Classic Twofer – ‘Death Wish’ & ‘Death Wish 3’ – Bite the Big Apple (Don’t Mind the Maggots)



You might look at these two movies and say that they’re similar, and you’d be right, but they are definitely not the same.

Much like the stories of another famous fictional vigilante (Batman), the Death Wish films exist on multiple gradient scales, namely serious to cartoonish, and feel-bad to feel-good (more like feel-alright, but you get the point).

Amazingly though, these two divergent examples have the same director (a real John Glen, if you will).

Let’s get to it.

Original Release Date: July 24, 1974

Directed by Michael Winner
Written by Wendell Mayes, based on the novel by Brian Garfield
Cast: Charles Bronson, Hope Lange, Vincent Gardenia, William Redfield, Steven Keats, Stuart Margolin, Stephen Elliott, Kathleen Tolan, Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Guest, Olympia Dukakis, Paul Dooley
Soundtrack: Herbie Hancock

In contrast to the set-piece driven action films that would become the hallmark of the vigilante sub-genre, 1974’s Death Wish is much more of a bona fide drama, with interesting story choices and at least a modicum of depth to its main character (I think “protagonist” is a bit of a stretch).

Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) doesn’t even shoot anybody until nearly halfway through the film, and it’s a literal journey to get there: we start in Hawaii, with he and his wife on vacation; then they come back to the concrete jungle of New York; wife and daughter are assaulted by hoodlums (one played by Jeff Goldblum); wife dies, daughter is mentally destroyed; then Kersey goes to Arizona on a job and the client takes him to a gun club, where we learn one or two things about Paul; then he comes back to New York again and starts killing muggers, and the police investigate.

The point is though, we see Kersey’s transition from mild-mannered architect to cold-blooded assassin of the night, and it is unvarnished, if not downright ugly. People often criticize this movie as some sort of right-wing jingoistic manifesto, but I think the truth is a little more complicated. Death Wish asks you to understand Paul Kersey (if it even asks that much), not necessarily agree with him (that’s up to you). Maybe it’s just me, but whatever “fun” entertainment value the movie has comes much more from the police chasing the vigilante (especially Vincent Gardenia) than from the vigilante himself.

I should also mention that Death Wish, while a smaller scale movie, is decidedly a picture from a major studio. Not a huge budget, but on par with other comparable productions. For one thing, its New York City is all real (and in winter; rough), and there’s some production design (fake advertisements and such) that a shoot with less backing might find difficult to implement.

If I have one particular criticism, and I hate to disparage a dead man, but Steven Keats’ performance as Kersey’s son-in-law sticks out like a sore thumb. I’ll cut him some slack because I imagine it’s what the director wanted, but it takes me out of the movie every time.

All-in-all, Death Wish is probably more influential than actually great, and it’s certainly of its time, but it’s still a solid watch, and not without some remaining resonance today (sadly).

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)


Original Release Date: November 1, 1985

Directed by Michael Winner
Written by Don Jakoby, based on characters created by Brian Garfield
Cast: Charles Bronson, Deborah Raffin, Ed Lauter, Martin Balsam, Gavan O’Herlihy, Kirk Taylor, Alex Winter, Ricco Ross, Joe Gonzalez, Marina Sirtis, Barbie Wilde, Billy J. Mitchell, Manning Redwood
Soundtrack: Jimmy Page

After the feel-bad opus of Death Wish II (Want to feel just awful? Put that one on), director Michael Winner finally decided to lighten things up.

The result is 1985’s Death Wish 3.

At a time when vigilante films were already becoming live-action cartoons (Vigilante, Exterminator 2), Winner pushed the envelope even further, creating one of the ultimate “turn your brain off” action movies of the decade. Unfortunately, there’s still some of his signature sadism left in (Marina Sirtis is rightfully still bitter about it), but, compared to the previous entry, it’s downright breezy.

It’s also far more unambiguous in its storytelling than the first one: Paul Kersey comes back to New York from exile in Los Angeles; his friend Charlie gets confronted by some thugs (one played by Alex Winter) while Paul is literally on his way to visit Charlie, and so Charlie dies in Paul’s arms; Paul gets taken into police custody, but then turned loose by the police chief who knows who he is and wants him to do what he does; and before too long (end of the first act), Kersey has gone to war with the local [inexplicably multi-racial] gang.

In more contrast to the original, Death Wish 3 is (adjusted for inflation) a much cheaper movie. There’s enough actual New York City to make it plausible, but it was largely shot in London to save on costs, and thus the cast is filled with American expats (if not downright UK citizens).

Not that it matters, because while there are some minor twists and turns in the story, the most important aspect of the film is that the last fifteen minutes devolves into glorious chaos, punctuated by the fact that our protagonist is a sexagenarian.

Not the same quality as its predecessor, but entertaining in its own right.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)


There you have it. Two Death Wishes: one bad-good, one good-bad. And Bronson might be even more charming in the latter…

Classic Movie Review – ‘The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension’ – …There You Are

Original Release Date: August 10, 1984

Directed by W.D. Richter
Written by Earl Mac Rauch
Cast: Peter Weller, John Lithgow, Ellen Barkin, Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Lloyd, Lewis Smith, Rosalind Cash, Robert Ito, Pepe Serna, Ronald Lacey, Matt Clark, Clancy Brown, William Traylor, Carl Lumbly, Vincent Schiavelli, Dan Hedaya, Mariclare Costello, Bill Henderson, Damon Hines, Billy Vera, Laura Harrington, Jonathan Banks, John Ashton, Yakov Smirnoff
Soundtrack: Michael Boddicker

Speaking of not getting things, I’m not convinced there’s anyone, alive or dead, including its creators, who truly “gets” Buckaroo Banzai.

Does it matter? Hardly. I love it all the same.

Now, I have to be careful here, because this is one of those cult classics, meaning there’s been a small but loyal fanbase for a long time, and I have to admit that I’m not one of them. No, I came to this movie the way I’m sure many have in recent years: the fact that it was Spine #1 for Shout Factory’s “Shout Select” line (which also includes Shakedown and Trespass, by the way).

What can I say? They sold me on it, and I bought it (it also doesn’t hurt that it’s largely “set” in New Jersey).

But, yeah, this movie’s wild, and it throws a lot at you (I might give it a higher rating if it wasn’t so much), but thankfully it has a great ensemble cast to pull it off. This is is one of those films that if it was made a year later, there’s no way you’re getting the same caliber of cast together (e.g. Under Siege). And the quality is not just in the major players like Peter Weller and John Lithgow (though they are great in this movie), but all the way down the line to people you may not know at all, like Lewis Smith as Perfect Tommy, and people you might know now, like Jonathan Banks as the Hospital Guard.

And thanks to the cast selling the often insane-sounding dialogue, Buckaroo Banzai is the second-most quotable movie of 1984. I mean, I’m very tempted to just start quoting lines right here, right now, but I’ll refrain; just take my word for it.

Really though, what makes Buckaroo Banzai so special is that it feels so wholly original. It has its influences, to be sure, but I personally have a hard time making straight line connections where I can say, “This thing comes from that thing.” The sad part is that there was some really petty interference from the executive producer that ended up holding the movie back just enough, perhaps none greater than firing the original cinematographer, Jordan Cronenweth (he shot a little movie you may have heard of called BLADE RUNNER).

Still, for me, Buckaroo Banzai is one of those movies that’s a great litmus test for people. As I said, nobody “gets” it, but if somebody else really likes it, there’s a pretty good chance we’re going to get along. It’s fun, it’s bonkers, it’s just a touch romantic, there’s some really unique sci-fi elements, and it’s only 103 minutes.

What a shame it never got a sequel.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say?  I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed.  Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

 

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath.  What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with.  I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style.  You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does.  It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts.  Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem.  The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering).  Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Movie Review – ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ – Kiwi Fried Goodness


Directed by Taika Waititi
Written by Eric Pearson and Craig Kyle & Christopher Yost, based on the comics by Stan Lee & Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch, Taika Waititi (voice), Rachel House, Clancy Brown (voice), Tadanobu Asano, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, Luke Hemsworth, Sam Neill, Cohen Holloway, Matt Damon
Soundtrack: Mark Mothersbaugh

To be honest, I’m a bit superhero-ed out right now.  I don’t think I’ll be able to get up for Justice League, or Black Panther, but I’ve got just enough in the tank to be excited for this, because it’s a known fact that the Marvel Cinematic Universe benefits from getting a little wild from time to time.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man: Homecoming: all a bit nutty, a bit weird, and all wonderful (and all helmed by non-“name” directors, who Marvel came to terms with before shooting); and as I well know, if you really want to get your freak on, you pass things off to Taika Waititi.

Director of such films as What We Do in the Shadows, and the criminally underrated Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Taika Waititi knows how to provide his audience with a good, fun time, without making a complete farce of things (not unlike Edgar Wright, though they are definitely not the same; growing up on opposite sides of the globe will have that effect), and Thor: Ragnarok is no exception.

This is not to say that we have a perfect film on our hands (for one thing, I’m not sure it stands up entirely on its own, which I’m something of a stickler about), but it’s definitely worth the price of admission.

The strength of Thor: Ragnarok lies largely in its tone and its humor (shocker, I know), to the point that the action bits are probably the least interesting thing about the movie.

Of course, none of this would work without quality performances (including a bit of a scene-stealer from Waititi himself).  Chris Hemsworth, if he wasn’t already, seems perfectly comfortable in his Thor suit; same for Tom Hiddleston as Loki; Cate Blanchett is clearly having a blast (and is darkly fetching); Idris Elba does fine with what little he has; Tessa Thompson makes for an interesting addition; Karl Urban brings a surprising amount of gravitas to what could easily be a throwaway role; Mark Ruffalo is Mark Ruffalo (in the same way that RDJ is RDJ); but the man himself, Jeff Goldblum, is truly the straw that stirs the drink (so much so that one of my disappointments is that he’s not in the movie more).

Thor: Ragnarok won’t work for everybody, I recognize that (I already said it wasn’t perfect); not everyone will jibe with its particular sense of humor, but, by-and-large, I think most people will experience this as the fun romp it is

After all, you don’t want to be taking all this comic book stuff too seriously now, do you?

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Of course there are stingers; why are you asking?