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. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-The Lunchbox (2013)

Two of the most pleasant surprises I've had at the Paramount classic film series over the years have been films from India. Last year it was "RRR", a rousing action film that got the audience shouting out encouragement laughing uproariously, and generally rooting for the heroes. This week a film with a very different tone joins my list of films from India that I have enjoyed greatly, "The Lunchbox" from 2013.

I wish I could say I knew the actors in this film well, but as far as I can tell I've only seen the lead actor  in a couple of movies before, Irrfan Khan was in "Jurassic World", "The Life of Pi" and "Slumdog Millionaire".  They were all terrific. Khan plays the lead,  a man nearing retirement, somewhat unwillingly. He doesn't seem like he would be a romantic leading man but that's how deceptive looks can be. The real heart of romance lies in the ability to understand and relate to another human being, and this character, Saajan Fernandes, manages to do that, although very tentatively.

For those of you not familiar with the story, which I assume is most everybody reading this site, "The Lunchbox" concerns the developing relationship between two strangers through a series of notes that are delivered via a lunch box delivery service, which is noted for its accuracy. The twist in this film, of course, is that the service is not infallible. The lunch box order of our widowed soon to be retiree is mixed up with the lunch sent by a woman to her husband. She is attempting to keep her marriage together by preparing meals with love and care and the right amount of ingredients. She succeeds in her meals with the advice of an older woman who we never see, but who shouts advice from an apartment upstairs, and sends spices and special ingredients via a hanging basket to the leading lady's kitchen. I don't know how typical this is in India, but it makes it feel like a pretty friendly place.

At the workplace of the soon to be retired accountant, we see that he is a circumspect man, who doesn't exude much outward warmth and appears to have closed himself up after the death of his wife. A young man, played by  Nawazuddin Siddiqui is supposed to replace him, and the older man is expected to train him in the job but he is clearly reluctant to do so. It looks at first like the younger man will be annoying and a character that we will look down on. The joy and clever script writing, comes when characters are revealed to us slowly and in interesting ways, and the young apprentice accountant certainly turns out to be more interesting and more appealing than initially thought to be.

The woman in the story, lla, played by Nimrat Kaur, is a loving mother, and a wife who wants to make her husband's life better, but who seems to be ignored by an indifferent spouse. As the lunches travel back and forth, she finds the older man an outlet where she can share her thoughts in a way that is a little bit more honest than she is able to manage with her upstairs neighbor. He also begins to reach out a little more and it is his tentative connection with her that allows him to create a stronger connection with his younger coworker. Of course there are complications, and some dramatic turns in the story, but they are all reasonable and set up with plenty of legitimacy.

The actors in this film are all perfectly cast. The older man is handsome but clearly feeling the years. The younger man seems eager and a little naive, but he is also so politely brash that he's hard to resist after a while. I think when I read about this film that everyone received some awards for their performances in the film and as far as I'm concerned they deserved them. The part of the woman is difficult because she is so conflicted. There is a terrific sequence where she finds the dress that she wore on her honeymoon, and models it for her husband, hoping for some attention from him that she clearly needs. You can see in her acting the heartbreak that comes from being ignored. In another scene as she sits in a restaurant waiting for her anonymous correspondent to meet her, we can see the anxiety and confusion on her face when he is not on time. This was a very subtle performance but still very effective.

This is an unexpected love Story, with a fantastic premise, in a world and culture that I know little about but could appreciate from the distance that I have from it. The characters all have good arcs to make us interested in following them, and there is a great deal of humor as the story plays out. This is the kind of charming foreign language film that I have fallen for over the years. I would compare it to a film like "Eat, Dink, Man, Woman", or "Shall We Dance?", two films from the '90s that I still count among my favorite romances. It's nice to add another film to that list, and one that comes from a different culture it helps give me a little insight into the rest of the world.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Blade Runner (1982)

I looked, and it is hard to believe, in the fourteen years I have been writing on this blog, there is not a post solely devoted to the movie "Blade Runner". This film came out 42 years ago, and I saw it on opening night. I have seen it several more times on the big screen since then, but apparently not once in the last decade and a half. I do remember going to a screening at the Archlight in Hollywood with my daughter while she was still in college, so that must have been 2009 or 2010 early on. This is one of the most influential films of the last fifty years, in spite of it's commercial failure. The version we saw last Saturday was the "Final Cut" which looks like it will really be the last version of the movie, at least from Director Ridley Scott.

This version of the film is the most coherent, and the plotline is clear. One of the things that has changed about the film in the last forty years is the narration. When the film came out, there was a narrative track by Harrison Ford as the character Deckard, and it contained exposition that tried to clarify characters and plot. In reality, it only cluttered things, although it did add a noir style trope to this dark future noir story. Ultimately, no one will miss it. The ending has also been altered, in the original release, there is a more upbeat is not entirely happy ending. The ambiguity of the "Final Cut" ending is a lot more in line with the questions raised by the film's premise.

Over the years, there has been controversy about whether or not Deckard, Ford's character, is actually a replicant himself. Ridley Scott has asserted that he is, and some of the additions to the film have tried to hint at that. The insertion of the unicorn flashback/dream, is meant to suggest that Gaff, the nominal partner working with Deckard, has knowledge of his thoughts, as exemplified by the unicorn origami found on Deckard's doorstep near the end of the film. I have a couple of problems with this approach. First of all, it undermines the romance between Deckard and Rachel, who is in fact a replicant. The value of the emotional theme is that a human can fall in love with a product and it can be meaningful. If it is simply two manufactured beings, it doesn't mean anything. Also, as Deckard fights with Roy at the climax of the film, it is clear that he is a superior physical specimen. Why would the inferior model be the one set upon the rogue replicants? It makes no sense. One last thought on this point, Rick Deckard returns in the sequel set 31 years later, and if he is a replicant, there would have to have been some planned obsolescence because Deckard has aged substantially. 

Scott and the screenwriters were a little optimistic about some technological elements of the future. We are not operating colonies off world, we still don't have flying cars, and although AI is getting dangerously close to sentience, we don't have slave labor replicants. However, most of the dystopia about Los Angeles is spot on. Homelessness is rampant, languages are not shared, and advertising dominates the vista. I left California in the middle of a multi year drought, but in the last two years, the precipitation seen in the movie appears to have overwhelmed the people still living there. The models of the buildings seen in th film are shot in a spectacular manner. I remember going to a museum exhibit in the early 90s, where the police headquarters building from the film was on display, it was incredible. The visual elements are the thins that make this movie such a touchstone for modern film makers.

Regarding the plot, there is a dilemma that I was reminded of as I watched the film. We are clearly supposed to have sympathy for the replicants who simply want to live, but we are conflicted by the brutality they show to all humans, even the ones who assist in their cause or at least sympathize with them. The four replicants seem to be irredeemably vicious. Chew, the clueless Eye engineer is murdered for no reason except spite. Tyrell is murdered out of frustration, and Sebastian, the kind but naive human who has assisted the remaining two replicants, is killed for no reason at all.  The replicants seem to have been designed with no empathy neural patterns, only rage. Only at the very end, do we get a sense of progress when Batty spares Deckard with his final gesture. I don't know if it is enough to redeem the more than two dozen people they killed in the course of the story. I want it to mean something, and Rutger Hauer's performance and final monologue is almost enough. 

The theater was packed for the show. We had been to the "Dick Tracy" screening earlier, but I was able to go back to the car and pick up my Blade Runner shirt for the evening film. I wore it over my long sleeve shirt because it was very chilly in that first show, and the lightweight material would not have kept me warm during this film. Every actor in the movie was excellent, but Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah are the standouts. It is for good reason that this is probably the late Mr. Hauer's signature role. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Dick Tracy (1990) Re-Visit

 

The 1990 version of Dick Tracy from director/star Warren Beatty has a lot going for it that I think people have ignored over the years. The look of this movie is impressive, coming years before the innovation of CGI that would make movies like this much more typical. This film uses a very simple color palette to make the comic strips from the Sunday funny papers come to life as a motion picture.

Warren Beatty probably remembered the comics fondly from his childhood which explains why he finds Dick Tracy a compelling character. I read the comics as well but I mostly knew Dick Tracy from the cartoons that played during the 1960s. Because those cartoons featured ethnically questionable characters, it is rare to find them easily available. Beatty did the right thing by leaving out all of those sidekicks from the cartoons and sticking with the villains who are cartoonish in the first place.

The movie also features Madonna, who sings three or four of the songs, and does a great job vamping it up as a femme fatale in what is basically a children's cartoon. That is except for the one sheer black nightgown that she's wearing which leaves little to the imagination and would certainly justify dad accompanying the children to see this movie in a theater. They're also some risqué lines that are delivered by Madonna and to which Beatty's character of Dick Tracy seems nonplussed. It's a lot of fun and full of cliches, but still spectacular looking with the photography and the production design.

People may forget that Al Pacino got an Academy Award nomination for supporting actor in his role as Big Boy Caprice in this movie. Pacino appears under a thick layer of makeup and an exaggerated bodysuit that makes him look thicker and nearly a hunchback in his role as the mobster who wants to run the city. This is one of those roles where the actor hams it up and gets away with it because of the nature of the film. I was happy to see Pacino get honored, but there's so much about this film that is enjoyable that he is not the only reason to see it.

It may be the Warren Beatty fell in love with shooting machine guns when he made "Bonnie and Clyde" back in 1967, and he still hasn't gotten over the thrill of pointing a Tommy Gun in the direction of things you want to destroy and pulling the trigger. This movie is full of gangsters and cops who arm themselves with this weapon from 1930s gangster films, and then go out at it in a largely bloodless outcome but with lots of explosions. In the wake of "Batman" the year before, I'm sure the studio was looking for a Hero film with spectacular visuals, and they almost got it. When Warren Beatty as Dick Tracy swings around and his yellow top coat flies open at the waist as he points his Tommy Gun in the direction of criminals who are shooting at him, it's a perfect trailer moment.

A terrific Glen Headley played Tess Trueheart, Tracy's love interest, and she is really under playing it in comparison to both Beatty and Madonna. She feels like a real character from a 1930s screwball comedy, although she's not the daffy one in the film. There are a variety of character actors who joined Pacino in the makeup chair to portray the Rogues gallery of criminals that Dick Tracy faces down. We can also throw in Charles Durning and Dick Van Dyke, both without much makeup, as characters in the film that add some interesting elements to the plot. The kid actor, Charlie Korsmo, appeared in a few other films as a child, but as far as I know his acting career didn't reach much further than the early 1990s. There should have been a sequel to this movie. It probably underperformed, and I know that Beatty fought some rights issues. 

When this movie was first released, it got a lot of publicity to launch it and of course the studio was marketing the images from the film as much as they could. I wish I had saved all of the McDonald's toys, and drinking glasses, and t-shirts that I purchased at the time. The most interesting artifact from my point of view, was the original ticket for the preview screening that we went to. It was a t-shirt with the ticket printed on it, and you wore it to gain admission to the theater on the night of the show. Even though my children were only four and two at the time, I was going to make them attend with me and so our whole family, all four of us, wore our t-shirts that night. I really wish I had that t-shirt to wear to the Paramount screening this last Saturday.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Repo Man (1984) Re-visit

 

The circumstances that gave rise to the aesthetics of this movie are long gone. Punk attitudes rose and fell in the 80s, and in the forty years since this came out, new attitudes of entitlement, resentment and envy have replaced the punk ethos.  The contempt for normative lifestyles continues but it is much less interesting now than it was in 1984. If we set aside the angry young man motif of the film, there still remains an off beat story about losers, struggling to make it in the world, and the complications that arise when they cross paths with society. In other words, this is still a punk movie, it just has lost it's cause.

No characters in the movie are particularly likeable. Otto, the main protagonist played by Emilio Estevez, is an angry, self centered punk, with no respect for women, who feels entitled to something more, but he doesn't quite know what. He does seem to have some ethics, but those morals are constantly undermined by his associates, both the professionals he takes up with, and the girl he supposedly cares about. It may be understandable why he has such attitudes, everyone he interacts with lets him down in some way.  Bud, the Harry Dean Stanton character, is his mentor, but also an antagonist who second guesses and manipulates Otto from the start. Thankfully, their story does get a more satisfactory conclusion than that of Leila, the girl who betrays him after he has rescued her a couple of times. 

The great Tracey Walter, plays Miller , a non-driving cog in the repo man world, who passes out wisdom like candy at Halloween. The only problem is, when you look in your bag, it is full of those circus peanut candies that are disgusting. Nothing Miller says means much, and most of the time it is simply designed to provoke those around him. His commentary on John Wayne is a good example of that. Lite, is another repo man that Otto works with and his philosophy is at complete odds with the one Bud has been espousing.  There is not a homogenous set of opinions in this culture. The Rodriguez brothers, who are set up as antagonists early in the film, turn out to be not so bad in the end. The UFO group that seeks the McGuffin, are not heroic revolutionaries but jaded outsiders who are indifferent to their own benefactor .

There is a ton of stuff to laugh about in the film. The banality of normal life is lampooned by the use of the "generic" products of the era. Otto's parents are hypnotized by the television and a preacher that they are sending all their money too. The customers who are losing their cars are often nitwits or trying to pull a fast one themselves. The former friends of Otto, who have become stick up artists, are the most inept of all, suggesting that writer/director Alex Cox is is not all that sympathetic to the youth in the picture at all. My favorite moment in the film is an exchange between two of Alex former friends,

Debbi: Duke, let's go do some crimes.

Duke: Yeah. Let's go get sushi and not pay.

I wrote about this movie originally on my 30 Years On Project, saluting the films I saw in 1984. This Screening at the Paramount was the first time I have seen the movie in a theater since 1984. It really holds up well. Just as a side note, the Chevy Impala that Bud drives in the movie, had a parking decal on the bumper from Fullerton College, which was a duplicate of the one I had on my car because I was teaching there in 1984. 

Deadpool and Wolverine (2024)

 

The snarky and violent "Deadpool and Wolverine" is entertaining but in a very specific way. It appeals to the naughty child in us, who is anxious to see all of the things that are held up as role models, taken down a peg or two. We don't want anything to be so highfalutin that we can't make a vulgar joke about it and share it with our friends and hope that they are amused by our cleverness. So congratulations Ryan Reynolds, all of your friends, me included, found your smart ass commentary and visuals to be funny. The fact that they're funny however does not mean that what you're doing is automatically good. I was entertained, and that's the goal most of the time for a movie, but I also want to be moved emotionally by what I see, and that almost never happens in this particular film.

Of course Ryan Reynolds and the filmmakers already know that this is true. The opening sequence has Deadpool behaving as if he is a necrophiliac with the remains of Wolverine from the "Logan" movie. That film had a deliberately dramatic bent to it, and it was a fitting conclusion for that part of the X-Men story. What "Deadpool and Wolverine" does, is simply pretend that that story doesn't matter, and proceed as if it's okay to engage in mocking it as part of our own self-referential style. One of the problems with these films that are set in a Multiverse, whether it is something from the quantum Realm, something from a different timeline, or some magic variant of either the two, is that the stakes seem unimportant and as such the drama is largely missing.

I would have a hard time telling you exactly what it is that the two lead characters are trying to accomplish as the task in this plot. This movie is mostly a chance for fans of comic books who love it when characters that they follow fight one another and fans can indulge themselves in exactly that. Wolverine gets resurrected from the dead, or from some other timeline, primarily so he and Deadpool can bicker with one another like a battling pair of married people, or a buddy cop movie where the partners act like they hate each other, and cover up their true feelings with false bravado. In what would be the second act of this film, we get stranded in a place that were unfamiliar with. The Void doesn't seem to follow any rules that will make it easy for us to understand how characters might manage to escape their situation, and we are returned to the presence of characters that have long been forgotten. That of course is the point of the movie, to give some of those superheroes a final act that they have been denied.

It's been so long since I saw the Blade trilogy that I'm not exactly sure why it is I should be happy about the return to the screen of the actor who embodied that part, but I was. I never saw the Electra movie, so I don't know whether this return is necessary or not. I did appreciate however, the joke that came up when Chris Evans made his appearance in the film. The direction that the moment took was one of those entertaining meta incidents, that the filmmakers clearly planned, relished, and executed so craftily. I hope it doesn't spoil it for you that I even mentioned that actor's appearance in the film.

Grotesque violence as humor is not new, in spite of what people who are seeing Deadpool might think. For example in Pulp Fiction from 30 years ago, we accidentally have a character shot in the face and disappeared for us, as criminals ineptly try to cope with the event. It works as humor because it's shocking, and it stands out against all the other things that are going on in the film. The problem in "Deadpool and Wolverine" is that this sort of violence is in every scene, and it is repeated over and over and over again. There are just so many times you can go over the top and get a laugh from doing so, otherwise it just feels like you're pressing. Which is frequently the way I felt while watching some of those scenes. The best example of it was the resolution of one of the characters who appears tangentially in the film. His demise was so quick and grotesque that it was shocking and funny at the same time, but that was not true in most of the other cases. The violence appeared to be the whole point of those sequences.

I recommend the film to people who are fans of superhero movies, and who have struggled with the DC Universe, and what has happened in the MCU. The The Fourth Wall comes down frequently, with commentary by Deadpool about the lack of planning, and coordination, around the comic book films and characters. Reynolds doesn't spare himself from the mocking, and while such self depreciating humor is easy to appreciate, it also seems a little contrived as a way around the failures of earlier films to connect with us on an emotional level.

I don't resent the success that the film has, I'm quite happy that theaters are full and movies are doing business. It's just a shame that audiences are flocking to this while ignoring movies that are probably of greater worth and certainly a lot deeper. The kind of humor that we laugh at may very well reflect our culture and in this particular case not in a very positive look. It would be nice to say that we were the culture the laughed at Jack Benny, Albert Brooks, or Woody Allen but this film suggests that what we really find funny as a culture are The Three Stooges with knives. I like The Three Stooges, but I also recognize their humor is not as complex. The fact that we are amused is good, but it will not be longer lasting and it may not be worthwhile.

John Carpenter's Starman (1984) Revisit

Once again 1984 proves to be a wonderful year for terrific movies. The Alamo Drafthouse has been presenting a series in their time capsule, that focuses on 1984 in the month of July this year. After having a great experience at "Buckaroo Banzai" on Monday night, we ventured to a different location to catch up with the least John Carpenter-ish film that John Carpenter ever made. This science fiction romance includes an Academy Award nominated acting performance, and no dismemberment of any animals or human beings, although a car or two do get destroyed.

This was the adult version of E.T. , and it features a mature love story that plays out very patiently between an alien visitor and an American woman. Karen Allen, famous for the Indiana Jones movie, plays a woman grieving her recently lost husband, who's marriage was only a couple of years old. We watch her torture herself by looking at old films of she and her husband and happier times, as she drinks herself into a position where she can finally sleep, we wonder how this is going to connect with the space vehicle that has crashed not too far from her home in Wisconsin. It turns out that the visitor from another world is going to use the DNA in the lock of hair that she has in a photo album to replicate itself in the form of her deceased husband. This would come as a shock to just about anybody, when she encounters this being as it is growing in her living room, and it when it turns around it is the exact image of her lost love, you would expect her to pass out immediately. It actually takes almost two more minutes for her to do so.

Once the premise has been set up the film becomes a chase movie, as the alien and the Earth woman travel from Wisconsin to a crater in Arizona where the alien is supposed to rendezvous with his partners on a different spacecraft. Of course the woman and the visitor are also pursued by agents of the U.S. government, who use the military in a ham-fisted way to locate the alien, and assess what thread it might present to our country. Trapped between the science and the military strategy, is a scientist from S.E.T.I. , the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, played by Charles Martin Smith. Jeff Bridges inhabits the body of our deceased carpenter, resurrected through advanced cloning, and his charming limited understanding of English vocabulary becomes one of the continuous humor tropes in the film. Bridges best actor nomination is almost certainly a result of the physicality that he brings to the character of Scott, the late husband of Karen Allen's character. 

It is a science fiction film, but the alien here is much different from the one that John Carpenter showed us in his previous film, "The Thing". This character is more benevolent and, as embodied by Bridges, a hell of a lot more charming. The cross country road picture allows Carpenter and Company to make some observations about the nature of human beings, and about the U.S. paranoia around aliens or any threat to National Security. The pig-headed leader of the security team played by veteran actor Richard Jaeckel , could easily have gone in a different direction. That would certainly make it a different film, but it might not be one that John Carpenter would have been willing to make. Instead we get an action film with a science fiction character, and a lot of humor. The road trip romance provides a lot more heartwarming moments than you will find in any other John Carpenter film.

I found this movie endearing back in 1984, and again when I rewatched it for my project about that year in movies that I did a decade ago, and I once again find it to be exactly that on this latest viewing. I'm not sure the film is substantial but it certainly is audience-pleasing and entertaining. Karen Allen by the way was just as good as Bridges was, but she didn't get the accolades because her part was a lot more standard. It's too bad that the science fiction world, doesn't have more movies like this, and by the way, it's also too bad that it doesn't have more John Carpenter films as well.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984) Revisit

 

If ever there was a movie that I could make people watch, and hopefully love, it is "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension". You are completely safe to watch the trailer, there are no spoilers there. In fact, there is no real information in the trailer at all. It tells you what kind of movie this is with just it's tone. There are only two lines of dialogue and they are a flippant response to starting World War III. The main hero is not shown doing anything more challenging than walking down a sloped concrete flood channel, and he is doing so while wearing a suit and a bow tie. This movie is confounding to people from the very start, after all, the very title is offputtingly odd. The short trailer just uses the weird theme and shots of a variety of strange people joining the lead character on his walk. Then you get a couple of brief shots of who knows what, and finish with the hysterical exchange about destroying Russia. No wonder the film never caught on in 1984.

Of course it caught on with me, because I was a film weirdo and tried to see as many movies as I could that year, and this Science Fiction concept had been hyped a little in "Starlog" magazine, and that was enough to get me into theaters to see it opening weekend. Apparently, I was the only person in the San Gabriel Valley who read "Starlog" because I was mostly alone in that first screening. However, I have not been alone for 40 years, thousands have become fans of this cult experience and like me, now consider themselves Blue Blazed Irregulars. The Alamo Drafthouse has been screening films from 1984 during their time capsule series this year, and I got another chance to see this on a theater screen, I think this may be the fourth time. The theater was not packed, but there was a reasonable smattering of Irregulars in the auditorium, and you could tell by their reactions during the film and their comments afterwards that they were as pleased to be there as I was. 

The title hero, Buckaroo Banzai, is not just a physicist, he is also a neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock star. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawkings would be jealous of his expertise but like everyone else, they would be charmed by his down to earth manner and sardonic humor. The Zen like statements that he uses to reassure his team, also suggest he is an Eastern Philosopher.  Yet at no time is he condescending to the political dolts around him, the non-scientists that he works with, or the public at large. Peter Weller will always be "Robocop" in his biography/obituary, but I will also always think of him as Dr. Banzai. Weller's low key demeanor, and willingness to let the crazies around him have the spotlight, make this a subtle performance. Oh, by the way, I should refer to him as Dr. Peter Weller, since he did not get a PhD in art history and literature, just to be referred to as Mr. .

"Buckaroo Banzai" is an 80s science fiction film that makes up with creativity and humor, what it lacks in budget. The locations are filled with conduit pipes, heat vent tubes and what might be some form of foam rubber molding. The humorous self awareness of the film can be observed in the scene where the cast members look at a holographic message through goggles that are made of bubble wrap. There are deliberate attempts to show us that this story is both a salute to and a parody of those kinds of pulp heroes that have come before. "Why is there a watermelon there?", is not a question you will get a straight answer to. I also don't know why lithium is no longer available on credit. That's because I am a monkey boy who does not have the insight of a red lectroid like Lord John Whorfin.

John Lithgow had been nominated for a supporting actor Oscar in both of the two previous years. His take on the character of Dr. Emilio Lizardo, should have made it three in a row. Lizardo, is a scientist who in a failed attempt to break the dimension barrier in the 1930s, allowed the evil Dictator John Whorfin to possess his mind and plot a return to power while in a mental hospital for thirty years. The cross pollination of Italian accented scientist with megalomaniacal Red Lectroid, results in one of the most demented and delightful performances to ever be committed to film. Lithgow runs wild with bulging eyes, slathering monologues,  and accents that would befuddle any linguist, regardless of their credentials. His obtuse interactions with his underlings is a great contrast to his opponent, Buckaroo.

Another reason that the film may have been overlooked at the time is that the supporting cast, which is filled with great performers, was in the early part of their careers, and audiences had not yet recognized their potential.  Clancy Brown was not yet Kurgan from the Highlander film, Dan Hedaya was still waiting for the Coen Brothers to make Blood Simple. Christopher Lloyd was a well established oddball character actor, but he was not an above the titles name. Neither were Vincent Schiavelli, Matt Clark or Ellen Barkin. The only supporting player with some potential drawing power was Jeff Goldblum, and he was also at his nascent point in his career.  Goldblum, as fellow brain surgeon and sidekick, is a complete joy to watch as he trapses through the movie in one of the most ridiculous cowboy getups since Hopalong Cassidy. 

The action scenes aren't great, but they are adequate. What you need to know however, is that they are merely a frame to hang the wry dialogue and arch attitude on. The film skewers and salutes these kinds of movies simultaneously.  This is smart film making that looks like cheap, dumb sci-fi filler, but is one of the greatest treasures in a year that was filled with great films. Jump in your jet car and find an Alamo that is playing this, NOW. You will thank me, and if you miss it, you will hate yourself. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-First Blood

Sunday night was another presentation by Robert Rodriguez for the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series, this time the featured film was 1982's "First Blood". This Sylvester Stallone starring vehicle,  led to numerous sequels, and created a cultural touchstone that's been with us for four decades now. Rodriguez has a friendship with Sylvester Stallone, and like most of those kids from 1982, he saw this movie and immediately fell in love with the character of John Rambo and wanted to be him.

The introduction Rodriguez provided was fine, but it was more fully supplemented this time with some video clips from his own director series that is available online. He did share some stories about Stallone that we're not part of the video presentation, for instance the fact that Stallone didn't care for an actor in the Rambo film that was set in Burma. That might be why the moment that he shoves him up against the side of the boat looks so real. Of course that's a story for us, not one that he wants to put in the series which might make Stallone look petty.

I have seen all of the Rambo films, but I don't think Amanda had. This one was new to her completely, and she enjoyed it quite well. David Caruso who appears as Mitch, one of the deputies in the small town that John Rambo encounters, was not even recognizable to her, in spite of the fact that she is watched all the episodes and all of the seasons of CSI Miami. He was so young when he did this part he looks like a baby. She also thought that Brian Dennehy aged substantially between this film and Silverado 3 years later. That's not nearly as noticeable to me, but I'm an old guy who's used to a few extra pounds here and there.

One of the things that Rodriguez pointed out was that Stallone made significant contributions to the screenplay of First Blood. Including taking John Rambo out of the role of villain and putting that label on the sheriff played by Dennehy. It's a well-known story that Kirk Douglas walked away from the part that was ultimately played by Richard Crenna, because he thought that Rambo should die at the end of the movie. That appears to have been another Stallone modification.

This film was the start of a string of 1980s successes for Stallone in the action genre. Rodriguez also pointed out how Sylvester Stallone and his success created a competition with Arnold Schwarzenegger that would not start to even out until Stallone's 1990s films started to flag, while Schwarzenegger became increasingly marketable. The character of John Rambo however, continued to be a vein that Stallone could tap into. At one point when Rodriguez pointed out to his friend that Stallone hadn't directed a film for a dozen years, Sly was taken by aback. Just a couple of years later he picked up the character again for the brutal 2008 "Rambo", once again establishing is bona fides as an action director as well as star.

The original "First Blood" continues to be the best in my mind because it is the least cliched and the one that is most tied into reality. Many of the complaints made by Rambo at the climax of the film when he has his breakdown we're true. Veterans of the Vietnam War were disrespected, many of them suffered from exposure to dangerous chemicals during the war, and as exemplified by John Rambo himself, many of them suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of the flashback scenes in this movie give us a sense of why Rambo reacts the way he does to the abuse from the local fascists in the police department in this small Washington town.

What most people remember from the movie however, are the clever ways that Rambo gets the best of the local law enforcement agencies and National Guard. The training that he received as a behind enemy lines commando, certainly exceeds that of a local law enforcement agency. When Richard Crenna shows up and explains that he's not there to save Rambo from them but rather to save them from Rambo, we know how badass this is going to be. John crawls through caves filled with rats, jumps into trees off of cliffs in order to escape being shot, and disguises himself in a half dozen different ways to get the better of his pursuers.

The fact that John Rambo doesn't have an exit strategy for his temper tantrum is a little problematic to the story. But that's why Colonel Troutman has shown up in the guise of Richard Crenna. We can have some exposition, and ultimately a peaceful resolution that makes some sense. Of course not before we've had enough explosions, bullets, and knife injuries to fill three other movies. That's the kind of sugar Rambo likes.

Twisters (2024)

 

I am perfectly content to watch a film that is not challenging but is entertaining and will allow me to consume way more popcorn than I should, enter "Twisters". A legacy sequel to one of the first digital disaster films of that long cycle. The movie can plug in all the pseudo-scientific verbiage it wants, you will not disguise the fact that this is a turnstile mechanism, made to bring in the crowds for a Summer day, and send them out without a care in the world except the calorie count of a large soda and buttered popcorn.  This movie delivers exactly what you want it to, entertainment. 

When the trailer first popped up I was mildly intrigued, because after all, it is a sequel to "Twister", but the preview did not have the same sort of demented energy that the 1996 film had. The teaser trailer told us nothing about characters, story or context, it just gave us a glimpse of the boogie monster. The trailer for the new film can't get away with that, so it tries to sell some star power with Glen Powell. That works a little, but it does feel a bit obvious. When you see the film however, it works much better and there is just enough of a story to make it fun.

Like the previous film, this movie introduces us to characters that we can enjoy and identify with, when we are never going to get much backstory about them. The opening disaster is just as compelling and frightening as  in the original film, and the main character takes a different path as an arc, so they have tried to change it up a bit. However, once you get past that plot device, the story beats are the same. Rival storm chasers, a twister at a big public event space, personal time with an older family member, and a race against the tornadoes at the end. Daisy Edgar-Jones as Kate, our main lead, gets the hero role here at the end, which is fitting since she really is the main character. Glen Powell as Tyler is a cartoon figure at first, but he becomes a more fully realized character as the film goes on. Anthony Ramos, who I first noticed in "The Honest Thief" and "In the Heights" has a more difficult role playing a conflicted colleague, and he is solid.

Let's face it however, no one goes to a movie like this for character development, rather we are driven by the action, and it is very effective here. The opening sequence, the rodeo twister and the climax tornado are the highlight sequences, although there are probably three or four more moments when the twisters are on the loose. Calling the movie "Twisters" reminds me of the choice to make the sequel to "Alien", "Aliens". It is completely appropriate given the number of events we get in the film. 

If there is any social message in the movie, it is very muted. This is not a climate change alarmism film. There is one slight nod toward villainess corporate culture, but it is barely memorable or understandable. To me, the real message of the film is in the vistas, small towns and music that fill the movie. This film has more respect for flyover country than any Hollywood production I have seen in years. The citizens are not presented as hicks who are ignorant, if anything, it is the city folk who follow Tyler on his YouTube channel who come off a bit goofy, but even that is restrained. This movie is carefully scripted to appeal to all four quadrants and all regions of the country, and those overseas viewers will get a much better picture of the middle of our nation as a result. So that is an unintended consequence in the movies favor.

The perfect Summer entertainment has arrived. There are no foul mouthed super heroes, there is no needless nudity, there is plenty of humor but it is very gentile. What more could you ask for? (Maybe some Hot Tamales to put in your popcorn). 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series Double Feature-Orson Wells

 

Another double feature at the Paramount Theater on a Saturday afternoon. Two films featuring Orson Wells, one of them was also directed by him. Both films have classical elements to them which might put them on anybody's Best Lists.

The Third Man

Carol Reed directs a post war thriller created by Graham Greene specifically for film. This was a David Selznick Production so everything was first class but it is certainly an unusual setting for a Selznick film. The actual producer was Alex Korda so it is more accurately a British Film and it thoroughly feels like that. The film is considered a noir, although some traditional elements of a noir seem to be minor. The thing that most justifies that classification is the style in which the film is shot.

The use of black and white is highly expressionistic and the shadows, silhouettes and sudden reveal of Orson Wells character are famous for the atmosphere they create. One characteristic that does not feel noir like at all is the soundtrack, infused with zither instrumentation, it is terrific for the film but rarely ominous or sinister. Still, a non-traditional noir is still a noir when it features a mysterious murder, duplicitous characters, unfaithful women, and a villain who is charming, even if he has no scruples.  

Joseph Cotten  is Holly Martins, a writer of pulp westerns, who has travel to Vienna to join his friend Harry Lime, only to discover that Lime is dead, and Vienna has no use for him. There are a number of bumbling American tropes thrown in to make him feel even more out of place, but his loyalty to his friend may be the one that is most subtle and important. It takes a lot for Holly to recognize that his friend would not be recognizable to him, if Holly knew his real business. The famous shot of Harry Lime being revealed is the start of Holly's doubts. Before he could dismiss evidence and opinion, but his own eyes tell him that Harry can't be trusted. 

In addition to the mystery, and ultimately a chase through the sewers of Vienna, there is an unrequited love story. Anna Schmidt loves Harry, Holly falls in love with Anna, Harry never really loved Anna, and apparently loved Holly's friendship under false pretenses. It is all very complex, and it gets more so as Harry's confederates murder witnesses and even help frame Holly for the crimes. The British, who were fooled at first but Lime's deception, don't fall for any of the subsequent traps, so Holly is never really at risk, but it does make for an interesting twist two thirds of the way into the film.

Two quick James Bond connections; future Bond director  John Glen was working in the editing department at Shepperton Studios when the film started production. He had a similar build to Joseph Cotten and was enlisted to supply the sound of his footsteps in post-production sound dubbing. Bernard Lee, who plays the sympathetic British Sargent and fan of Western Novels, would go on to play "M", 007s boss in eleven Bond films.

 

I don't think anyone left after the first feature, it looked like the house stayed the same size for the second film.

Touch of Evil

I  have seen this film several times, but I have to admit, they have all been after it was restored in 1998. The stories of how the film was butchered after it was delivered by Welles seem to echo the experience he had with "The Magnificent Ambersons". Still the film had a solid reputation even before the repairs were made to it in 98. I should probably admit to an affinity for the movie because it also came out in the year of my birth, so whenever one of those calendar references comes up, it is sitting right there.

The drug gangs of today are certainly more brutal than the mob that is in this film. Here the criminals seek to tarnish the legacy of their main adversary through a complicated plot. Today's cartels would simply torture him, cut off his head and display the body in public to discourage follow up. I don't think we are getting more civilized as we move forward. I suppose it is justifiable to say that in modern times, Charlton Heston would never be cast to play a Mexican using brown face make up, but that social constraint is mild compared to the truth of border town life these days.  

The movie opens with the famous continuous tracking shot, culminating in an explosion. Director Orson Wells is showing off here, but it seems that the studio largely left him alone while the film was being made, so he had a lot more fun playing around with these moments then he'd had on other studio films. Wells was a husky but handsome figure in "The Third Man", but ten years later in this film, he is clearly overweight and looks unhealthy. Much of that was the make-up and prosthetics but not all of it, and it shows at times. 

Wells did have control over the story, since he is the one who switched the nationalities of the two leads and made Charlton Heston a Mexican. Much of the film is shot at night so we get many sequences that make the film feel noirish. Wells seems to have wanted to confound the audience with the plot, and used characters in several over the top moments (notably Dennis Weaver) to distract the audience from paying too close attention to what was going on. The score is jazz infused and dark, which fits the mood of the picture well. It is no surprise that the Mexican Government was not keen on letting the film be shot in the planned Tijuana, this is not exactly a tourism ad. Venice California substitutes for TJ, and my understanding is that this is an even more accurate switch today, because of thew homeless problem.