening, both to the characters in the film and for us the audience. When we realize how they're going to get away with it we smile with indulgence because we have been fooled by the cleverness of the master criminal. It's just too much fun.

The screening was packed with a variety of people, many of whom had not seen the movie before, as you could tell by the way they were reacting to some of the twists. Don Cheadle's accent, Elliott Gould's cigar and robe, and Casey Affleck and Scott Caan bickering with each other, all add humorous moments to the film, that aren't necessarily cool but are clearly a lot of fun. The film combines some really basic physical comedy, with some sophisticated dialogue and plot devices which amuse us in a completely different way.

Matt Damon is sort of the standout in the film, because he's a young buck on the rise, but he's still naive enough to fall for some of the bits that the older duo of Pitt and Clooney engage in. He's capable of playing comedy given the right material, and boy is this the right material. I shouldn't neglect that one of the characters in the film, is played by Julia Roberts, and although she's not one of the 11, she is critical in the execution of the heist. When the follow-ups of "Ocean's 12" and "13" appear, she finally gets counted as a member of the team. I'd be perfectly happy if they counted to 20 in the next few years, so we can enjoy these clever heist movies in greater abundance.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Let's get this straight off the bat "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is a terrific film, hugely entertaining, written in a style that was fresh and well researched. There is nothing about this film that is problematic. Which makes it so much easier for me to spend this post focusing on just a single element of the film, instead of finding a new way to evaluate a movie that people already love. So this post will be dedicated to the consistent crime that is committed by one of the world's greatest character actors, he not only steals the scenes he often steals the movie, Strother Martin.

It should be tough for an actor like this to make a big impact on a movie that is over 2 hours long and in which he appears for only about 10 minutes. However, when William Goldman is the screenwriter and the actor is the late Strother Martin, it's easier than a pickpocket lifting a wallet from an inattentive subway rider. Martin plays Percy Garris, the mine operator who hires Butch and Sundance to be payroll guards while they are down in Bolivia. This sequence takes place more than 80% of the way into the film, but it has the consistent humor, and dramatic heft that the film has sustained up to this point, and the gets elevated by the Percy Garris character. .

Percy Garris is diminutive fellow with an ill-fitting vest. a military style hat and a habit of burying his hands in his pockets when he's not quite sure what to do with them. However, when he is sure what to do with them, Strother Martin uses them like instruments to pull us into the story. When trying to test Sundance to see if he really can shoot accurately, he first asks to see the firearm that Sundance wears on his hip. Garris handles it efficiently, but without the flourish of a gunfighter or someone who knows how to brandish a weapon effectively. He takes the gun admires it and hands it back to Sundance, but puts his hands up in the air and pushes down when Sundance tries to put the gun back in his holster. All Garris wants to see is whether or not he can hit a target. He then reaches into his own pocket, pulls out what looks to be a small package, maybe of chewing tobacco, and tosses it about 20 ft away. Nothing flashy is being done here, but Martin actually dominates the scene when he is playing against Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The character constantly spits, and frequently without the force necessary to hit a target himself. When he does however hit whatever target on the ground he is eyeing,  Garris announces "bingo". We never see exactly what it is he hit, we just know the satisfaction that he gets from saying the word.

When Redford misses, Martin gives us a bemused look, when Sundance wants to draw on the target down on the ground, but he also gives a look of amazement as Sundance moves quickly and hits the target twice. Garris announces immediately "you start tomorrow". Martin's timing on all the comedic lines in the scene is perfection

As they begin their Journey down the mountain, Garris on a mule and Butch and Sundance behind on their horses, Garris sings a song full of innuendo, and old-fashioned cadences. He leans back in his saddle, comfortable and confident because he knows no one is going to rob them going down the mountain. Which is why he thinks of Butch and Sundance is being morons when they are being overly watchful on the trip to the bank. As he puts it, "I've got morons on my team". This is his key line in the movie. He is an old hand in Bolivia and feels superior to the two rookies he is hired to prevent a robbery. Of course later on, we do discover that he is capable of making a mistake. That mistake comes immediately after he explains to the two, that he's not crazy, he's just colorful.

This is a 55-year-old film so it's probably too late to worry about spoilers, but Percy Garris does not make it to the end of the movie. He is the one character who dies, before the end of the film, that we care anything for. He's hired our anti-heroes, he's passed on some wisdom, and he's engaged in some jocular conversation with the two outlaws he has hired to guard against robbery. This makes it a poignant moment when he is killed so suddenly, without much of an exit line. The character is well written, but it is the delivery of those lines, and the unique voice of Strother Martin that makes these scenes work. Martin worked with Paul Newman a half dozen times or more, this was his only collaboration with Robert Redford. He almost certainly would have been in "The Sting", had he not been shooting another picture. That's because he also worked with director George Roy Hill multiple times. Having an acting ensemble is one of the things that made these movies from 50 years ago so much more memorable.

Oh yea, he is fourth billed, right after the three stars.

Lambcast #742 1984 Movie Draft

 

I don't usually post the Podcast on my personal site, but this was a lot of work and I want people to watch.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar

Here's a movie that I haven't seen in 20 years, but I did see numerous times in the first 10 years after it was released. This was one of those films that when I acquired it on LaserDisc the kids decided they were going to watch repeatedly. I'm not sure exactly why it had an appeal for them, except that it featured adults acting in particularly stupid ways which may have made them feel a little superior. Plus there are cool songs.

At the time this came out it seemed an innocuous entertainment with a secondary theme of acceptance. The world has changed a great deal in the last 30 years and both sides of the lgbtq+  whatever divide would probably find much to object to in this film. For the most part I thought it was still mildly funny, and borrowed heavily from other films. The three lead actors all have something in this film that should make them happy to have it on their Vita, but that doesn't mean that the movie is great. It's a fantasy that stretches believability way past the breaking point. That it does so in a fairly genial way is the one thing about it that allows me to forgive some of the dumb stuff.

I'm sure Patrick Swayze was proud of this movie, coming as it did after some of the action films that he had done. This was a chance to show off a little leg, and some acting chops, that didn't really require him to throw more than one punch. Wesley Snipes is in the film, but his character has almost no arc to the story, and he seems to exist just to fill in spots that need an extra character. John Leguizamo, would probably be strung up by the LGBT plus community because he's basically appropriating a role that should have gone to a real drag queen, and he uses every stereotype you can think of to play a gay man who dresses as a woman. This sort of casting could probably not be done today. In fact I seem to remember that Scarlett Johansson ended up canceling a film where she was supposed to be a crossdresser, and there was political outrage.

The movie starts off as a road trip movie, but ends up as a fairy tale when our three protagonists land in an isolated town, and have to rescue the damsels in distress, from the local dragons. That they do so by using a beauty parlor, a used clothing store, and a makeup kit, is one of the charming yet ridiculous premises of the second half of the film. It doesn't really help that the two men who are the primary antagonists are drawn in such a cartoonish manner. The husband of one of the local women is it domestic abuser, and the sheriff who is pursuing the three drag queens, is not only homophobic but racist as well. He also seems perfectly willing to exceed his authority by using deadly force to try and take into custody people who's only real crime was having a tail light that was out. It is also a little fantastic to believe that the young hoodlums who seem to populate the small town, can be overcome by one assertive encounter, that involves having their testicles groped.

When the film originally came out, maybe there weren't a lot of movies that offered representation to people in this subculture. This film feels a little bit like the white savior movies that try to bridge the divide over race, only here it is working on gender. The clothes are nice to look at, and I always like the Spartacus moment at the end of the film, mostly because I think Stockard Channing is terrific, and she gets to lead the charge.

I enjoyed seeing the movie again, although I do think under the existing circumstances it will be treated negatively by the opposing sides for completely different reasons. As a time capsule of what the world was like, it is a little biased but still enjoyable. I just don't think it would be a good idea to use this as a basis of any political discourse in the present world. Although the stupidity that would follow if you did would be...FABULOUS. 

Trap (2024)

 

OK, I'm going to say this right off the bat so you can decide if you want to keep reading, this movie is not good. It is however entertaining enough for the hour and forty-five minutes that it runs. It would not hurt the film at all if it was fifteen minutes shorter, but that would probably mean that the concert sequences and musical performances by co-star Saleka Shyamalan, the daughter of writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. I strongly suspect that more than half of his reason for making the film in the first place was to showcase her.

Movies about serial killers are a dime a dozen. Occasionally they transcend the genre and have something special about them which makes them essential. "The Silence of the Lambs", "Seven" and "Zodiac" are not found in the discount dozen. Those are the exceptions, more often we get "The Watcher", ""Copycat", "Mr. Brooks" and this film. Because this is an M. Night Shyamalan film, you expect something of a twist in the storytelling. He is famous for the twist endings of some of his films, but this movie starts with the twist. The serial killer is a loving Dad, who is taking his tween daughter to a concert by a pop culture phenomena. It's not really a spoiler to tell you there is a "Trap" in play, it's right in the title. This movie plays with conventions only slightly, and it does not do much to build any tension, except in the fact that we are sympathizing with the serial killer for most of the film.

There are a couple of reasons this works. First the film is told almost entirely from the perspective of the killer, at least until the third act. Also, we are spared seeing any of his crimes, they are mildly described and we get a discrete crime scene photo, so we don't know much about how horrible he is until later in the story. The third thing that serves the purpose of making us root for evil, is the performance of the actor cast as "The Butcher". Josh Hartnett is solid as a doting father, and when he is prowling through the arena, looking for ways to escape, he is convincingly clever (and of course conveniently lucky). If there is anything that holds the movie together, it is his performance. Otherwise, the film is a series of cliches and tropes that don't seem to be written in a very interesting way.

For the movie to work, you have to suspend your disbelief repeatedly. Here is a list of just a few of the lazy writing moments; there is a pop concert by a major star, at an arena in a big city, in the early afternoon, the serial killer gets information first from the loosest lipped venue employee on the premises, when challenged for a card that would prove he was at a particular location, he magically discovers one, every radio contact he listens in on is timed perfectly with his next move. Those are just the plot points that stretch credulity, the concert setting itself offers us a whole bunch of impossibilities. For instance, in a crowd of twenty thousand, only three thousand of which are men who could be the killer, they all are using the same bathroom at the same time. I went to a Katy Perry concert several years ago, with similar demographics, and when I went to the men's room at Staples Center, I was alone. 

If there is a twist to the story, it is what happens when the location changes. Had I known the connection of the pop star to the creator of the film, I think I would have seen her plot line coming. I did not realize that "Lady Raven" was the daughter of the director until I saw the credits. Halfway through the movie, the trap is behind us but there is still an hour of the film. Things really go off the rails then, and the exposition dump at the climax, tries to explain how this all could have come together. It feels completely tacked on.

Ariel Donoghue is cute as Riley, the daughter of our serial killer. Alison Pill shows up late in the film and she has the thankless role that is supposed to get us to the conclusion of the movie. Disney child star Hayley Mills has grown into the role of wizened expert profiler, and ninety percent of her performance takes place over walkie talkies.  Saleka Shyamalan is a better singer than she is an actress, and that is unfortunate because her character is critical when we get to the midway point of the film, and she struggles to be convincing. 

I did not hate this movie the way I did "Longlegs" from a week or two ago, I was just indifferent to it. I tried to ignore all the shortcuts that were being taken and just enjoy the story. Walking out of the theater, I could see all the things wrong with the movie, but I paid to see it, I wanted to have a good time, and I allowed myself the amount of space needed to be partially entertained by this concoction. Maybe I should see Mr. Brooks again.