This was an interesting weekend for films at our house this weekend. My daughter is in the middle of her first watch Halloween Horror month, and I have a few blind spots there to fill in. This weekend however provided multiple opportunities at the movie theater for catching up on some quality films that have been out of theaters for years. "Taxi Driver" is having a 40th anniversary screening at AMC, and the whole Harry Potter Series was screening this weekend as well. There was however one film that I have visited only once before and it was showing as part of an IMAX Space film salute also at the AMC Theaters. My daughter had never seen it before, and since Interstellar was number two on my list of films from 2014, it seemed the right choice to make.
The opening act is long and it often feels oppressive. It takes a long time for this voyage to start but the premise is set up very well and the relationship between Father and Daughter is the key to the emotional payoffs we get at the end of the film, so it is important to get it right. I wanted to scream again at the approach the education system was taking to the Earth bound crisis. The Moon Landing is substituted for SDI in the theory about how we crushed the Soviets and then a big helping of conspiracy paranoia lifted from "Capricorn One" is laid on top. Fortunately, the terrestrial politics is larger in the background and instead we get a thoughtful speculative story about travel that is not yet technically possible.
I have already linked my earlier review for you above, so I'm not going to recap all of the things I thought were worthwhile in this film, you can read them there. I do want to add that the sound design is very impressive and I really enjoyed listening to the movie and the score in the dynamic stereo system that the IMAX [Fauxmax} theaters provide. I also wanted to express my admiration for the creative and simple design of the two robot travelers that accompany our hero astronauts. TARS and CASE look futuristic without resorting to art deco elaborations. Their role in the film is not as significant as that of HAL in "2001" but they provide humor and companionship along the way.
There are still some things about the interactive gravitational model in the climatic scene that confuse and bother me. The interjection of future human travelers into the process requires an understanding of physics and relativirty that will give even the very smart people out there a headache. I'm willing to grant all sorts of time travel conundrums so I can focus on the story in a number of films, it just feels like a bit of a cheat in a movie that has taken these concepts so seriously up to that point. The payoff however with the Father Daughter dynamic was worth it all. It provides a great emotional high point and does Cooper's final mission and the imagined future for him.
I saw that this same film was playing on my satellite programming this morning, and after watching for a few minutes, I once more can tell you that if you love movies. The best place to see them is in a theater with other film fans who share the experience with you. I may have paid more for the two tickets than I would have for a Blu-ray copy, but the value of the experience to me was worth it.
Certain types of films seem to grow in different eras. The fact that many of those films originated as books, written in those time frames will explain some of that congregation. I believe the culture influences much of those trends. In the 1980s, with the U.S. resurgent in world affairs under a new Presidential administration, action heroes flourished and Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the big stars. In the 1990s, as HIV and AIDS were frightening Americans, we got sexual thrillers starring the likes of Michael Douglas and Ashley Judd. Murder mysteries have always been a staple of theaters so it is no surprise that they continue to draw in audiences, but the tone has changed. No longer are women stalked by strangers and voyeurs, they are active participants in the crimes. Not simply as victims or femme fatales but as curious witnesses or antagonists with non-sexual agendas. The complexity of modern thrillers is in the psychology of the women involved in the crimes. Forget "Silence of the Lambs" gothic horror trappings, the modern American nightmare is suburbia. The big cities prowled by Sharon Stone have become bedroom communities haunted by wounded women.
"The Girl on the Train" deserves some obvious comparisons to "Gone Girl" from two years ago. Both films are set primarily in quiet neighborhoods where soccer moms are raising their children in lavish surroundings. There is comfort, space, and a family unit that is supposed to provide support. Yet when those spaces are violated and the support disappears, there are some ugly truths under the surface. Three women are tied together in a mystery. All of them are victims of some sort, the question is whether they can find the strength to discover the truth. Emily Blunt is Rachel, a psychologically unbalanced woman who has sought solace in her inability to conceive by drowning herself in alcohol. The inebriation allows her to indulge in elaborate fantasies concern a couple she sees every day from the train that she takes to the city. The couple live in the neighborhood she used to be a part of. Just a few doors down from where her ex-husband and his new wife and baby now live. While her intoxication may fuel her imagination, it also blanks out her memory and the complex relationship between her imagination and reality is tangled.
Very much like Rosamund Pike dominated "Gone Girl", Blunt is the main force in the film. The big difference is that in "Gone Girl" we are waiting to see what will happen, in this film, we are trying to discover what did happen. Our sympathies for Rachel will rise and fall as memories flood back into her head. Memory is a tricky master however and the damaged Rachel is challenged to interpret the events of her own life from a alcoholic haze. Anna, the woman who has replaced her in real life, is an indifferent and needy woman, who loves being a mother but is not really strong enough to be one on her own. Megan is the young married neighbor who serves as Nanny in Anna's house. While there are three male characters that serve as suspects, red herrings and psychological motivation, the story is really about the lives of the three women. Rebecca Ferguson, so great in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, does not get as much to do as she should, playing the former mistress and new wife to Rachel's ex.
Blunt however, has a meaty role that she pulls off without the ferocity of Rosamund Pike but with equal skill. She is a lost soul finding meaning in empty bottles, but she forces her way back into a real life in a particularly twisted narrative. Haley Bennett is the Jennifer Lawrence look alike that nearly steals the movie. She is an unsatisfied women that we at first might dislike because of what seems to be her selfish nature. As the story unfold in flashbacks arranged in chronological order, we will change our perceptions of her as much as we do those of Rachel. Bennett was just in the Magnificent Seven Remake, and except for the last line of that movie she was quite credible there. In this film she is completely convincing as the sexual plaything of oppressive men. She has a juicy scene with the therapist she comes to for comfort by bearing to him an unbearable secret. Both Blunt and Bennett could be contenders for awards consideration if the movie is accepted for it's emotional script rather than the lurid nature of the plot.
You have to pay close attention to the time sequence and a large number of characters. It would be easy to get lost in the events if you stepped out to go to the bathroom for a couple of minutes. Allison Janey plays a no nonsense police detective investigating the disappearance of one of the characters. She is usually used to lighten the tone of a film but not in this case. She is brutal in the honesty with which she confronts Rachel with the truths that she sees. Despite being insightful, her character is not going to be the one who solves the mystery. There is a lot of intrigue but not much action in the film. Those places where violence occurs are infrequent but startling. The downward spiral that Rachel falls into is depressing as heck and when all is said and done, although things look up, they don't look up much. Don't expect a vicarious sense of relief at the outcome, but consider how much your sense of self can hurt not just you but everyone you love.
Tom Hank"s character, the real life hero Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, has a fortune cookie fortune that he looks at in one scene of this film. "Better a delay than a disaster". I feel a little bit as if this describes my relationship with the movie, I wanted to see it but put it off for almost a month. After the screening, I felt as if it would have been a disaster if I'd missed this movie. This is a film and a story right up my alley. It is a true life drama, with a humble hero and a group of people who all did whatr they were supposed to do. The outcome is one of the amazing stories of modern aviation.
Having recently listened to a lengthy podcast in which the work of director Clint Eastwood was somewhat criticized, I may have lowered my expectations a bit. I did think "Jersey Boys" was a misfire but "American Sniper" was an effective film about the Iraq war and the toll it took on multiple people. It was dramatically shot and there are some incredibly tense scenes in it. This film is directed in a straightforward manner as is most of Eastwood's work. The fact that the near disaster at the center of the story remains clear and coherent is mostly a result of choices the director made about how to film it. One criticism that came up was that the side stories that explored some of Sully's background were confusing in time and story placement, well I did not find that to be the case at all. [That is mostly the screenwriter's responsibility]. There is a little bit of ambiguity about the process of the NTSB and how long that hearing process took, but that is hardly confusing to the story.
I did think that the script went a bit of a ways to create drama from the investigation but you have to have a little dramatic license to give the film a narrative backbone. The real themes of this film are about self doubt and doing your job. Until Arron Eckhart and Tom Hanks know what the voice recorder and aviation data reveal, there is enough doubt for even a confident man to wonder if something else could have been done. "Sully" and co-pilot Jeff Skiles knew they did the right things but only from the inside. There is plenty of PTSD to go around between them, but except for some nightmares about what might have happened if they had acted differently, we all feel confident as well.
The other theme of this movie was well expressed at the end by Captian Sullenberger when he deferred credit. It was not he alone who was the X factor. Every crew member did their job well. The cabin crew remained calm as they prepared the passengers, the passengers followed directions and helped each other, the ferry captains acted immediately and saved lives by doing so, the water rescue tem from the NYPD was in place and doing their jobs as well. I recommended another Aaron Eckhart film from a few years ago based on the same premise. "Battle L.A." may not be a great movie, but it was great at showing how when people work together, and do their jobs to the best of their ability, the outcome is more likely than not to be success.
Hanks and Eckhart both are low key and credible as the professionals who made a difference that day on the Hudson and above. They also rock those mustaches that the real heroes appear to favor. Laura Linney as Sully's wife does not get to do much more than talk on the phone, but it worked pretty well as a dramatic device, especially that first call after the landing. The technical crew who shot the effects and then put together a set to work on in the water are deserving of some respect as well. This was a very realistic depiction of the "forced water landing". In the long run, the movie does not have deep messages to impart to us, it just gives us a good condensed version of events that we can marvel at and appreciate, as we look at real people who deserve to be called heroes, even if they don't see themselves that way.
My little hijack of the end of summer movie draft, resulted in Tank
and Fogs grabbing the other guys and getting an episode up. I am heavily
quoted and it was fun to be part of the event. Click the image below to
find the podcast.
I was really impressed with this amazing film. Laika has been responsible for some wonderful films in the last few years. From "Corpse Bride" to "Pananorman" tho only one I still have not seen is "Boxtrolls". This is a studio that when it comes to quality of production is second to none. They have a track record of artistic consistency to rival Pixar. What they have not had is the box office to match. It is especially sad when so many less worthy projects have taken the field and scored big time. "The Secret Life of Pets " was fine but not great. I have no idea how "Angry Birds" came out but I'm not hopeful. This movie however knocked my socks off and it is my hope that "Zootopia" and "Finding Dory" will be satisfied with their box office glory at the end of the year, but that the Academy will see the truth, "Kubo and the Two Strings" is a real achievement.
The painfully slow and delicate process of stop motion animation is supplemented with digital artistry to make this movie smooth and polished. While older stop motion films sometimes look a little jerky or the flaws in clothing or facial impressions sneak by, you will not find anything like that here. The art direction is lush with Japanese landscapes that look as if they came from classic watercolors of old Japan. The character design is faithful to traditional styles of story in that culture. There are sequences so breath taking as to merit being watched all on their own, even if you are not going to see the whole film.
The only reason I can think that audiences here have not embraced it as much as it deserves to be is that it has that sensibility of Japanese magic stories that often feel so unworldly, that audiences are not sure how to take it. Kubo is a boy of nearly 11, who has an amazing gift for telling stories. It is a magical trait that he has received from his mother, who after crossing part of the ocean in a fierce storm that seems directed at her, brings the infant to a cave on a peak, that is solitary and overlooks that same ocean. Kubo has grown as a boy into a creative and responsible child, but his mother seems to be slipping away. She has filled him with stories, many of which feature his grandfather as a cold and harsh deity in the heavens. She has warned him not to be outside of their hidden cave after dark, least her cruel sisters find him and take his one remaining eye for their father. So yeah, it is a dark fairy tale filled with the spirits of the dead and the night sky.
We don't ever get any explanation for why things are the way they are, we just have to accept them. That is a daunting task for a culture that is low context and so direct. What is really unusual though is that this film is an original as far as I can tell. It is not an ancient story from Japan nor is it based on a film from the Asian market. It is grown right here but feels organically Japanese. Another barrier might be that the story is complex and there are some dark elements to it, but not any darker than "The Lion King". Kubo's adventure takes him in search of a suit of Armour that had been pursued by his father before him. The curse his family is under involves him in conflict with monsters and the elements. The gifts that Kubo has however are companions with a secret and his own ingenuity. If you suspend your disbelief long enough to watch the magic come to life, the story issues will seem unimportant. We don't need a plot summary when the emotional climax of the film arrives, we need tissues.
If you miss this movie, you are missing one of the best films of the year, much less the best animated film of the year. I'm going to include a little extra for you to push you into seeing this. If you watch the music video below and are not intrigued by the film, I don't know what to say. It is a wonderful match of music to the theme of the film.
Get out of your house right now and go see this movie.
Remakes inevitably suffer from comparison to their predecessors. This version of the Magnificent Seven will not be an exception. It has star power, and entertainment value, but it seems to be short in stature because of the times in which it is made and the demands of contemporary audiences. We need our action to be spectacular and the visualization to be inventive. The problem is, with such a traditional setting, it sometimes feels a bit anachronistic. Characters playing out the events of the story in 1879, sound like they might have been born in 1979. The touches of humor and the self referential moments left me a little less impressed, despite some excellent tweaks to the well known story.
Let's begin with the stuff that works and helps this movie cross the line as a winner. Denzel Washington is the closest thing we have to a movie star working today. His presence in a film can still bring out an audience and his acting chops are top notch. The only film star comparable would be Tom Cruise, and I think Mr. Cruise is more limited in what an audience is willing to see him in these days. Of course Mr. Washington is also playing in the action field now more than any other genre also. Cast as the lead cowboy in this band of mercenaries, he is completely believable in spit of question of his heritage. You never once think that he is not exactly who he says he is and there is no question that the people he encounters grant him the respect he clearly communicate to all that he deserves. It is a credit to the makers of the film that they don't exploit what might have been a distracting non-issue and instead focus on the story at hand.
Ethan Hawke's character is also a plus in the film. We get a little more back story than we ever got with Robert Vaughn in the 1960 version, and it makes most of his actions seem more reasonable. As a deadly sniper who survived the Civil War, his struggle with PTSD seems understandable even if it is only partially fleshed out. His friendship with an Asian assassin in the old west is a little more difficult to swallow, although it offers a nice relationship and provides quite a bit of entertainment. Also worthy are the characters played by Vincent D'Onofrio, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Martin Sensmeier. They make up a worthy second tier trio of mercenaries. I liked Byung-hun Lee perfectly well in the film but as I said, his character is one of two that draws attention to the fact that we are watching a story made by people trying to entertain us any way they can.
The second character that sticks out a bit like a sore thumb is Chris Pratt's gambling cowboy. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he is in the film and I enjoyed his performance just fine. The trouble is that the character is so overdone in an effort to make the film a little more hip that the story loses much of it's organic nature. It screams for attention and the manner in which the character talks is more in keeping with the Space Opera Pratt is noted for than the Horse Opera we are watching. His story is written more for the audience than for the events in the film.
There are moments in the reworking of the story that I thought fit well. The events that propel the character of Emma Cullen to reach out for help from such dangerous men was well set up and executed. She develops as a character only so far however and in the end her role becomes a plot device rather than someone we can care about and relate to. I will say however that the audience I saw this with was enthusiastic about her piece of action at the climax of the film. Peter Sarsgaard as the villain of the piece is suitably despicable, although the capricious manner in which he treats his employees would make most people think twice about taking a job from him.
I could have lived without the backstory for Denzel's Chisolm, I think he would be more interesting as a cypher but it does provide a bit more logical reason for him to take on the task that he himself describes as impossible. The planning components of the final battle are reminiscent of some of the same things that were found in "Seven Samurai", the film that was remade as the first "Magnificent Seven". That battle sequence does go on quite a while and it is one of the places that the action sometimes feels over the top. I did not count the number killed but it would certainly approach two hundred. I can say however that the deaths that occur in the group seem relevant and well earned.
This is the final score of the late James Horner, who died last year far too young but with a set of films on his vita that would make anybody proud. Two nights ago, in preparation for an upcoming podcast, I watched "Battle Beyond the Stars", a Roger Corman cheapy Star Wars wannabe that uses the plot of The Magnificent Seven as it's source. One of the gems in that otherwise minor film is the score, by a young James Horner. His career is thus somewhat bookended by this story. This score is not as iconic as either of those other two films but it does convey some seriousness and in a couple of places, the grandeur of the west. There is a continuing echo of the classic Elmer Bernstein theme in several spots, but that tune is not fully utilized until the end of the film.
I'm a sucker for a western, so my opinion on this was likely to be pretty high to begin with. It is a solid entertainment and a reasonable facsimile of a traditional western, but it has a few elements that make it feel more manufactured than it ought to be. I look forward to discussing it with my fellow bloggers next week, but for mow I will say you should definitely see it. There are not likely to be a lot of westerns in Denzel's future career, and that is a shame because he fits in the saddle really well.
Let's get this out of the way up front. This movie should not exist. If the remake had followed the hard edged, cynical original that was the subject of one of my Charles Bronson posts last week, the lead character would not be around for a sequel. In updating, it might have made sense if his apprentice had survived and was now the lead character, but this does not sit right with me. But I went and saw it anyway because it had Jason Statham in it and they used the name from the previous title, so marketing works and I guess it's my fault when the third one shows up in three or four years. Sorry everybody.
The movie is as lazy and tired as you expect it to be. Sure there are a lot of fight scenes but never any tension. Statham kills more people in this than Schwarzenegger killed in "Commando". That does not make it any good. Hundreds of hired bad guys stand in front of his bullets and fists and they die. None has any interesting trait to them, they are like space invaders continuously moving forward to be destroyed in line. The fights and shootouts are acrobatic but silly, and the CGI blood is tastefully splattered around but never on the hero. Oh, and here's another thing, what the hell are they trying to do making Arthur Bishop a hero? He should be like Parker/Porter from the Donald Westlake stories, a grim single minded individual with a sense of self entitlement that ignores the rest of the world (Did he do a Parker Film?). The film makers here try to make him sympathetic, with a love interest motivated by charity.
I like Jason Statham, but I think unless the role is tailored to him, he works better as a side character like in "Fast and Furious 7" or "Spy". "Death Race" and "The Bank Job" are two of his better roles although acting is least required behind the wheel in a mask. The silliness of the "Crank" series or "Transporter" is what they are getting with this film, instead a of a good character driven story. When Bishop is plotting the executions he is carrying out, that is when the movie feels like something, but as soon as it reverts to shootouts and fisticuffs, it's just another yawner that kills time on a Saturday (or Holiday) afternoon.
The trailer above is more suspenseful and interesting than most of the movie. The poster below shows how little thought went into trying to market this. Jessica Alba is eye candy but sometimes gets called on to act and that is a mistake. Michelle Yeoh must not be getting much work, her character in this could have been played by anyone, no martial arts or bad ass attitude was required. Tommy Lee Jones shows up as a target at the end of the film. Fifteen years ago, he would have been the bad guy, now he is a plot device.
This movie is strictly for dopes like me who have a loyalty to a character brand, no matter how miss used it is, and a high level of tolerance for Statham killing everything in sight. I'm not sure I'd even say catch up with it on streaming, rental or cable, unless your alternative is "Independence Day Resurgence", in which case, see this masterpiece instead.
I know there are a lot of us out here who are pretty fed up with 2016 when in comes to the death of celebrities we care about. From sports to music to politics, well known figures from our lives have moved on. Of course as a film fan, we are especially vulnerable because actors we loved as kids are now in that stage of life that call them to the next venue. In no way is this tribute a diminishment of anyone else who has left us this year, but it is a unique opportunity to pay tribute to at least one individual that was significant in my movie going life.
In the 1970s, Gene Wilder was one of my comedy favorites. I first saw "Blazing Saddles" with a group of friends from my High School Jr. Optimist Club. We went far from my hometown in Alhambra, to either Brentwood or Bel Air to pick up one of our group members Ron Rosenberg. It was the only time I remember going to a film with this set of friends, but I know that my Two Best Friends, Art Franz and Dan Hasegawa both went as well. Since we were in Ron's neck of the woods, we saw the movie on the Westside of L.A.. It wasn't in Westwood, I think it might have been in Encino. We were all about 16 at the time, so the campfire scene was a major point of amusement for us.
Wilder's drunken fast gun "Jim" (The Waco Kid) was a take-off on several movie tropes from 50s westerns. I know I'd seen the Gregory Peck film "The Gunfighter" and I recognized the variation of the story about the kid with the gun from that. This movie was subversive in so many ways but mostly it was just funny. A theater full of people laughing hard is one of the great joys in life. You would frequently miss jokes in the film because the laughter had not died down enough from the previous joke for you to hear the next one.
Jim:
[consoling Bart]
What did you expect? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry
my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers.
These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You
know... morons.
As a side note, we lost actor David Huddleston just a month ago as well. Those of you who are not familiar, he played the Mayor of Rock Ridge, Olson Johnson.
The screenplay had input from several writers including the great Richard Pryor, which may help explain some of the incendiary use of racial epithets being funny instead of offensive. The list of people and types that get skewered in this film is long and wide. In today's culture of political correctness and social media, the film would be pilloried and Brooks and Company would be tarred and feathered, at least virtually. The movie is an equal opportunity offender. Nowadays, if a special interest group sees one piece of clothing, hears one suspect term or is portrayed in any light less than flattering, there is a hue and cry across the land. This movie would create an earthquake if it were new today. As important as Wilder was to the film, it is interesting that he got the part as a fluke. The Waco Kid was originally to be played by Gig Young. He left because of health reasons (alcohol abuse being the main issue) and Wilder stepped in after they had already started filming. I have a hard time seeing Young pull off the bit where the Kid and Bart are in Klan Hoods and the Kid starts wiping off Bart's hand and then turns it palm up saying, "See, it's coming off".
Wilder is a significant part of "Blazing Saddles" but he is the star and clear focus of the charming "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" . This morality tale is told from a sour disposition but at the center is a sweet piece of acting by the late Mr. Wilder. This is a movie that I have shared with my kids from the moment they could sit up in a seat and watch something on television. There are some harsh aspects to the story, but it all comes out well and everyone learns a lesson.
There are dozens of asides that Wilder makes as the parents try to engage Wonka in conversation, and he allows the kids to have just enough rope to hang themselves. We have a conflicting message at one point because Charlie breaks the rules as well as the other kids and seems to get away with it. When Wonka flies into his tirade at the end, we are heart broken even though we should have learned that Charlie was in fact wrong. Instead of reacting as an vindictive adult, like his Grandfather wants to do, Charlie is contrite and apologizes in the best way possible. This gives us the joyful moment when Wonka is redeemed for us and himself. That one act allows Wilder to put back on the mantle of gleeful trickster and make us love him again. That is a perfect Gene Wilder Moment.
The theaters this afternoon were not sold out but they were fairly packed, and they were in fairly large houses and as we left, there were two screens playing both films and there were line ups for the 7:30 and 8:00 shows. It is wonderful that people came out for the two films, it's just unfortunate that the reason why was to say good-bye to a gifted performer.
I've written on Lawrence of Arabia on multiple occasions. There is also a Vlog post from a few years ago that you might find interesting. This film is awe inspiring. I first saw it in a truncated form on television. It was a pan and scan version, badly edited from one of the versions that had been circulating in the 70s which had been cut by distributors to shorten running times. The first time I saw it in it's complete form was in 1989 after the restoration by Robert Harris. I saw it in Century City with my father and I fell completely in love with it then. It was one of the first Criterion Laserdiscs I bought when that was still a thing.
We now make it a habit, just like with the movie "Jaws" to try to take advantage of every screening on a big screen in our area. It's been almost two years since we last got the chance, but a Sunday afternoon screening is early enough not to be discouraging to people who get up early to go to work. While the movie was not screened on film [it was a DLP projection] it still looks great up on a big screen and the Cinerama Dome has just such a screen. In fact it is a curved screen and at times the images almost look three dimensional.
If you are not familiar with the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, let's just say it is unique in construction and history. The original Cinerama films made using a three camera projection technique were the prime reason the theater was built. It uses the geodesic form created by Buckminster Fuller. The shapes actually fit together and support each other without a separate framing process.
The theater was scheduled to be torn down several years ago when a new complex was being built on the site. Preservationists and cinefiles from around the world reminded the Archlight Company of the legacy, and they found a way to keep the theater in place as part of their location. As a result, they frequently screen special film presentations of older movies that would benefit from such a unique venue. The sound system is superb and as I said, the screen gives the film a dynamic dimension that you will not get anywhere else.
The theater can accommodate more than 800 customers and today they came pretty close to that. While not every seat was filled, the house felt packed. One easy measure of that is to take a look at the concession stand for a single screen theater. Below is a little shot for you from when I was waiting to get a drink, just about a minute before the overture started. There are at least seven lines and most of them were ten deep.
There is always something new to see in a film if you watch it differently each time. So many little touches in this today were obvious because of the sound and the screen. Prince Faisal's tent posts creating in the breeze when he first meets with Lawrence is a good example. Also spectacular is the way the sand blows across the feel of Lawrence as he wanders at night, contemplating how to deliver a miracle for the Arab cause.
I have no doubt that I will get the chance to post on this again, and maybe a fresh review will be called for. For the moment, this will simply remain a report on a great movie going experience.
I hope all of you will get a chance someday to see a great movie in one of the remaining historic theaters in Hollywood. It's not as old as some of the others but it certainly is different.
Hold on everyone, I know this film is highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes and it comes with a great pedigree. The trailer is absolutely smashing and that's what sold me on it. The film is solid, BUT, I think it is getting a little over-hyped and that may contribute to a let down when you see the actual product. No one wants a great horror film to finish off the season any more than I do. "Don't Breathe" will provide some shocks, a lot of tension but no horror and at times it will have a very mixed message.
To begin with, the premise is that three young people are going to rob a blind Army Vet of his cash. Now you may have all kinds of empathy for the young lady in the group, her mother is the real horror show, but she is egging some of the others on to do this particular crime. The other character we are asked to empathize with is a spineless outsider who betrays the one close link he has to the community with his actions. The final member of the home invasion team is a mental midget reprobate whose idea of fun is to pee all over the homes of the people he rips off. Writer/Director Fede Alvarez has created a problem for himself, and the fact that he almost overcomes it is a credit to his effort, but in truth, we might very well want to do to these crooks ourselves, some of the things that happen in this film.
Obviously there is a twist or two in the story, or else there would be little suspense and no surprises. The less said about these the better for the film. Once again, the mind set that we get here tries to place all the sympathy on the perps who get the tables turned on them, but as deranged and sick as some elements of the story might be, there is a mind coming up with a rationalization for what happens, compared to the simple greed motivation on the other side. This is not a justification, simply an observation of some of my own reactions.
There is a turning point in the film when it goes from credible to a bit over the top. I liked a couple of the twists and you can see how they make sense after the fact, but a lot of what occurs after a certain point comes down to "Unstoppable Boogeyman Syndrome". Such overused story telling turns diminish what creativity the film built up. Actress Jane Levy is a veteran of Alvarez's take on "Evil Dead", a film I thoroughly enjoyed. She does a good job and has a very traumatic scene in the last third that plays out really well. Stephan Lang as The Blind Man, is convincing both as victim and antagonist. For most of the film he is silent, but after one of the twists, he speaks and it takes a lot of the energy of the horror away. There were ways to present the exposition that would not have required him to break what to that point was a silent force to be feared.
So the movie starts with a good premise, undermines that premise with characters to root against, but still manages to be engaging and tense most of the time. The big twists are reasonable but the execution of the last act loses all the good will the film had built up for me. If you are not shouting a little bit at the very last payoff, you are too programmed to accept the preposterous as a part of film characters. I don't usually give scores or ratings because I think you might want to come to those conclusions without my preconceptions getting in the way. Because I have been so critical of what is a pretty good film, let me offer this guideline...B-. OK, now decide for yourself if the movie gets it wrong or I did.
[The above trailer is not the original but it is very effective at conveying a sense of what the film is so I chose it for this post.]
You could call this an action film, after all there is a motorcycle chase, a car chase, a bunch of shootouts and fistfights. The problem with that label however is that this is a 70s style action film, where more time and energy is spent building up the characters and the plot and less time is spent trying to show the sixteen different ways you can kick a guy in the face or twirl a handgun in the air and catch it and shoot it accurately. Charles Bronson laid the groundwork for the action stars to follow, but he did so by acting as a character, not just a puppet in a special effects shot.
All you have to do to see the difference between films from this period and those made now a days is watch the opening fifteen minutes of the movie. Without any dialogue, without knowing exactly what is going on, we learn all the essentials about the character Bronson plays, Arthur Bishop. First we can see that he is meticulous. Bishop walks through the scenes deliberately, he sets up a camera carefully, he takes dozens of photographs to examine at his leisure. Once he is home, he thinks, he plans and when he executes it is again with deliberation. Bishop is not a "cowboy" shooting his prey dead in the streets for a bounty, Bishop is an artist. His executions are designed to look like accidents and there will not be any way he will be connected to the death. This is terrific story telling but it doesn't provide an adrenaline rush. This is tension tat builds from anticipation. As the plan is playing out, we get to see exactly how patient Bishop is, we also know that he has discipline as he continuously strengthens his gnarly hands by repeatedly squeezing a ball of wax that he carries to pass the wait time this way.
The plot of the movie starts after this opening sequence. Bishop gets a call from an old family friend who has crossed a line with the criminal organization that Bishop's father once worked for. "Big Harry" (Keenan Wynn) wants Arthur to intervene on his behalf, even though he believes Arthur is not in the organization. It turns out that Harry has been given to Bishop as his next target. Bishop lives in a house off Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles. It is a unique home with a large two story atrium filled with exotic plants. There is a swimming pool that is half in the house and half on the patio. There is also a wall of weapons on display with a cork board behind it on which he plans his jobs. He drinks fine wine, smokes a pipe and lounges in red silk pajamas. Arthur Bishop is a sensualist without any real human connections and that's what draws him to the spine of the story.
When he encounters a young man, much like himself, alienated from others with a strange sense of what is invigorating, he believes he has found an apprentice. Jan-Michael Vincent, a legitimate contender for stardom gone wrong status, plays the son of "Big Harry". He ingratiates himself with Bishop because he senses that there is something going on behind the man's stoic demeanor. Again, there is a long stretch of time without any action but the two characters are feeling each other out. We get more information about how isolated Bishop really is when he visits the now defunct and vanished "Marineland" and has an anxiety attack that mimics a coronary. His only human contact other than "Steve" the kid he is thinking about taking on, is a prostitute who has to invent elaborate romantic stories to satisfy him. I did especially like that Jill Ireland playing the girl has her apartment walls lined with old movie posters for films from the thirties, forties and fifties.
Now the story is full steam ahead. The two twisted men, who have been feeling each other out, go into an association that will have them working together. This is where there will be a variety of plot twists and complications that will cause the audience to wonder who really is in control of the situation. Bishop has always been cautious and thorough and he is passing these same skills onto a man who shares his value. It's not about the money, "It has to do with standing outside of it all, on your own."
I mentioned that there is a motorcycle chase. This happens out in the Newhall area of Southern California. This is the start of the last section of the film which does contain a lot more action. The nice thing about all the action is that you can follow it. There is a car chase on a highway on a mountainside in Italy, it looks like it could be the same road for the opening car scene in "Quantum of Solace". The difference is we always know which car we are following, where they are relative to one another and we can see the physical actions required to get the explosions, sharp turns and gunshots off.
This has always been my favorite Bronson starring vehicle. His performance is stronger in "Hard Times" but the character here is so very intriguing. The conflict that exists at the end of the film was more shocking than most twists in a standard action film, and that opening sequence just hooks you in. Bronson's shaggy hair, Fu Manchu mustache and craggy face are so unlike the looks of most film stars that you could never mistake a Charles Bronson film for one made by any of his contemporaries. Steve McQueen and Paul Newman were too pretty, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were too long in the tooth at the time. Bronson was unique and his individuality shows itself best in this film.
I don't know what I did, but the completed post for "Death Wish" disappeared this morning. I was trying to copy it over to the other site and BOOM it was gone. So now I have to do the best i can to recreate my original comments on this iconic Charles Bronson Film.
Charles Bronson had starred in some of the biggest action movies of the 1960s, including the "Magnificent Seven", "the Great Escape" and "The Dirty Dozen". He was an international box office star at the turn of the decade, but he had not reached those heights in the United States. His name may appear above the title, but he was not necessarily a draw...until this movie happened. His fourth film with Director Michael Winner, turned out to be the biggest hit of both their careers. While a blessing in some ways, it was also the start of a path that would narrow Bronson's options as an actor down the road. There were four sequels to this project, all of them ultimately made money but none of them had the impact of the original "Death Wish".
The movie was successful not simply because it was an effective exploitation film. It tapped into zeitgeist of the 1970s, crime in the big city. NYC was the poster child for violent criminals gone wild. Just a few years before, Clint Eastwood and company were accused of fascism and advocating vigilantism because of similar themes. While "Dirty Harry" is a classic of the era, when it comes to touching off controversy, it was nothing compared to this movie. Here is the last line of the New York Times Review from 1974 (Vincent Canby) "it's a despicable movie, one that raises complex questions in order to offer bigoted, frivolous, oversimplified answers." The Variety said "Poisonous incitement to do-it-yourself law enforcement is the vulgar exploitation hook on which Death Wish is awkwardly hung." It returned seven times it's budget in the U.S. alone however. Clearly the public saw something here that stirred them. The answer was pretty straightforward, Charles Bronson was dealing out the justice that was so frequently denied to victims of crime in those days. They identified with Paul Kersey, a peaceful man who had actually been a conscientious objector in his war service, who had the most horrifying thing happen to his family and the cops were unable to do anything about it.
In an attempt to recover some sense of sanity, Kersey takes a project over from his architecture firm for a development in Arizona. The developer wants a design that is maybe less space effective but that preserves the sense of space a family might like to have. Stuart Margolin had appeared with Bronson in an earlier Micheal Winner Film, "The Stone Killer", there he was an mercenary working as a gangland assassin, but in this film he is an avuncular traditionalist who gives Kersey an opportunity to feel empowered. In Arizona they do some target shooting, but when he gets back to NY, Kersey discovers that the gift his new friend has sent back with him is a gun.The story however does not immediately turn Bronson into a stone cold killer. First he gets a taste of simple justice by defending himself with nothing more than a sock with a couple of rolls of quarters in it. When he fends off a mugger successfully, he gleefully swings his weapon around his apartment with enthusiasm. It is this first rush of control that pushes him toward carrying his new six shooter around at night. Kersey is not hunting the hoods who attacked his family, he is fighting back for all of us and it created an uproar in the film story as well as the real world.
The consequence of swift justice, in spite of it's illegal nature, is that muggers begin to second guess themselves. This has always been one of the arguments gun rights advocates have made, if everyone is disarmed, we are all potential victims, if anyone could be armed the criminal is more likely to be the victim. In one of the few moments of humor in the film, a grandmother type tells a TV news crew how she was inspired by the vigilante and used a hatpin to fight off her attackers. It will amuse us but it frightens the police who see random acts of violence as likely to result in the name of just such vigilance.
One of the things that makes the story feel necessary to the audience is the fact that an average person is unlikely to get justice, after all the investigation of the crimes against Kersey's wife and daughter is going nowhere. The police though, turn a dogged detective loose on the vigilante, and the procedural in looking for that criminal seems very effective. Vincent Gardenia, in the same year that he was nominated for supporting actor in "Band the Drum Slowly", tackles the part of a cop who is given conflicting orders. He must find the vigilante but should do nothing that would harm the downward trend of violence that the vigilante has left in his wake.
Ochoa tumbles onto Kersey and plays a cat and mouse game with him as Kersy continues to rid the city of as much vermin as he can find. The violence quotient in the film is high and Bronson's character goes out of his way several times to find criminals that he can eliminate. In a scene on a New York Subway, that anticipates Bernie Goetz by 10 years, Kersey rides alone in a subway car, baiting a couple of thugs to attack him but he turns the tables on them dramatically.
This is one of those lines the film asks us to consider, if we deliberately make ourselves a target, are we justified in our actions? Of course the film's answer to this is a resounding "YES!" The audience knows who the bad guys are. The likelihood is that, today, the film would also be targeted as racist because the actors cast as thugs are primarily from the usual ethic groups that get blamed for crime. In the 70s though, audience were less concerned about being culturally
sensitive and were instead freaking out that the violent crime rate had tripled. They needed a character they could identify with to help them feel empowered if only for an hour and a half.This movie fit the bill and Bronson's performance helps us make that identification. He reacts to his own violence the first time the way many of us would, by puking. Kersey is an early sufferer of PTSD and his way of coping is to act, even if it is not against the specific criminals responsible for his trauma.
Director Winner moves the action effectively and stages the final conflict between Kersy and the last set of thugs as if an old west shootout were in the offing. Some might get the feeling from the look of the movie that this was a cheap exploitation film, but if you compare the lighting, sets and atmosphere, you could easily confuse it with one of Sidney Lumet's urban thrillers of the era. NYC is gritty and dangerous, there are places where you would not want to be on your own, and the movie conveys this very well. The dialogue exchange between Ocha and Kersey recalls an ultimatum given by a sheriff in the old west, another deliberate choice that works well and provides a little humor.
Jeff Goldbloom and Christopher Guest both have small roles in the film, very early in their careers. Charles Bronson would have his biggest success in America with this film and almost all of his obituaries probably started with a reference to this icon of 1970s cinema. Intellectually, there are valid reasons to question the ethics the film sets forth, but most people living in fear of just walking out the front door did not want an intellectual debate on law and order. They wanted to feel safer. For the run time of this film, Charles Bronson made them feel that way.
When the Italians refer to you as "The Ugly One" and the French call you "The Holy Monster", you know you are not going to be cast as the romantic lead very often. Charles Bronson had a face that looked like a catchers mitt that was left out in the sun for a long time. His skin was tough, his mouth was small and his eyes narrow. As he got older the features deepened and gave him real character. Still he managed to be an effective love interest in several films with his wife actress Jill Ireland. In fact, she appears in four of the five films we are covering for this little festival. The romance was almost always a secondary part of the main story and that is the only slightly different with this movie.
This was the first movie directed by Walter Hill. He had screenplay credits for a number of films before he began directing, including the neo noir "Hickey and Boggs" and the Steve McQueen/Ali Macgraw thriller, "The Getaway". He would later go on to direct "The Warriors", "48 Hours" and "Streets of Fire" which was recently featured as the Movie of the Month on the Lambcast. This was a project that seemed destined to bring these two together. I read an interview with the great Strother Martin, where he complained a bit about how the movie was cut. Both his part and James Coburn's parts were trimmed by several sequences and he felt that the movie seemed like a program filler rather than something special. I don't know if the studio interfered, but Hill was one of the writers and as director he called the shots. In retrospect the movie is a excellent example of spare story telling and interesting characters. The side plots might have been worthy, but the focus always needed to be on Bronson's Chaney.
The title says it all, it's the depression, jobs are hard to come by and everyone is looking to make a buck. Bronson drops into town, a beautifully shot New Orleans, off a freight train with nothing more than six bucks in his pocket. It's been commented on in the notes on the DVD and on the IMDB page that Bronson has barely 500 words of dialogue in the film. If you watch the first five minutes you will know why. He simply does not need more. The character is laconic because he has little interest in other people or events. He is a loner and can indicate a lot of emotions with that punching bag face. Just watch the way he works the toothpick in his mouth while sitting at the counter of the diner. It moves along with his level of attention to different subjects.I've seen plenty of actors use props like cigarettes or food to make a point, Charlie just needs the tiny stick. In the bare-knuckled fights, the opponents usually are the ones with the big talk, Chaney let's his fists do the talking. There are two scenes where other characters come right out and ask if that's all he has to say about a subject, he doesn't even give them a one word answer.
Another reason that it is a good thing that Bronson has few lines is that Coburn has so many. His character is nick named "Speed" and it sounds like that is based on his conversation skills. "Speed" is the loser character of the piece. He is a small time operator who dreams of the big time but almost always blows it on bad choices, especially saying a few words too many. His collaboration with Chaney would seem to be a nice symmetrical match. This is the third film the two stars made together, they previously appeared in "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Great Escape" together. Coburn had moved to the front ranks of film stardom but was slipping a but by this time, Bronson was peaking. This was their last film together.
Strother Martin probably had a bit more right to be irked with some of the trims. There are no scenes in the film where he is doing the work that he is contracted for. Everything he does is in assessing Chaney before a fight, not treating cuts or bruises. In spite of that, he steals the movie in every scene he is in. His dialogue is the best in the script. He plays an opium addict, with a poetic streak a mile wide. Chaney:
Two years doesn't make a doctor. Poe:
Well, in my third year of studies a small black cloud appeared on campus; I left under it.
Some are born to fail, others have it thrust upon them.
At the final fight, when Chaney has been manipulated into fighting, Martin picks up a wrench and throws it through the second story window of an office to announce that they are ready to begin.
Actor Robert Tessier specialized in playing menacing tough guys on TV and in the movies in the 70s and 80s. He was an early example of a bald head being used as a symbol of intimidation in the movies. He was a dangerous convict in "The Longest Yard", a tough guardian angel in "The Deep" and he was the villain with his voice dubbed in "Breakheart Pass". He is Chaney's first real test as a fighter and their fight is one of the big action pieces of the film. It is shown from above, and then the crowds are shown at an angle looking up. It is a clever way to add to the staged fisticuffs that are going on in an abandoned factory. His role gives Bronson another chance to show how small acting touches can be so effective. Tessier smiles manically a couple of time during the fight, he even tries to intimidate with a backhanded compliment. Bronson remains mostly impassive, with only the mildest of smiles when he gets the upper hand. The absence of open emotion is the stronger personality in these scenes.
Another actor who works well as cast is Bruce Glover, maybe better known as the father of Crispin Glover these days. His face and voice convey a sadistic streak as the enforcer for a loan shark that "Speed" turns to for a bankroll. His Mr. Wint in the James Bond film, "Diamonds are Forever" would be the closest character I have seen him play with this type of vigor.
Just as Bronson cuts off conversation with two other characters after they ask if that's all he has to say, he also initiates conversation with both of them the same way. He simply helps himself to a seat at their dining table. His come on to her in the diner is quiet and non-threatening. It is a little unusual for a guy who is supposed to be taking charge, but it is his confidence not his bluster that gets them connected. This is another great contrast with "Speed" who has to try to get in the last word every time and ends up looking like a fool. There is a scene where he tries to impose a financial arrangement on Chaney but gets put in his place pretty quickly by Chaney simply standing up to leave. Another example in the script of less is more. "Speed " is all easy charm and smiles but it can't get him what he wants, Chaney is coiled silent tension, but even when he strikes it is in a non-flamboyant manner.
On top of the great script and the interesting characters in the movie, the film benefits from it's look. Depression era New Orleans must have been a bit of catnip to film makers. Bourbon Street has a classic look and many of the older buildings have not changed since the era. Steve McQueen starred in "The Cincinnati Kid" a poker movie set in the same period and the landmarks and factories sell the authenticity of the film. I watched it on a Twilight Time Blu Ray disc and the transfer is stunning. The opening scene where Bronson just jumps off of an arriving train looks beautiful and the rest of the movie follows.
If you are unfamiliar with Charles Bronson, and want to see the kind of actor he could be, outside of the vigilante films he ended up being ghettoized in, than "Hard Times" is a great place to start. The characters make the movie and the acting elevates it. It may not be my favorite Bronson film, but it is my favorite Bronson performance.
In the 1970s, the Western still appeared on the big screen but with much less frequency than it did at one time. The Duke made his last film in the same year this film came out. We also got Clint Eastwood in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" this year. The Charles Bronson film however might be the most unconventional Western Story in theaters this year; it is a amalgamation of 60's action sensibilities and Agatha Christie, set on a train in the old west. There are murders that are never solved and people pretending to be things they are not. In the middle of all of this is our featured star for this festival, kicking butts and taking names.
Alistair MacLean is a name synonymous with action films of the 60's. He authored World War II action novels and contemporary spy thrillers. Among his best know works are "The Guns of Navarone", "Where Eagles Dare" and "Ice Station Zebra" . This book was a western but is contains many of the same elements of his other stories, for instance there is a spy element to the movie, and a series of false identities and it climaxes with a dramatic action sequence. The movie is definitely a product of it's time. The pacing of the mystery is slow and deliberate and we get to know the plot only a little bit at a time. This is very different from today's thrillers which must contain some sort of action every five minutes or else someone will call it boring. Anyway a group of people are on a train, traveling to a remote military base for a variety of reasons. Bronson plays John Deakin, a wanted thief and killer, who has been caught by a U.S. Marshall and brought onto the train to transport him to justice. The train is supposed to be delivering medical supplies to the stricken fort, but things are not as they seem as the passengers and crew of the train are being murdered.
The movie is filled with actors from the period that were personal favorites of mine. The recently passed David Huddleston (most of you would know him as the title character of "The Big Lebowski") is a Doctor on a mercy mission. Richard Crenna, (best known as Rambo's commander) is the territorial governor and Bronson's wife, Jill Ireland, is his romantic partner. The Major in charge of the troops on the train is played by one of my all time favorites, Ed Lauter. In the last half of the movie, he essentially becomes the co-star with Bronson. Although he is often cast a a military figure, I do think he was a little odd in the role, he seems like such a contemporary actor. I'm not sure why it was necessary but Robert Tessier, who was so ominous as a tough gut in "The Longest Yard" has all of his lines dubbed.
This is the Charles Bronson Festival, so lets talk about Bronson and his character. To start the film, he plays a bit ineffectual, as a ruse to get where he needs to be. This is where he needs the acting skills he has because Charles Bronson never seems ineffectual, he is always a man of action with a degree of certainty around him. As the story moves forward he does get a chance to deliver a few humorous lines, most of them to his rel life spouse Jill Ireland. As the mystery begins to unfold, he is more and more front and center to the action and the number of lines he has is reduced. There is an Agatha Christie style reveal at the climax that is reminiscent of so many drawing room mysteries. It is never clear why the Marshall played by Ben Johnson gives him the run of the train once the killings begin, but there might be a dialogue scene that got cut for time somewhere.
This is not Bronson's best Western, that would be "Once Upon a Time in the West" from 1968. This is however very typical of the Bronson Westerns of the 70s, most of them had a high concept twist to them and there were comedic elements that he could handle which did not require any slapstick. This was the second film in a row, after "Breakout" that he made with veteran TV Director Tom Gries. It is an efficient story told simply and without affectation, in other words, it is right where Charles Bronson lived.
In between "Death Wish" the most influential starring vehicle of Bronson's career, and "Hard Times", the most accomplished performance in his career, came this movie, an exploitation picture based on a real event but sold as a fictional story [something that never happens these days]. The premise of "Breakout" is simple. Robert Duvall is an unjustly imprisoned American in Mexico. His detention has been arranged for by the company he worked for because he has information that would be damaging to them. His wife is trying to arrange an escape from the prison and she hires Bronson's character to carry it out.
Nick Colton is a somewhat shady bush pilot who is willing to run afoul of the law if necessary. Unlike the TV promo you see above, in the film, his price is not $250,000, it's actually $1200 at first. Bronson plays Nick as an almost comic character; he is full of bravado, bullshit and big ideas. At first he doesn't realize what he got himself into and the initial attempt at escape fails. The second attempt involves Randy Quaid in drag, and you know that's not going to get it done. Finally he latches onto the idea that the film is based on, he will land a helicopter in the prison yard and lift the prisoner directly out of the fortress. Of course, he is not really a helicopter pilot and there are plenty of other complications.
Originally, the film was cast with Kris Kristofferson in the role but Bronson stepped in when he left the project. Robert Duvall was a successful actor but he was not yet the movie star he would become. Between 1972 and 1975 he made ten films that were not "the Godfather" including pulp material like "The Killer Elite", "The Outfit" and this film. As the imprisoned executive, slowly losing touch with himself and becoming physically weaker as each day passes, Duvall turns in a competent performance with one really memorable scene. When he attempts to bribe his way out of the prison, the ruse that is being used is that he will occupy the wooden casket of a fellow prisoner who had died. The captain of the prison knows this is happening and basically tortures the man by pretending to bury the casket while Duvall is in it.
After this plot fails, he basically turns the planning of an escape over to his wife. Unfortunately, someone she is close to leaks information to the company and subsequently each escape is thwarted. She does however need to communicate with her husband to keep him abreast of the plans she is making and that forces her to participate in the conjugal visitations the Mexican prison system allows. She is humiliated by the guards who search her and she discovers that her husband is slowly going mad. This puts even great pressure on her plans to succeed. Bronson's real life wife Jill Ireland plays Duvall's wife in this picture. In spite of the fact that she loves her husband, she has a slightly flirtatious relationship with Nick, he is clearly attracted to her but never makes any move.
The other female cast member is Sheree North. She was a ubiquitous presence on TV and the movies in the 1970s, usually playing a blousey woman caught up in some criminal activity.
She ends up as a distraction to the guards at the prison during the helicopter landing. She comes on to her old boyfriend Nick after she and her husband agree to participate in the plan for a fee. It is a typically sexist role from the 70s that adds little to the plot but does allow a little cheesecake to be pushed into the movie and to make the star a part of that sequence.
The flying scenes in the movie are nicely shot and there is one clever setup that has a convertible Cadillac, a Piper prop plane and a helicopter, all leaving the airfield at the same time moving off in different directions. They then come back together and travel in a single shot to a rendezvous point in Mexico. It may be the one artistic moment in the film, most of the movie is gritty and straight forward in the way it is told.
For years my memory failed me and I believed that the money shot of the movie was a helicopter eviscerating one of the bad guys. I was completely wrong, it was not a helicopter and Bronson was not flying it, rather the bad guy gets killed by a large prop plane as he is about to shoot Duvall and Bronson. It was a very effectively staged shot and I'm not sure why I remembered it as a helicopter moment except that the helicopter is a key player in the film and maybe I just talked myself into it. If you are interested in seeing that shot, it is in the clip below.
As a Bronson film this is a little different. Charlie is avuncular rather than sullen, he is ineffectual at times rather than a model of competence, and his action scenes don't involve him in gun-play and only minor fisticuffs. While "Jaws" is often given credit for the start of blanket releasing, this picture used the same strategy of widely available prints and substantial advertising. A month before the shark movie made it a standard practice for big time Hollywood fare, "Breakout" make back it's budget and returned a profit on opening weekend .
