New and Old Twofer – ‘Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood’ and ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ (1979) – Friends Forever


These two movies don’t have anything intrinsically in common (other than friendship being at the core), but with all the talk about Tarantino’s next (and last) film quite possibly being an R-rated Star Trek movie, I figured why not pair these up.

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Julia Butters, Austin Butler, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Mike Moh, Luke Perry, Damian Lewis, Al Pacino, Brenda Vaccaro, Kurt Russell, Zoë Bell, Lorenza Izzo, Rebecca Gayheart, Michael Madsen, Martin Kove, James Remar, Clifton Collins Jr., Scoot McNairy, Marco Rodriguez, Keith Jefferson, Eddie Perez, Maurice Compte, Lew Temple, Samantha Robinson, Daniella Pick, Spencer Garrett, Damon Herriman, Lena Dunham, Rafał Zawierucha, Nicholas Hammond, Costa Ronin, Rumer Willis, Dreama Walker, Rachel Redleaf, Rebecca Rittenhouse, Ramón Franco, Clu Gulager, Kate Berlant

When I first heard that Quentin Tarantino’s new film would be dealing with, you know, that whole Charles Manson and his crazy killer hippie family thing, I was a bit disappointed, as it’s a subject matter well-worn in media portrayal, and, despite Tarantino’s talent, I was hoping for some ground far less traveled.

Silly me, I should have expected the unexpected from the very beginning, though I did go into the film fairly wide-eyed as I couldn’t glean much from the marketing as to what the movie would truly be.

I won’t do a deep dive into Tarantino’s career here (I’ve already done it over here), but I’m not sure it’s really necessary anyway, as Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood is the most uniquely different film he’s ever made; even more a radical departure than Jackie Brown. For one, it’s, well, I’ll call it a comedic fairy tale. Yes, it takes place in the reel world of 1969, and yes, there are scenes of drama and tension, but on balance, Hollywood is a comedy, and a rather wistful one at that (as wistful as Tarantino can manage, anyway).

At the core though is the friendship between shy, stammering actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his cocksure stuntman, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who are wonderful both together and separately. And of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Margot Robbie, who may not be Sharon Tate, but puts in an admirable portrayal nonetheless.

Really though, what I loved most was the reveling in the world of the film, and the amazing attention to detail in production design, costuming, sets, props, music, television, etc; and the way it blends the fictional with the factual is just fantastic (and since you don’t have anyone playing themselves, you don’t run into a situation like Robert Altman’s The Player, where you have to keep track of who’s a character and who isn’t).

It’s not a perfect comparison, but I got some American Graffiti vibes from this film, in the sense that it’s a tribute to a particular time and place, and it’s mostly a hangout movie that jumps around between a few different characters.

And that’s just fine by me.

Go see it, especially if you can catch it on film.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)


Original Release Date: December 8, 1979

Directed by Robert Wise
Written
by Harold Livingston (screenplay) and Alan Dean Foster (story), based on the television series created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Persis Khambatta, Stephen Collins, Majel Barrett, Grace Lee Whitney, David Gautreaux, Marcy Lafferty, Jon Rashad Kamal, Mark Lenard, Tom Morga
Soundtrack: Jerry Goldsmith

Much like its pop culture counterpart, Star Wars, it’s difficult in 2019 to imagine a time when there was an achingly finite amount of Star Trek content, but that was exactly the case forty years ago.

After the cancellation of The Original Series in 1969 (there’s that year again), Star Trek was able find a larger and more dedicated following in syndication, enough to have most of the original cast (and writing staff) return for twenty-two episodes of the Emmy-winning Animated Series in 1973-74, but it would take another five years (and multiple fits and starts) before the much-anticipated live-action reunion would happen.

And so, when you see Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and wonder why so much of the first act consists of beauty shots of the starship Enterprise, remember two things:

A. The fans had been waiting ten years for this.
and
B. At the time, it was the most expensive movie ever made, so you can bet the filmmakers were going to milk every ounce out of their new spaceship toys (especially when The Original Series went out on much smaller screens and in much lower resolution than we’re used to today).

If 1981 was the Year of the Wolf (An American Werewolf in London, The Howling, and Wolfen), then 1979 was the Year of SPACE, as you had Paramount’s Star Trek, United Artists’ Moonraker, 20th Century Fox’s Alien, and Disney’s The Black Hole; all undoubtedly spurred on by the success of Star Wars in 1977, yet all unique in their own way, and in the case of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it is unabashedly a big screen, big budget version of the TV show, which is exactly why I love it (and all real Star Trek fans should).

In fact, other than Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, The Motion Picture comes the closest to matching the tone and spirit of The Original Series; and yet, it’s got a bit of a different twist, because much like the audience, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have all aged, grown, and moved on to other stations in life, so while it does eventually become the happy reunion we want, it’s more than a bit tense for a while as both the characters and the audience try to work things out.

Plot-wise, even though this is a forty-year old film, I still won’t spoil it, but, hey, it’s Star Trek. There’s a thing in space and they have to investigate. Boom.

Getting back to what makes the movie great though, other than the characters and the incredible visual spectacle, Jerry Goldsmith absolutely knocked it out of the park with his score. I doubt he could have realized at the time how influential it would be, because not only would the main theme be used for other films and, most notably, The Next Generation TV series, but it wouldn’t shock me to learn his Klingon theme is still being used today.

Lastly, for a film that’s often written off as a “failure,” The Motion Picture actually made plenty of money (#4 for the year at the box office both domestically and worldwide), the problem was that Paramount expected a bigger return on their $46 million investment, and Gene Roddenberry was blamed for the cost overruns (not to mention the mixed critical reviews), leading to his being promoted out of creative control and handing the production reigns to Harve Bennett, who worked with relatively meager budgets in comparison.

Still, thanks to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, we got five more sequels with the original cast, and, in fact, some of the groundwork for Next Generation was actually laid for this film first (most notably Decker and Ilia led to Riker and Troi).

I love it, I’m so glad I got to see it on the big screen at Alamo Drafthouse, and thanks to Fathom Events you’ll be able to see it later this year, too, so, do yourself a favor and go check it out!

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

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.

Movie Review – ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’ – But Wait, There’s More!

Written and Directed by James Gunn
Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Tommy Flanagan
Soundtrack: Tyler Bates

On a personal note, I suppose I should have titled this ‘The People Talking 200th Review 3-Year Anniversary Special’, because it’s been three years since I started this blog, and this is the 200th movie I’m discussing and giving a rating to, but that would be a bit long-winded.

It’s also fitting that Guardians of the Galaxy was my favorite movie of 2014, and still my favorite movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It was a surprise hit (certainly a surprise to the studio, who, based on the marketing, clearly had no idea what they had or what to do with it) that benefited from strong word of mouth (similar to another 2014 movie which just had a sequel).  In all honesty, it wasn’t until The Force Awakens that any other movie gave me the same vibes as watching the original Star Wars trilogy when I was a kid; Guardians was that magical.

Enter Vol. 2.  This one can’t sneak up on people.  They know what it is, the studio knows what it is, and with proper hype comes the weight of expectations, unfair or not.

Basically, what I’m saying is that if you’re going into this one expecting it to be “as good” as the first one, you shouldn’t do that, as you’ll likely not have your expectations fulfilled, though all of this is not to say that Vol. 2 isn’t a very good movie in its own right, because it is.  I’d say just don’t expect it to be the exact same movie, because it isn’t.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is eminently entertaining; filled with humor, action (though seemingly less so than other films of its ilk, which I’m okay with), emotional depth, and humor.  Did I say humor twice?  You bet I did.  It’s the funniest movie I’ve seen in a while (so funny that I have to see it again because we were laughing so much), though, again, that’s not to say everything is a joke; it tugs at your heartstrings plenty.

If I have one legitimate criticism in comparing it to the first movie, it’s that the pacing and structure feels a bit clunky at times, but there’s not much else I can complain about.  It still has tunes, the performances are still on point, the story is fine, it’s different and weird (which we know to be a good thing for Marvel), and it’s FUN (and it’s well-written enough that you can still understand it even if you’ve never seen a Marvel movie before, unlike another recent Disney product).  AND, it takes a page out of the Fast & Furious playbook with the whole #FAMILY thing (which is fine by me).

Vol. 2 is not a perfect film, and it doesn’t necessarily improve on anything, but it is very well crafted; top notch as far as sequels go.  It’s not likely to be my favorite movie of the year, given what’s come out already and what’s yet to be released, but it’s more than good enough to get a full theatrical recommendation.

Kudos to James Gunn for keeping the magic going.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
You won’t be leaving at all during the credits.

And thanks to Alamo and Mondo for the sweet glasses.

Movie Review – ‘The Fate of the Furious’ – Stylistically Designed To Be That Way

Directed by F. Gary Gray
Written by Chris Morgan
 based on characters created by Gary Scott Thompson
Cast: Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Charlize Theron, Kurt Russell, Nathalie Emmanuel, Luke Evans, Elsa Pataky, Kristofer Hivju, Scott Eastwood, Patrick St. Esprit, Olek Krupa, Tego Calderon, Don Omar, Helen Mirren
Soundtrack: Brian Tyler

I can’t imagine all the way back in 2001 when Rob Cohen was directing The Fast and The Furious that he had any idea his little “Point Break with street racing” movie would eventually evolve into a series of roided-out Italian Jobs (fun fact: the 2003 remake was also directed by F. Gary Gray), let alone whatever The Fate of the Furious is (not to mention F&F is the most successful franchise in Universal’s history).  At this point we’ve gone past full-circle and have left orbit on an entirely new trajectory, one that, frankly, I’m not entirely comfortable with.

Again, “Most movies have problems unless you’re Ghost Busters or The Rocketeer,” but The Fate of The Furious has some deep issues.

First of all, I said in my review of Furious 7 that I hope the series doesn’t continue on without Paul Walker, and I now feel completely justified.  His absence is painfully obvious, and a reference to him by the characters is only salt in the wound.  It’s a tough spot to be in, but, I can’t help thinking it should’ve been handled better.

Secondly, this movie finally manages to go too far in a few places (in a bad way), namely shakycam, magical hacking, and scenes that just make you wonder, “How did we arrive here with this franchise?”  I mean, I’ve looked the other way on certain square pegs being hammered into round holes to make these movies fit together, but there’s a limit, and F8 reached it.  I don’t mind hand-to-hand combat and gunplay in my action movies, but there was an inappropriate amount of it for this crew.

Worst of all though, this movie got too dark for me (sometimes literally), at least in terms of what the franchise is.  For sure, serious things have happened before in the F&F universe (characters have been killed, family members threatened, etc.), but, again, this one went too far.  I’m a little tired of the dark, gritty Nolan-ization of Hollywood in general (not that I don’t love Christopher Nolan, but not everything has the be The Dark Knight), but I never expected Fast & Furious to go that hard in the paint.  At a certain point, I actually said to myself while watching F8, “I’m not having fun anymore.  Remember when these movies were fun?”

All that said…

Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN.

Despite all of its flaws (including a lackluster performance from Charlize Theron, though I don’t necessarily blame her), I think I did enjoy this movie overall.  I certainly didn’t feel ripped off in the end.  It’s obviously flawed, and it’s on the bottom end of Fast & Furious movies, but there’s enough total entertainment value (aka things that are over the top in a good way) for me to give it more than a non-recommendation, provided you know what you’re getting into going in.

Catch it on a matinee if you want to be safe, but I won’t talk you out of seeing it.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)