Classic Movie Review – ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll High School’ – All Hopped Up and Ready to Go

Original Release Date: April 20, 1979

Directed by Allan Arkush
Written by Richard Whitley & Russ Dvonch and Joseph McBride (screenplay), Joe Dante & Allan Arkush (story)
Cast: P. J. Soles, Vince Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Mary Woronov, Paul Bartel, Dick Miller, Don Steele, The Ramones

I have to admit, I am very inclined to like this film, because it’s directed by, not just New Jersey’s own, but a fellow Bergen County kid, Allan Arkush.

Arkush went to Fort Lee High School in the 1960s, and used to daydream that The Beatles or The Rolling Stones would show up one day and play for the students in the school’s courtyard.

Fast forward a decade or so, and he slowly but surely convinced Roger Corman to morph one of his usual exploitation scripts (reportedly titled Girls’ Gym; I can’t possibly imagine what that would have been about) into a PG-rated rock and roll musical.

Add a healthy dash of Punk, and you’ve got Rock ‘n’ Roll High School.

Now, look, I don’t think the movie is great, and I’m not sure it even really qualifies as a cultural touchstone, but what it is is a whole lot of fun, so if you can vibe with it on that level, you’ll enjoy it just fine. Some of the humor is dated, to be sure, but I think Arkush has a fairly unique sense of comedy. I’d compare it to UHF, but whereas that movie really only gets surreal during the fantasy sequences, Arkush is unafraid to push farcical elements into the world of his movie (this equally applies to his Get Crazy, which is sadly near-impossible to find on home format).

On a slightly more serious note, the centerpiece of the film is a Ramones concert at the Roxy, where we get about ten minutes (so, you know, five songs) of “live” musical performance (in contrast to the more fantastical music segments), and that is great. I’m not sure if the audio was recorded live or not, but at the very least they’re not just syncing to the original recordings of the songs.

Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t even mention the star of the movie, P.J. Soles as Riff Randell. She’s spunky, she’s funky, she’s coolly rebellious; everything you need in a protagonist for this movie (although, to be honest, I found myself gazing more at her friend Kate, played by Dey Young). And, naturally, as this is a Roger Corman production, Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov are there in wonderful supporting roles (as well as a cameo from Dick Miller).

All-in-all, as I said, it’s fun, and that’s all it really needs to be.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)


P.S.
Even though I got stuck in traffic and wasn’t a particular happy camper by the time I got there, I was so glad I made the trip to the Mahoning Drive-In to see this, as we were treated to a brief in-character bit from Clint Howard, and a beefy introduction from Allan Arkush himself. It was a lovely experience that I’m sure I’ll think of now whenever I’m reminded of the movie.

Movie Review – ‘Solo: A Star Wars Story’ – A Boy and His Mawg

Directed by Ron Howard
Written by Jonathan KasdanLawrence Kasdan
Cast: Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Joonas Suotamo, Paul Bettany, Erin Kellyman, Jon Favreau, Linda Hunt, Clint Howard
Soundtrack: John Powell

It’s been a pretty rough ride for me as a Star Wars fan the past few years.

For sure, The Force Awakens was a near-perfect way to jump-start the franchise after the ignominy of the Prequels, but my faith in Disney to carry the torch was quickly shattered by the hot mess that was Rogue One, followed by the terribly inconsistent The Last Jedi, leaving me with little-to-no hope for the future.

Combine all of this with the very public behind-the-scenes drama for Solo, and, well, let’s just say I was not expecting much.

To my surprise though, I actually rather enjoyed this one.

It’s far from perfect, and it contains many of the same elements that bothered me about the previous two films in the franchise, but the core story and the way it’s executed is, for the most part, fun and exciting enough to overcome the inevitable embarrassing fan service that Disney feels compelled to shove in.

In fact, in a lot of ways, Solo is what Rogue One should have been (not that either one needed to be made, but you get the point).

For one thing (and not to give too much away), I love that the story is much smaller in scale compared to any previous Star Wars movie.  Nobody has to blow up a giant death ball or anything like that, and they finally managed to get away from the trope of the big end battle.  Sure, we’re still doing some planet-hopping, but the plot feels much more like a cohesive story than merely a series of things that happen.

Secondly, and this is especially in opposition to Rogue One, Solo has characters you actually care about.  Do I necessarily buy Alden Ehrenreich as “young HAN SOLO”?  Perhaps not (and don’t even get me started on that nerd who plays Lando), but, again, the script is strong enough that it almost doesn’t matter.  You could strip away all the names people know and still have an enjoyable movie.

We may never know exactly what or how much he’s responsible for, but, nevertheless, kudos to Ron Howard for stepping into a bad situation and making it work, because this film could have easily been a catastrophe and the fact that it’s actually worth watching is borderline miraculous.

Of course though, he had plenty of help.

One element that helps pull the movie together (and which was a let down in Rogue One) is the score.  There are some John Williams queues sprinkled in here-and-there (appropriately so), but even the original music from composer John Powell just feels like Star Wars (in a good way).

Also, and this is something I don’t always mention when it comes to blockbuster movies these days, I thought the production design and visual effects were absolutely spot on (except maybe for some wonky-looking TIE fighters, but I can forgive that).  They’re often aided by some wonderful location choices, but, again, given the drama and the reshoots, I was surprised to see it all look so seamless (although the beginning of the film does have some strange lighting that I wan’t a fan of, but that’s not on them).

In the end, I suppose the most credit goes to screenwriters Johnathan and Lawrence Kasdan, and the fact that they fought for their creative vision.

I’m not going to call it a must-watch theatrical experience, but if you’ve been as frustrated as I have waiting for a Star Wars movie that doesn’t feel like a funeral dirge and actually does some different things, then Solo is definitely worth checking out.

It’s probably a bit over-long, but there were a number of nice, long stretches where I just sat back and enjoyed the film, which I haven’t been able to say of Star Wars since The Force Awakens.

Am I grading it on a bit of a curve because of what went on behind the scenes?  Sure.

But what’s an extra half star among friends, eh?

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
As usual, shoutout to Alamo/Mondo for the swag.

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘RussellMania’: The Kurt Russell Marathon – Land of the Free

Another Super Bowl Saturday, another actor marathon at Alamo Drafthouse YonkersCaged, Stallone Zone, Van DammageBurt Day, ‘HEY, ARNOLD!‘, and now, RussellMania 2018.

I had sky high hopes for this one, but for the first time in attending these events, I actually left fairly disappointed.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Kurt Russell, I love my new hat, and I got to see four movies I had never seen before (which I do place a certain value on), but overall it just wasn’t quite the same enjoyable ride I’ve become accustomed to over the past five years.

The man himself needs no introduction though, so let’s get into these movies.

 

Movie #1: Tango & Cash (1989)

Right off the bat, I was wrong.

Seeing as how this film lead off Stallone Zone (click the link to read the Tango & Cash review), I figured there was no way we’d see it again here, but, as I said, I was wrong.

I will say, it was interesting watching it again as a Kurt Russell movie rather than a Stallone movie, but I don’t really have anything more to say now than I did in 2014.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Movie #2: Breakdown (1997)

I remember my cousin putting this on once at my aunt and uncle’s house, probably around the time it first hit DVD (which was technology beyond my imagination at the time), only I don’t think I watched past the first half hour or so, so I never realized until seeing it on the big screen that Breakdown turns into an action movie by the end (spoilers?).

Before that though, the movie feels extremely Hitchcockian, so much so that you could believe it’s a remake of something Hitch actually made (though to my knowledge it is not and I’ll happily give full credit to writer/director Jonathan Mostow).  The story’s simple enough (I’d actually make a gentle comparison to The Belko Experiment, just in terms of imagining yourself in the same situation), and it doesn’t fall into the trap of becoming too twisty, which I appreciated.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal taste as to whether or not the third act works for you.  I’m okay with it, but I understand others feeling somewhat betrayed by it.

Either way though, I’d still say it’s solid.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #3: Used Cars (1980)

Before Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale made one of the greatest movies of all time (review here), they had a string of less successful endeavors (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, 1941), culminating with 1980’s Used Cars (although they did write one of my favorite episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker).

Used Cars isn’t great, and its definitely a touch bloated, but it’s not without its charms.  For one thing, it’s Kurt’s first R-rated performance, which is interesting to see at odds with his still-lingering Disney good guy persona, and it’s got Jack Warden doing some classic one-actor-playing-twin-brothers schtick, and a good amount of the satirical humor still holds up today.

It also hearkens back to a time when comedy wasn’t strictly a bargain basement genre and studios weren’t afraid to throw in a little more production value when necessary, even for an non-family friendly comedy.

Not everybody will fully enjoy Used Cars because it’s such a product of its time, but for me, that’s why I found it interesting and why I’d give it another watch someday.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #4: Executive Decision (1996)

Speaking of the kinds of movies that don’t get made anymore, let’s talk Executive Decision (which is one I was hoping for, for better or worse).

Stuff like this just has a certain je ne sais quoi that feels missing from Hollywood of the present (the fact that it was made pre-9/11 definitely has something to do with that).  It’s not like we have a dearth of action movies these days, but Executive Decision takes itself seriously in both story and tone where a movie today would have a wink and a nod (it’s no surprise that the last similar example I can think of, Behind Enemy Lines, was also a story by Jim and John Thomas).

I think it’s fair to say that Kurt plays against type here, at least relative to the “action man” roles he was known for at the time, but, even in a lame tuxedo and nerdy spectacles, he’s still cooler than we could ever dream of being.

“All-star cast” may be a stretch (it’s no Airport ’77), but, at the time, Executive Decision certainly had a mix of experienced pros and hot up-and-comers (most notably Halle Berry).  Given that it’s a 90s action movie, I’ll say everyone does a fine job.

That said, let’s call it what it is, “Die Hard on a plane.”

Still worth a watch though, just get comfortable.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #5: Escape from L.A. (1996)

This is not how I wanted the day to end.

I don’t want to merely compare this movie to Escape from New York, but I don’t think it leaves you with much of a choice.

Honestly, Escape from L.A. is depressingly bad in comparison to its predecessor.  New York was a low-budget underdog that managed to find an audience and punch a bit above its weight class.  It stands on its reputation more so than its actual quality, but at the same time it was a fairly progressive movie in terms of film-making, what with the use of the Panaglide (an early “cousin” of the Steadicam) and new techniques that allowed Dean Cundey to shoot many city blocks deep using only streetlamps for lighting; not to mention how the film allowed Kurt Russell to truly pivot away from his Disney comedy roots.

On the other hand, L.A. is essentially The Asylum version of New York, with a copy-and-paste script, horrendous CGI effects, and terribly cheesy performances.  In fact, the only element you can point to as being better than the original is the fact that they shot a scene at the real L.A. Coliseum, but the movie is still so terrible that it doesn’t even matter.

Escape from L.A. is awful, it was rightfully a box office bomb, and if you truly love Escape from New York, you should never ever watch it.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

 

So, there you have it.  Not the best day, but definitely not all bad.  Just kind of middling, and therefore not what I expected given Kurt’s body of work.

I guess they can’t all be winners.

 

This hat though, this hat is a winner.

Quick Thoughts – November Round-Up, Part 1

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)

It seems like every major holiday gets plenty of love from the motion picture industry, except Thanksgiving.

I mean, other than Blood Rage (aka Nightmare at Shadow Woods), that fake [TOTALLY NSFW] trailer from Grindhouse, and Prisoners, I can’t think of a single other movie that takes place around the true American holiday.  And that’s not to say that this movie even is a Thanksgiving movie, because it’s really more about one man’s quest to get home for the holiday (and the traveling partner he happens to get stuck with).

I’m going to guess that Planes, Trains & Automobiles doesn’t hold up for everyone, but it still works for me, and if you’ve ever had a nightmare travelling experience, I’m guessing it’ll work for you, too.  Somewhere, perhaps rotting away in a vault, is a two hour cut of this film that I’d love to see (you can tell because the trailer has a ton of stuff that’s not in the final cut), but the version we have available is a nice, tight ninety-minute comedy that never overstays its welcome, no matter how much our two leads get on each others’ nerves.

I know it’s cliche because I overuse it myself, but they don’t make movies like this much anymore.  The comedy genre, not unlike horror, has been largely relegated to the discount bin, only being made if the studio can do it on the cheap.  In contrast, this movie has scope, and a budget to back it up.  After all, no airline, railroad, or rental car company would lend their likeness only to be depicted as incompetent, so the production had to essentially create their own.

But, hey, comedy comes down to comedy, right?  Fortunately, John Candy and Steve Martin are at peak performance with their respective shticks (an over-talker for Candy and a curmudgeon for Martin), but they’re also both adept at keeping things real when the moment calls for it.

This is a very good comedy film (particularly one that doesn’t involve science fiction or supernatural elements) from a decade that’s chock full of good to great ones.  It may leave you with more questions than answers (like, who is Del Griffith, really?), but I suppose it’s more about the journey than the destination.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

I remember watching this on Netflix a while back and thinking it was just okay, but upon further review (perhaps having my expectations more properly calibrated), Assault on Precinct 13 is a pretty good little movie.

Taking huge inspiration from the Howard Hawks-directed, John Wayne-starring siege westerns (Rio Bravo, El Dorado, and Rio Lobo) and upgrading the setting to modern day (as of 1976) Los Angeles, 13 is the tale of a ragtag group consisting of a CHP lieutenant, a pair of secretaries, and a few prisoners, trapped inside a nearly-closed police station and fighting for survival against a seemingly endless storm of gang members bent on revenge.

It’s not a perfect movie, but I give it ample credit for squeezing as much out of its low budget as it possibly could have (especially that wonderful synth score), and there’s one scene in particular, love it or hate it, that few would dare to even try these days.

The action might be a bit clunky (although there is That One wonderful shot), but the tension is expertly built, and the characters are interesting enough to get you through.  Even without much star power at work, I give Assault on Precinct 13 a solid recommendation (you know, just don’t expect Commando).

Rating: ★★★½

All the President’s Men (1976)

People will probably try to discredit me for saying this, but All the President’s Men doesn’t hold up that well.

Yes, it’s an important story in American history, and, yes, it demonstrates the value of a free and unfettered press, but, if you weren’t alive and conscious at the time of Watergate, there’s a lot you might miss.

I’m going to compare this movie to a similar one made nearly four decades later, that being Spotlight.  Now, I admit, I may be generationally biased here, but, the way I see it, Spotlight assumes you don’t know anything about the story, so, as it plays out, things that are significant feel significant because the movie has explained why they are significant.  All the President’s Men doesn’t necessarily play out like this, so, if you don’t know certain names, places, or abbreviations, things could fly right over your head without you even knowing.

However, the film does boast an impressive cast, Robert Redford in particular is wonderfully subtle, and, like Spotlight, the cinematography is probably underrated (lots of split diopter shots, which I’m always a fan of).

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Misery (1990)

Like All the President’s Men, Misery is a William Goldman screenplay adapted from an existing book.

Unlike All the President’s Men, nothing in Misery ever happened (that we know of).

I’ve said this before in relation to Coming to America, but everybody involved with Misery was firing on all cylinders.  Rob Reiner was coming off of directing When Harry Met Sally, William Goldman’s previous screenplay was The Princess Bride (also directed by Reiner), James Caan gives a magnificent performance in something of a comeback role, and Kathy Bates skyrocketed into the public eye with her Oscar-winning portrayal of Annie Wilkes; not to mention Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen doing top-notch character work.  Also, this was cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld’s last movie as a director of photography before moving to the big director’s chair, and it’s some of his finest work; mostly claustrophobic (it’s of little surprise that Misery was recently adapted for the stage, given the mostly limited setting), but also panoramic when called for.

Many great thrillers are dark comedies at heart (Hitchcock knew this well, and the Coens are still doing it), and this one is no exception.  As horrifying as things become, there’s usually a spoonful of sugar mixed in to keep things from veering into complete, well, misery territory.

Given the hit-or-miss nature of Stephen King film adaptations, Misery is clearly among the best (and Reiner hit paydirt twice, also directing Stand By Me).

It’s a work of art, plain and simple.

Rating: ★★★★½

The Paper (1994)

Ron Howard has made so many movies and worked with so many people that you probably don’t even know (or realize) half the stuff he’s directed.

The Paper likely falls into that category.

Howard’s filmography is largely dominated by Tom Hanks, but before they made their big Splash together (Oh, no.  Am I turning into Gene Shalit?), there was another comedic actor who helped put “Ron Howard: Director” on the map, that being Michael Keaton (in another little movie you might not know called Night Shift).

I’m going to call The Paper a “Kitchen Sink Dramedy” because, while the movie clearly has a sense of humor, there are so many dramatic elements thrown in that I couldn’t possibly list them all here (just to name a few: job interview, cancer, wrongful arrest).  And, if all that wasn’t enough, everything takes place in a 24-hour period (like After Hours but with an actual point, I think).

And it’s not just the script that’s fully loaded, as the cast list is long and distinguished (including Jason Robards as a newspaper executive…sounds familiar), with a heavy mix of established stars, “that guy” actors, and now notable people in before-they-were famous roles (not to mention one shot that’s literally just a wall of cameos).  An ensemble if there ever was one.

The Paper is far from a perfect film, and I imagine it would be a bit too cornball for some to handle (frankly, the movie is achingly Nineties), but I recommend it, especially for those curious about the business of newspapers (it has a reputation among journalists of being true to life despite its over-the-top nature).

Rating: ★★★½