As I am putting this post together I just read that screenwriter Robert Towne passed away Monday night at the age of 89. "Chinatown" is his masterpiece, and it certainly seems fitting that we were seeing it on the big screen at the time he was moving on to his final resting place. This is the second time we've seen the film on the big screen this year, having enjoyed it at the TCM Film Festival back in April. This year is the 50th anniversary of Chinatown, and celebrating it with multiple screenings, as well as spending time with the book "The Big Goodbye" which is primarily about the making of the movie, all seems fitting.
The screenplay of course is one of those that manages to get everything pitch perfect. We know from the background on the film that it took long battles and big arguments between screenwriter Robert Towne and director Roman Polanski, to get to the finished product. Ultimately, Towne was unhappy with the ending of the movie, which of course features tragedy rather than redemption for the heroine. I think we're lucky that Polanski won, because the final line of the movie, which everyone knows, is the perfect coda for what we have seen in the previous 2 hours.
Again we need to credit the great Jerry Goldsmith for coming in at the last minute and replacing the score with a jazz infused time period appropriate combination of horns and piano. The film just wouldn't work without that set of themes or nerve racking minor key piano notes. It's also easy to give huge kudos to the production design, which manages to make Los Angeles of the 1970s look like Los Angeles of the 1930s. I imagine that there was some graffiti removed around the Los Angeles River, certainly some traffic controlled on Alameda, and the flood control channels look a heck of a lot more pristine than they probably do today. Let me also say that every piece of clothing worn by either Faye Dunaway or Jack Nicholson, should be available for us to purchase today. I know I could rock that jacket that he's wearing in the last part of the film.
We were encouraged by the Paramount to dress up for the occasion, and although I didn't have an appropriately colored fedora, I did have a black one that worked pretty well. The tie I picked out belong to my uncle Howard, who was actually my father's uncle, and I have no doubt that he bought it sometime in the 1930s, the style is just too precious. I added some suspenders but most importantly I added a bandage to my nose to complete the picture. I got several compliments from people walking out of the theater, who appreciated a little bit of extra effort. I know I had fun and I know I love this movie.
It's always a joy seeing animation on the big screen but when it's combined with live action as effectively as is done in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", it's an even greater pleasure. This was a groundbreaking film from director Robert Zemeckis who must have twisted some arms, kissed some butt, and prayed to the movie gods to be able to have access to all of the classic cartoon characters that appear at some point or other in the film. It seems almost impossible to believe that Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny would share a scene together. But they do and it's hysterical.
The story builds on a well-known fantasy that there was a deliberate effort by car companies and the oil industry to get rid of the public transportation in Los Angeles. The rate at which the city was growing and the space that it was taking up was never going to be accommodated by the old red line, but the world is full of conspiracy theorists, and this plot takes its cue from that Old Chestnut. The most fantastic conceit in the film is that the characters are film stars who are animated and live in the real world. That means that humans and hippopotamuses are going to bump into one another. It means that that old joke where Bugs Bunny paints a line on the road to move the pursuers into crashing into a wall, can actually happen. And in this film it does.
Bob Hoskins needs more credit for the work that he did in this film. As the human private detective Eddie Valiant, Hoskins has to be handcuffed to animated Rodger Rabbit, have his hair stroked by an animated Jessica Rabbit, shake hands with a variety of cartoon characters that we will recognize from our childhood, and be the butt of some of the gags that we all knew from Saturday morning. He's terrific in this movie. So many people deserve credit for making the film work but let's not forget to mention animation director Richard Williams who managed to get animated critters to interact with human beings in a believable way.
There's so many things to admire about the movie, but I want to start with the opening cartoon which is done in a text Avery Style with characters that feel familiar but are completely original. Baby Herman and Rodger Rabbit dashing through the kitchen avoiding tragedy with every movement, and the toon ending up being targeted by just about every item in the kitchen drawers is just funny. When it breaks at the end because Roger can't come up with stars to show his concussion, rather than tweeting birds, it's a Hollywood Insider's dream.
Everyone should remember that Christopher Lloyd is not just a character actor but was an important star in the 1980s. Of course "Back to the Future", but also "Star Trek 3"," The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the 8th Dimension", and this film, where he plays Judge Doom, a cartoon masquerading as a human. His maniacal eyes, somber expression, and creepy voice almost give him away. And when the secret is out, believe me text Avery is applauding somewhere.
The film was playing at the State Theater next door to the Paramount because there was a concert being set up at the bigger venue. We had arranged to meet a couple of friends of ours from the neighborhood in front of the theater, but they were running a little late from some appointments they had on Sunday morning. Ultimately they got into their seats about 20 seconds before the film rolled. It was nice to get a chance to do something with people that we know from the neighborhood. We had a nice lunch afterwards, and Sunday afternoon is a great time for a cartoon and something to fill your belly.
I'm a fan of westerns, a genre that doesn't get much love these days. It's rare when a Western shows up in a theater, although there seem to be a plethora of them on streaming services. Actor/director Kevin Costner seems to be a fan of westerns also, he made two terrific westerns in the past, one of which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I have yet to catch up with the various seasons of Yellowstone, and having seen only the first three episodes of the first season I'm not sure how closely it hones to traditional westerns, but from what I saw it sure felt like a contemporary version of some of those old style films.
"Horizon" attempts to do something that is very ambitious, tell a story about the settling of the West, through multiple characters in simultaneous time settings. It also attempts to do this by making the characters complete and the stories unique. As a result of this attention to detail, there is a vast amount of information and story play out. This means that even a 3-hour movie will be insufficient to provide the canvas that screen writer Kevin Costner and his co-authors have come up with. Thus, this movie is only Chapter one. Chapter 2 is complete and will be coming in August, and Chapter 3 is being filled now. It doesn't look like the films will be making back the money that was invested in them, so I have some doubt about whether the fourth film in in The Saga will be completed. That is neither here nor there though, today we are talking about the first film.
From my point of view "Horizon" is managing to do something that is terrific, giving us an engaging story with a multiplicity of plot lines that all managed to engage us but in completely different ways. Some of the stories involve a mystery, that will certainly be explained as we go along. Some of the stories are a bit of a quest, mostly with characters seeking vengeance, or defying the inevitable wave of immigrants seeking a home in the West. It also looks like we are going to get some love stories, a little bit of political intrigue, and definitely more gunfights.
This first chapter opens quietly with a few souls trying to survey property that they hope to turn into a homestead. Then later, as a larger group has assembled in this particular spot, there is a massive Indian raid and and dozens of homesteaders are killed, and the animosity between the Apache's and the new immigrants is set up. Sienna Miller plays a woman whose family is decimated in the attack, and with her preteen daughter, she seeks security and safety with a troop of Calvary men not too far from where the massacre took place. Sam Worthington is the lieutenant who back ends into managing the aftermath of the Indian Massacre, he also looks to be a potential romantic partner for the newly widowed Miller.
It takes more than an hour before Kevin Costner's character appears on screen, but the roots of the conflict that he's going to become involved in were set up early in that first hour with the character played by Jenna Malone. It actually becomes quite complicated, because it is uncertain what Malone's character has done, and why. Let's just say that a toddler, a lady of the evening, and a saddle tramp are about to be connected in a very unusual way. Meanwhile we are also introduced to a wagon train filled with immigrants headed toward Horizon, which is the name of the future town that they hope to establish. They will be facing cultural disputes, personal antagonisms, along with water shortages and hostile indigenous people.
We are not seeing this story merely from the perspective of the new immigrants however. The Native Americans are having their point of view illustrated on screen as well. There is no unanimity among the natives as to how the indigenous peoples want to confront the newcomers. The oldest chief, seems ready to cave to the inevitable tide of white men coming into his territory. Two of his sons and the band of followers however have a vastly different approach to the influx of a new population.
The film looks spectacular, it was shot in Utah which has some of the most beautiful landscapes in the West. Director Costner is taking full advantage of the diversity of physical settings that are available in these locations. His character Hayes Ellison, is traveling through these vistas, accompanied by a temporary family, and pursued by another family who are out for vengeance. You can see the tension building in all of the stories, but you will not find a complete plot in this movie. It literally is a single chapter in a much larger tome.
It looks like the general critical word on this movie has been negative, but that's the polar opposite of my view. This is going to be one of the finest films of the year, and it has more ambition, interest, and compelling characters than any of the other films that I've been seeing this year. Although the movie is 3 hours long, it flies by because some of the action scenes are so compelling that you don't realize how much time has gone by. We never stay too long with one story, before another story starts playing out its events, and then we're on to the next story before you know it. As we come back to each set of characters we have an expectation that something new is going to take place, and it is usually enough to keep us wanting more.
Admittedly director Costner has cribbed substantially from The Works of John Ford, but if you're going to steal from someone it makes sense to steal from the best. Long live the Western, I can't wait for chapter 2 in August.
Once again my unconventional convention years it's time for us to visit transsexual Transylvania and the castle of our host Dr. Frankenfurter. Brad and Janet get lost on the way to visit their friend Dr. Scott and we get taken along on the journey to a forbidding Castle filled with crazy weirdos doing their native dance the time warp.
I come to this movie with a long tradition of participation in the usual Rocky Horror audience call back. I do however find that people overindulge in this particular venue with their own personally created comments and inserts, which can sometimes work well, sometimes miss the mark, and frequently can't be made out in the crowd because someone else is engaging in the same behavior. When everybody knows the call-outs and participates as a crowd it's great fun, when voices are calling out randomly and the words are running over one another and it's barely loud enough to make out any of the words but it is loud enough to drown out what's going on on the screen, that's a little bit of a problem. Although I have to admit I am usually overcome by the enthusiasm of everybody who's participating this way. So let's go ahead and indulge them a bit and hope that once in awhile there's self-created call back to the Antics on the screen will provoke a laugh.
The theater was full, lots of people dressed up, and surprisingly there were a couple of hundred people who were seeing the movie for the first time, Lucky them. We had a good time calling out the familiar chants, and singing along to the songs, but most especially cheering the arrival of characters on screen. I do think the a****** and s*** call outs are a little excessive, the first time is fine the 25th time is boring, but once again who am I to say where the line is. I can however enthusiastically cheer when Riff Raff appears in the window during the storm, when Eddie breaks out of the Deep Freeze on his motorcycle, and most especially when Frankenfurter comes down the elevator to greet his guests. This is one of the Great Moments of a character appearing on screen in all of film history. Yeah I said it and I'll defend it.
If you've never seen Rocky Horror Picture Show then you won't understand, but then what the heck are you doing reading this page anyway?
The Evil Dead series has fascinated me since I first discovered it in the early 1990s. I was aware of the films for a number of years but never bothered to investigate them, because I didn't know anybody else who had seen them. That changed one night on a Halloween when I was at a friend's party and we watched "Evil Dead 2" after the kids had gone to sleep. I laughed and screamed at the ridiculous amounts of blood, body parts, and Three Stooges jokes that were being thrown at me. These were my people.
I've seen the Evil Dead, and Army of Darkness, on the big screen multiple times. This may have only been the second or third time I have seen "Evil Dead 2" in a theater. But as with most theatrical experiences, the presence of an audience as well as the big screen, and the requirement that you stay engaged, makes the experience something that is far superior to home viewing.
I've been to two or three presentations where the "Man God" Bruce Campbell, has appeared in person to talk about the films we are watching. 3 years ago in this same theater we came for a screening of the original "Evil Dead", and Bruce was there. We had sprung for an extra couple of bucks in order to get a picture opportunity, but it was Covid and the pictures required social distancing, which makes it look a little bit like it's photoshopped. I don't care, we were in the presence of greatness. The talent of Bruce Campbell is especially on display in "Evil Dead 2". His performance involves a physicality that most actors in an action film would have a hard time achieving. In addition he has to convey some of those emotions that are going on in the character while under a layer of makeup and appliances that would make most of us cringe to think of having on our bodies. He is really quite effective and there are so many close-ups on his face that require him to communicate those emotions in a humorous way but in a way that is also quite immediate. He Nails it.
Some of the storytelling and much of the acting is deliberately ham-fisted in order to gain as much humorous power as possible. The audience last night laughed uproariously at each situation that required Ash to come up with another solution that was ridiculously violent. Most of those moments occur after he has decapitated his girlfriend with a shovel. I understand that budget limitations produced some of the slightly clunky stop motion effects in the film. I have always been a fan of stop motion special effects, I'm not sure that Ray Harryhausen would approve of the way the technique is used in the first part of the film. It's definitely brilliant, even if it isn't as polished as a Harryhausen film would be.
Even the cheesiest jokes work well in this film, because director Sam Rami, knows what he's going after. The goal is to shock and entertain the audience with the most audacious visualized or violence, and the silliest hero's journey you can imagine. There's just one word for the whole thing... groovy!
This has always been the controversial film, but especially at our house. My late wife rarely disliked movies but when she did she did so with a passion and "A Clockwork Orange" is one of the films that she loathed. The reason that makes it controversial at our house is that it's a film that I have loved since I first saw it in the mid-70s. Despite our difference of opinion on the movie I continued to watch it every few years. And last night's screening gave me a little bit more insight into why my dearly departed love disliked the film so much.
Not only is the film misanthropic it is highly misogynistic and rarely offers any sort of redemption for those attitudes. Alex DeLarge, the self-described hero and narrator of the film, is a loathsome violent criminal, who has disdain for any conventional rules, although he is capable of putting on a facade of politeness when it suits him. There are three distinct scenes where women are helpless as they're being assaulted by multiple criminals in the story. None of these woman are really given much of a chance to be a fully realized character. Although the defiance of the cat lady who is the final victim of Alex, is at least an attempt to give a female character a personality in the story.
The movie is a dystopian view of a not too distant future, and although the book was written in 1962, and the movie came out in 1971, 2024 does not feel as if it is too far in front of a world very similar to the one depicted in this story. The plot goes a long way toward trying to criticize the nearly fascist political party in charge of Britain and its criminal justice system. And although Alex suffers as a result of the treatment that he receives, it's awfully hard not to sympathize with the victim that turns the tables on him at the end of the film. The whole tone of the movie is one of cynicism directed at irredeemable youth, intransigent bureaucracy, and conniving political creatures.
As much as she disliked the film, my wife would have agreed with me about Malcolm McDowell the star of the movie. He is perfect in this movie. Director Stanley Kubrick notoriously a perfectionist, must have worked McDowell to near exhaustion to get some of the scenes that resonate so well especially in the final sections of the film. When the Minister of Justice starts hand feeding Alex in his hospital bed, he is mocked subliminally by the smacking noise that Alex makes with his mouth each time he's ready for another bite of food. The political obtuseness of the minister is one of the points of the film. There is a theme in the movie that also concerns free will, but that feels like it is only there is as justification for making us feel guilty about the treatment that Alex receives.
Alex's parole officer, is not a particularly pleasant person, but he seems to have one of the most accurate views of Alex of anyone in the film. The corrections officer at the prison, is seen as a totalitarian tool, but he also has a keen understanding of Alex, although one that is so single-minded that it seems unreasonable. And that's in spite of what we know about Alex and his character. This may be one of the faults that critics of the film justifiably point to because it makes Alex a victim when what he really is, is a monster. The feckless parents and the manipulative Justice minister are reflective of the powerless society that has allowed this sort of crime spree to exist. Kubrick, and apparently Anthony Burgess the author of the book, seem to be trying to have it both ways, abhorring the aberrant behavior of the young thugs, but also averting our eyes in horror at the brainwashing of those same thugs to condition them to be more social creatures.
The movie has the added bonus of a synthesizer heavy score that frequently manipulates classical music into its themes. There's nothing wrong with a little Beethoven to go along with your ultraviolence.
Once again we are back at the Paramount for another Summer Classic film. This time it was the first film of this season in the "Robert Rodriguez Presents Series", "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Local hero Director Robert Rodriguez chooses films that he was inspired by or has some connection to and then introduces them with behind the scenes stories and tidbits about the actors. The villain in this film was played by Ricardo Montalban, who made a couple of the "Spy Kids" movies with Rodriguez. The director noted how the question always comes up about Ricardo's physique and whether he wore a prosthetic chest piece. That is in fact Montalban's own chest, and the costume designer was so impressed with his appearance, they created costumes that accentuated his look.
Director Rodriguez also recounted the sad history of Montalban's back injury and the surgery years later that confined him to a wheelchair. Of course movie magic allowed the actor to run in one of the "Spy Kids" films and that was a nice moment that he shared with us. The director has a long list of notes in a notebook that he refers to as he prowls the stage like a tiger, not from anxiety but rather enthusiasm. He surveyed the audience and found one person who saw Star Trek II when it opened, at the same theater he had done so back in San Antonio in 1982. That audience member was presented with a nice picture book about the making of the movie. I suspect it was also autographed by our host.
"The Wrath of Khan" was a follow up to "Star Trek the Motion Picture", which was financially profitable but at a huge cost. The sequel was done with a miniscule budget in comparison, and the production was taken over by the TV unit of Paramount to hold down costs. Still, there are several great production moments in the movie, including the battles between the two starships and the Genesis Project video. There are several spots where shots are cribbed from the first movie but it is not egregious. The fact that "Khan" was a continuation of an original series episode was discussed and Rodriguez had edited together a ten minute version of the episode for us to watch before the movie.
You can read my thoughts on the movie here, and here, and here. This is a movie that I adore and every chance to see it on the big screen should be jumped at. There are two things I would like to add about the screening. Robert Rodriguez explained that another way to save costs was by skipping the more expensive Jerry Goldsmith as the film composer and hiring James Horner. The future Academy Award winning composer was the go to Roger Corman and Star Trek II was his big break. Ironically, Director Nicolas Myer said he was hired because they could not afford Goldsmith, but when Meyer returned to the series for Star Trek VI, they could no longer afford Horner.
The other thing I wanted to mention was the beautiful artwork done by Bob Peak. The prolific film poster illustrator did images for all of the original cast movies, but his work on Trek II was superb. So good in fact, that I draped myself in it for the Sunday night show.
