John Goodman – People Talking

Classic Treble – ‘Shakedown’ 🚓 ‘Bringing Out the Dead’ 🚑 ‘Trespass’ 🚒 – DON’T Call 911

Full disclosure: I have not seen these three movies in theaters recently, but, per my own review principles, I have seen them theatrically at some point in the past few years (and all on 35mm film to boot). Anyway, since I’m basically still in corona-lockdown and theatrical viewings are at a premium, and since I’m back writing again, I thought it would be fun to do a “seafood stew” and put together a sort of First Responder triple pack (with more than a little wink as I say that). Enjoy.

Written and Directed by James Glickenhaus
Cast: Peter Weller, Sam Elliott, Patricia Charbonneau, Jude Ciccolella, Blanche Baker, Antonio Fargas, Richard Brooks, John C. McGinley, Henry Judd Baker, Larry Joshua, Vondie Curtis-Hall, William Prince, Anthony Crivello, Thomas G. Waites, Paul Bartel, Holt McCallany, Walter Flanagan
Soundtrack: Jonathan Elias

Of the numerous films I’ve been introduced to at Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers over the years (I pray it re-opens at some point, any point), Shakedown by far left me with the biggest smile on my face.

Now, I know movies involving police are a tough sell right now, but hear me out, because this one actually cares about true justice.

I suppose Shakedown would qualify as a buddy cop film, it’s a somewhat debatable point, but it’s not one with two cops together (e.g. Lethal Weapon, Running Scared, etc.); it’s one of those with an odder pairing (e.g. 48 Hrs., Die Hard with a Vengeance, etc.). In fact, the protagonist of this story is actually a legal aid attorney, which bears out my notion that the heart of the movie is real justice. Sure, there’s some reel justice, too, as expected, but that’s a parallel strength of the movie (I’ll just say: Coney Island, whoa).

The only genuine weaknesses I’d say the movie has are, for one, a slight failing of budget at the very end, and there’s one scene in particular that just seems out of step with the rest of the film (it might’ve been okay as a dream sequence or something like that), but make no mistake, this is James Glickenhaus’s magnum opus. Earlier works like The Exterminator and The Soldier certainly have their entertainment value, but as far as I know nothing else he’s made is as tightly written as Shakedown, and the more times I watch it the more the quality becomes evident.

Anyway, I don’t know if Shakedown is the very last action film to shut down 42nd Street for major stunt sequences, but if it is, what a way to go out. Even more than “The Deuce” though, the movie is a treasure trove of a time capsule for pre-Giuliani New York, including the condemned West Side Elevated Highway (before it was finally torn down, obviously). Certainly a far cry from the Disneyfied city we see today.

Of course, what is a buddy cop movie without its buddies, and boy are these two a pair. Sam Elliot is just as you’d expect him, in the best way possible, but it’s still Peter Weller’s universe. In fact, I’ll go as far to say that Shakedown is PEAK Peter Weller; beyond RoboCop, and even beyond, dare I say, Buckaroo Banzai (much as I do love both those films). However, it would be unfair to not mention Patricia Charbonneau, as she turns in a strong supporting performance.

In the end though, what makes me love Shakedown is that it’s not just another buddy cop film, because it makes you think a little bit in addition to the thrills and chills. It may not be the best but it’s got a ton of personality and unique quirks, and with a budget somewhere under $10 million it punches far above its weight class. It’s under-seen and underrated and it deserves much more notoriety, especially compared to some other 80s “classics”.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Directed by Martin Scorsese
Written by Paul Schrader, based on the novel by Joe Connelly
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Patricia Arquette, John Goodman, Ving Rhames, Tom Sizemore, Marc Anthony, Mary Beth Hurt, Cliff Curtis, Nestor Serrano, Aida Turturro, Sonja Sohn, Afemo Omilami, Judy Reyes, Cullen O. Johnson, Arthur J. Nascarella, Larry Fessenden, Michael Kenneth Williams, Queen Latifah
Soundtrack: Elmer Bernstein

Now, I know what you’re thinking.

“A New York City film written by Paul Schrader, directed by Martin Scorsese, and it’s not Taxi Driver?”

Correct.

Unfortunately for poor Marty, Bringing Out the Dead was a box office bomb, which is probably why it’s never gotten a proper, loving home format release, even though it’s a film begging for a 4K Blu-ray restoration (though apparently this and Sleepy Hollow were the last films released on LaserDisc, so, that’s interesting). Frankly, it’s a shame that this movie is relegated to “hidden gem” status, because I think it’s among Scorsese’s better films; certainly better than most things he’s directed since (yeah, I’m looking at you, The Irishman).

The plot, is, well… I’d describe the whole movie as something of a fever dream. Nic Cage plays a paramedic who’s in a bad way. He’s insomnious to the point of hallucination, he’s on a cold streak of saving people, and it’s a bit of a Russian Roulette situation with who he’s paired up with on a given night. In the midst of this seemingly comes a ray of hope, when he appears to have saved a man’s life, and maybe strikes up a bit of a thing with his daughter, played by Patricia Arquette.

Though the movie was made in the late Nineties, it’s set in the drug-addled days of pre-Giuliani NYC, and the film is not afraid to comment on a number of serious issues.

What really makes it for me though is the cast and the music. Though it’s heavy at times, just about everybody seems to be reveling in their performances, and that comes through the screen; and the soundtrack (both the wonderful Elmer Bernstein score and the licensed songs) just amplifies it all.

Off the beaten path, but well worth it.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Original Release Date: December 25, 1992

Directed by Walter Hill
Written by Bob Gale & Robert Zemeckis
Cast: Bill Paxton, Ice-T, William Sadler, Ice Cube, Art Evans, De’voreaux White, Bruce A. Young, Glenn Plummer, Stoney Jackson, T.E. Russell, Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister, John Toles-Bey, Byron Minns, Tico Wells, Hal Landon Jr., James Pickens Jr., L. Warren Young
Soundtrack: Ry Cooder

Oh, you thought were we done with the heavy hitters?

Think again.

That’s right, from the creators of Back to the Future and the director of 48 Hrs. comes a tale of treasure sought, and all the pitfalls that come with it.

Now, admittedly, Trespass is the most tenuously connected film in my First Responder trilogy here, as our nominal protagonists are indeed fire fighters, but outside of one introductory scene there’s no real firefighting to be found; but, hey, this is my seafood stew.

Trespass is one of those movies that’s limited in scope, scale, and cast, but manages to be just as captivating as many a bigger film.

While fighting a fire in Fort Smith, Arkansas, our two nominal protagonists (played by Paxton and Sadler) are gifted a map to treasure in a now abandoned factory in East Saint Louis, Illinois. Unfortunately for them, the day they go to investigate happens to be the same day that a local gang (led by Ice-T and Ice Cube) happens to be executing someone on the same grounds.

You can imagine where it goes from there. Lots of tension, intrigue, criss-crosses; in fact, now that I think about it, it kind of reminds me of Green Room, except Trespass takes place in the daylight, which makes it feel more hopeless at times, though I wouldn’t say Trespass borders on horror territory like Green Room does.

In the end, it’s a nice, tight, entertaining little thriller. Not the best, but unique and different.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Movie Review – ‘Atomic Blonde’ – “Sound and Fury…”

Directed by David Leitch
Written by Kurt Johnstad, based on the Oni Press graphic novel series “The Coldest City” written by Antony Johnston and illustrated by Sam Hart
Cast: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Eddie Marsan, John Goodman, Toby Jones, James Faulkner, Roland Møller, Sofia Boutella, Bill Skarsgård, Sam Hargrave, Til Schweiger, Daniel Bernhardt
Soundtrack: Tyler Bates

When I first saw the trailer for Atomic Blonde, I wasn’t buying it, but, as time went on, it grew on me, and eventually I realized there was quite a lot to be excited for.

Behind the camera, you’ve got the uncredited co-director of the original (and still superior) John Wick, and, based on the trailer for this film, it looks like he had enough sense to pull the lens back far enough to effectively capture the action (avoiding a Jason Bourne-type situation). You’ve got one of the screenwriters of 300, someone with an understanding of adapting stylized graphic novels to the big screen (also worth noting that Tyler Bates did the musical score for 300 and both John Wicks). And, you’ve got a highly respected cast of actors dedicating themselves to what appears to be a genre piece.

So, does it work?

Well…not really, no.

I’d very much compare my experience seeing Atomic Blonde to my experience seeing Carnage Park, in that it lost me, eventually won me over, then lost me again.

I should have absolutely loved this movie: period piece, Cold War, Berlin Wall, East and West Germany, spies, Charlize Theron throwing it down, little nods here and there to other films, but, overall, it just didn’t click.

First of all, almost the entirety of the narrative is framed within a debriefing/interview/interrogation, which just feels tired (a bit film school-y at this point, honestly), but the biggest problem is that the plot is so convoluted (and needlessly so, especially for a film of this type) that by the end I didn’t even care what happened, I was just glad it was over.

Frankly, I don’t think the movie quite knows what it is. At times it feels like it’s going for a John Wick-type vibe, but it’s not quite cool enough or emotional enough to make that work, and other times it feels like it wants to be a real-life clever spy movie, but it doesn’t have enough intelligence to make that work, so, ultimately it’s just stuck in the middle of the road.

As far as the performances go, I think everyone in the cast does okay with what they’re given; nobody strikes me as an albatross, but nobody really stands out either. Even Wonder Woman had at least one character that stuck with me, even if I didn’t particularly enjoy the movie.

In terms of what works, there’s one sequence in particular in this film that people are already talking about, and it is fairly impressive in its own right, but I hesitate to call it truly groundbreaking. Beyond that, I like a lot of the trappings (production design, costumes, period television clips, cool Eighties tunes), but there’s not much else for the film to hang its hat on.

In the end, I didn’t dislike Atomic Blonde enough to give it a failing grade, because there are some good bits, but not enough to justify a theatrical experience.

Ultimately, it feels like a rental (even matinee feels high).

I’m so sorry.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
There’s no stinger, just in case you decide to not heed my advice.

Movie Review – ‘Kong: Skull Island’ – Schlock & Awe

Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Written by Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly (screenplay), and John Gatins (story)
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, John Goodman, Corey Hawkins, John Ortiz, Tian Jing, Toby Kebbell, Jason Mitchell, Shea Whigham, Thomas Mann, Miyavi, Richard Jenkins, Robert Taylor, Terry Notary (Kong motion capture)
Soundtrack: Henry Jackman

With respect to the Japanese kaiju genre (which had a fantastic entry last year in Shin Godzilla), it was American cinema that cemented the rise of giant monsters with 1933’s King Kong.

With apologies to the Japanese kaiju genre, 2014’s American Godzilla was an absolute turd on stilts.

As everything has to be a cinematic universe these days (whether we want it or not), the inevitable match-up of these two giants (echoing Toho’s 1962 effort) has been obvious for some time now. However, you can’t have a fight until both combatants have been introduced, and Kong: Skull Island is an explosive entrance that would make any pro wrestler proud.

It’s not a great film in the way that Logan or Mad Max: Fury Road are great films, but Kong: Skull Island is unquestionably a get-your-money’s-worth kind of movie. It may go too far in a few places (sometimes a little too schlocky; sometimes a little too serious), and, without spoiling anything, I’ll say it ends on a decidedly odd note, but, overall, it’s trying to entertain you, which is very much in keeping with the spirit of the original King Kong (something neither the 1976 or 2005 remakes could get quite right).

Frankly, Kong: Skull Island is everything Godzilla (2014) isn’t. It doesn’t tease you (you see Kong’s face within the first five minutes as opposed to nearly an hour for old ‘Zilla), it doesn’t bore you, it doesn’t saddle you with dull characters and bland creatures, it’s not afraid to occasionally make you laugh. and it’s got a lot of really interesting visual concepts (I enjoyed the period elements quite a bit).

It’s also big, as it should be. No doubt a good chunk of work was done on sound stages, but it appears by and large that the movie was shot outdoors in real locations (including Hawaii, much like the Jurassic Park series and Kong ’76), and I give the cast and crew a ton of credit for subjecting themselves to some rather unpleasant conditions in order to make the movie look noticeably better than many other commensurate projects these days.

If there’s one major flaw I can point to, it’s that some of the dialogue feels out of place for the early 1970s, and some of it is just downright bad (John Goodman in particular gets stuck with a lot of exposition and I’m not sure he even tried to make the best of it), not to mention some of the jokes are too on the nose, but it’s not enough to soil the entire movie. On the whole, the cast is at least adequate in its performance, with John C. Reilly charting as the most florescent in a largely comic relief role.

It has to be said that the movie deserves credit for not being just another King Kong remake, and actually doing something different with the story. Sure, it wears its influences on its sleeve (Tom Hiddleston and John C. Reilly play characters named Conrad and Marlow, respectively; got it), but if the movie’s entertaining enough (which it is), then that’s perfectly fine. It’s fresh where it needs to be and classic when called for.

Again, it’s not the best movie in the world, but if you’re looking for a big, fun, action-adventure creature feature, this one’s for you.

I don’t know that it gets me excited for the rest of the “MonsterVerse”, but Kong: Skull Island is plenty worth seeing on its own merit.

Get your popcorn ready.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Yes, there is a post-credits scene (this is a cinematic universe after all).

Movie Review: ‘The Monuments Men’ – It Just Doesn’t Work

Directed by George Clooney
Written by George Clooney & Grant Heslov, based on the book by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter
Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, Bob Balaban, Sam Hazeldine
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

You’re probably wondering why I’m choosing to talk about a film that isn’t a box office success, critical hit, or, most importantly, a new release, but this whole talking about whatever thing has to start somewhere, and I have strong opinions about this particular movie, so here we go.

First off, for the record, as a film enthusiast and someone with a history degree, I really wanted to like this movie, so it pained me dearly at the close of the film to have to admit that it just wasn’t very good, and that I wouldn’t recommend it to general audiences.

But, before I get too far in my criticism, I do want to praise this movie for what it does well, and that comes especially in the visual department. First of all, as far as I can tell, Monuments Men was shot on actual film, rather than digitally. I never imagined I’d ever be giving a movie credit for such a choice, but these days it seems as if shooting on film is viewed by most major studios as going above and beyond, which I can understand, as digital technology is just so convenient for so many reasons, not the least of which being cost; but no matter how far digital cameras have come, there are just certain projects that should be shot on actual film, period pieces especially.

(Just don’t tell that to Michael Mann. As much as I respect the guy for movies like Heat and Collateral, I’ll never understand his choice to not only shoot Public Enemies digitally, but to make that choice so obvious. I mean, would he have shot Last of the Mohicans digitally if he’d had the choice? I hope not. But I digress.)

So, from a cinematic standpoint, Monuments Men looks great: the depth, the color, etc. And what enhances this is the attention to detail paid in terms of the costumes, props, vehicles, and visual effects. I don’t know how much CGI was used in the film, but it certainly doesn’t feel like all that much, and it’s used effectively and appropriately. Frankly, I think the filmmakers made every effort to carry on without it as much as they physically could, and I commend them for that as well.

Unfortunately, other than looking great and feeling real in the visual sense, there’s not much else that Monuments Men gets right. The crux of the problem is a general lack of focus in the writing and directing, and that comes down primarily on George Clooney’s shoulders. I understand this was a passion project for him, and it’s hard to give up control of something when it’s your baby, but I think he did the movie a disservice by taking on too much responsibility.

I haven’t read the book the film is based on, so I can’t comment on the quality of the adaptation, but from a creative perspective, the movie is trying to be too many things at once (and I think it assumes the audience has read the book). It wants to be an Old Hollywood light-hearted propaganda film, while also being a by-the-book historical film, while also being a poignant commentary on the nature of war and the importance of art in our lives, and so on and so forth, to the point that the varying concepts simply collapse under their own weight, and you’re left with a flat-as-a-pancake story and characters, with very little to connect to from an audience perspective.

To put it another way, one of the biggest areas where Monuments Men fails is in the emotions. Despite a great cast, we’re not given enough time or reason to connect with the characters; so when each actor gets their individual moment to shine, none of the scenes move us, and so these moments stand in service of nothing.

In comparison, I think of a movie like Memphis Belle. There are ten men in the crew of the titular aircraft, which means there are ten men for us to care about, which can be a stretch for an audience if not handled correctly, but in Memphis Belle we’re given enough time with and information about the characters: where they come from, their personalities, and their dreams for after the war. So, when things get dramatic, we actually feel it as an audience because we know and care about these guys.

This is where choosing someone else to direct Monuments Men would have solved a lot of problems and given us a better film. Frankly, I think Steven Soderbergh would have been the perfect choice. He’s worked with George Clooney many times before, but more importantly I think he would have established one clear and consistent tone for the film, whether more straight-laced and objective, like Contagion, or a more light-hearted ensemble piece, like the Ocean’s 1X series; he certainly wouldn’t have let the movie wander around trying to be everything at once.

Alternatively, perhaps Monuments Men would have worked better as a mini-series than as a two hour movie. As I said, I haven’t read the book, but I know that certain material just doesn’t work when condensed down to such a degree (for example: most of John Le Carre’s novels). More screen time certainly would have helped to solve the issues of shallow characterization and a rushed conclusion. And as the story focuses far more on saving art as opposed to taking lives in combat, a Monuments Men miniseries could have run on an over-the-air network without concern of having to water down the violence for regular television. I can’t imagine many executives foresaw this movie doing much business overseas, so from a financial perspective I think a miniseries would have made as much sense as a feature film, if not more.

In the end, The Monuments Men is yet another movie that leaves us with the question of what might have been had different choices been made along the way. I can’t recommend it to general audiences because it’s not very good, and the average person will probably find themselves bored while watching it. But, if you’re into history like I am, or you’ve read the book and you’re curious about it, I’d recommend it as a rental. At the very least, I can say Monuments Men is not another cynical Hollywood cash grab, and though it fails in many regards, it at least tries before getting there.

★★☆☆☆
(★★½ if you’re into History)