Cool Hand Luke MOTM on the Lambcast

They let me play in the Prison Yard for this one.

Mechanic Resurrection

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.

Gene Wilder Double Feature: Farewell

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.

Lawrence of Arabia at the Cinerama Dome

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. 

Don't Breathe

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.

Charles Bronson Film Festival: The Mechanic (1972)

[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.

 

Charles Bronson Film Festival: Death Wish

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.