Nick Barbaro – People Talking

Classic Twofer – ‘Cruising’ & ‘Hit List’ – Red Light, Red Light

Original Release Date: February 15, 1980
Written and Directed by William Friedkin, based on the novel of the same name by Gerald Walker
Cast: Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, Karen Allen, Richard Cox, Don Scardino, Joe Spinell, Jay Acovone, Randy Jurgensen, Barton Heyman, Gene Davis, Allan Miller, Sonny Grosso, Ed O’Neill, James Remar, William Russ, Mike Starr, Powers Boothe
Soundtrack: Jack Nitzsche

It’s virtually impossible to talk about this movie without at least some discussion of the controversy surrounding it, so I won’t pretend to ignore it.

The plot of ‘Cruising’ involves a serial killer targeting gay men in the Lower Manhattan S&M scene (which may or may not still exist today; I have a distinct lack of expertise in this area), and the effort to bring him to justice by a young undercover cop (played by Al Pacino). Needless to say, many in the gay community were outraged at what they perceived to be an unfair portrayal, and, in fact, the protests during filming were so vigorous that none of the audio from outdoor night shoots was usable. Combined with the fact that much of America was not ready for any sort of look at homosexuality, let alone such a lurid and peculiar slice of it, it’s easy to see how ‘Cruising’ was a critical and commercial nightmare waiting to happen (although it did just fine in Europe).

Based on the novel of the same name (though reportedly in title only), but more so based on the real-life experiences of former NYPD detective Randy Jurgensen (the film’s technical adviser and one of the supporting actors, with whom there was a Q&A with after the screening), ‘Cruising’ is a movie that is not without its issues. The third act especially becomes somewhat disjointed, and character motivations become frustratingly hazy (not to mention Karen Allen is basically given nothing to do). And yet, despite all of its flaws, ‘Cruising’ is a movie I would absolutely watch again in the future, even if I can’t fully articulate why.

One reason is that buried under all of the layers of controversy and shock value are a wonderfully subtle performance from Al Pacino (one of the last times audiences got to see him before he became a self-caricature, which I’m not complaining about, just saying), a beautifully eclectic musical soundtrack (including some really great stuff from Willy DeVille), and a reasonably effective crime thriller story. Add in a lot of name actors in before-they-were-famous roles, along with more than a pinch of genuine New York City grindhouse feel, and you’ve definitely got something cooking.

It is, for sure, not his best film, and I don’t think I would recommend it for general audiences, but, William Friedkin’s ‘Cruising’ is quite the mood piece. If you’re curious enough to step beyond the controversy (and not be put off by the more lascivious elements), check it out, You might be surprised by what you find.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Original Release Date: March 3, 1989
Directed by William Lustig
Written by Aubrey K. Rattan (story), John F. Goff and Peter Brosnan (screenplay)
Cast: Jan-Michael Vincent, Leo Rossi, Lance Henriksen, Charles Napier, Rip Torn, Harold Sylvester, Harriet Hall, Ken Lerner, Nick Barbaro, Lou Bonacki, Robert A. Ferretti, Vic Manni, Frank Pesce
Soundtrack: Garry Schyman

This was actually director William Lustig’s personal film print, and was not only willing to share it with an audience, he also provided quite a bit of behind-the-scenes insight (not unlike what you’d find on a commentary track), so much of my information comes directly from him.

The first thing to know about this movie is that it’s loosely based on Akira Kurosawa’s ‘High and Low‘ (which is itself based on the novel ‘King’s Ransom’ by Ed McBain).

The second thing to know is that William Lustig was conversant with Nicholas Pileggi at the time Pileggi was interviewing Henry Hill (these interviews led to the book ‘Wiseguy’, which led to the movie ‘Goodfellas’), so if you think you hear dialogue in ‘Hit List’ that sounds like it’s straight out of ‘Goodfellas’, you’re not wrong (except ‘Hit List’ came out first).

Other interesting odds and ends include Jan Michael Vincent attempting to make a comeback after a couple years out of work and being, shall we say, difficult to manage (drinking problem), Charles Napier living out of a camper trailer, Rip Torn being tons of fun, Lance Henriksen’s [temporary] back tattoo costing $1000, an uncredited Janusz Kaminski receiving the offer to shoot ‘Schindler’s List’, and Scott Spiegel and Josh Becker being the actual writers (as opposed to the credited CineTel writers).

All that said, I’ll allow the director himself to sum up the movie in one sentence, “It’s ridiculous, but it’s fun.”

As for me, I’d say the movie is full of wonderful accouterments in the form of fun supporting characters and over the top action, but it unfortunately suffers from a lack of chemistry from its two lead actors.

I’ll give ‘Hit List’ credit for having at least a somewhat clever premise (all-American dad and Mafioso team up to find the former’s son), but it’s not a great movie overall. I definitely put the ‘Maniac Cop’ trilogy above it in terms of the William Lustig catalog.

However, if you’re interested to see how Lance Henriksen might’ve handled the role of The Terminator, I recommend this movie. It’s just a shame it likely won’t ever get a proper home release (unless you’re still good with VHS), thanks to various bankruptcies and legal entanglements.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Quick Thoughts – Spring Round-Up

Someday I won’t be writing these posts months after the fact, but, for now, we press on.

‘Big Trouble in Little China’ (1986)

Sure, technically speaking, ‘Ghostbusters 2′ is the sequel to ‘Ghost Busters‘, but ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ isn’t exactly far off. The tone is similar, the stakes are about the same, and the proportion of comedy to horror is almost equal. The one major difference is John Carpenter was moving from horror into comedy whereas Ivan Reitman was moving from comedy into horror.

Point is, you’ve got Awesome Mode Kurt Russell as a fish-out-of-water on a great adventure against some dark Chinese magic. Throw in a diverse supporting cast (including, but not limited to, the ever-wonderful James Hong, as well as Kim Cattrall at peak loveliness) and some classic 80s special effects (led by Richard Edlund, whose team also did ‘Ghost Busters’), and you’ve got a recipe for a good time. I also think it might be the first Western production to make use of Chinese wire-fighting techniques, but I can’t confirm that.

If you still haven’t seen this one, I understand your trepidation. It took me a while to take the plunge on it, but, trust me, it’s more than worth your time.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Vigilante’ (1983)

I have to admit, I’m not sure how highly I’d rate this one if I hadn’t seen it complete with a Q&A session with both the director “Bill” Lustig and former NYPD detective turned all-around movie guy Randy Jurgensen, but they helped me put the film in its proper context, and hopefully I can do the same for you.

On the surface, William Lustig’s ‘Vigilante’ is a poor man’s ‘Death Wish‘, as evidenced by the inexplicably multi-racial gang members, but, more than that, it’s essentially a cinematic cartoon of New York Post headlines from the late-70s and early-80s. Many events and characters have some basis in reality (including the judge, who was based on Bruce McMarion Wright, aka “Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce”).

Just as a movie though, ‘Vigilante’ is a solid enough exploitation revenge film. Robert Forster brings his unique everyman quality to a character pushed to the limit by violence against his family, and Fred Williamson brings his imposing screen presence (and perfectly manicured beard, of which I am jealous) as a man who’s long decided he’s not going to take it anymore.

Perhaps what’s most interesting about ‘Vigilante’, like many movies of its era, is simply New York City as a location. It really is like another character on screen.

Other than that, it’s pretty standard fare.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

P.S.
One note of particular interest from Bill Lustig was that when the film got distribution in countries with oppressive governments (including Brazil and the Philippines, which were under dictatorships at the time), there had to be a title card inserted at the end of the film stating that the vigilante was brought to justice himself. This reminded me of the end of ‘Blood Debts‘, famously highlighted by Red Letter Media, in which a similar title card exists, no doubt because it was a 1985 Filipino production.

‘Alien’ (1979) + ‘Aliens’ (1986)

I’ve heard people accuse me of not being very festive, and I don’t know where they get the notion; you have to be pretty festive to go see ‘Back to the Future 2‘ on October 21, 2015, or go to an ‘Alien’ double feature on 4/26 while sitting in seat 426, but I digress.

I’ve been familiar with ‘Alien’ at minimum since I watched it to prepare myself for ‘Prometheus’, but obviously it’s a different animal on the big screen As I’ve said on many occasions, I’m not a big horror guy, but ‘Alien’ is transcendent, thanks largely to its hard sci-fi base. To say it’s a great looking movie is an understatement; everything has substance, everything feels lived-in, and it’s all in service of what is essentially a blue collar sci-fi story, which is rather uncommon.

What also helps ‘Alien’ in its effectiveness is its small cast (not unlike ‘Predator‘ in that regard). The low number of space truckers and focus on their daily grind ensures we get to know them all pretty well, not to mention a good bit of improvised dialogue in group settings. Sure, it becomes a bit of a haunted house movie in the final act, but between the limitations they had in 1979 and the groundbreaking design of the alien monster, I’m not taking points off for that.

All-in-all, the movie is a timeless classic.

Now, ‘Aliens’ I had never seen before, on any sort of screen. We can debate til the end of time which movie of the two is better, but one thing for certain is that they are different.

‘Aliens’, like most great sequels, builds upon and expands the world we already know, and in this case switches up the genre as well, adding in a whole mess load of action thanks to our friendly neighborhood space marines. James Cameron was correct in keeping the visual aesthetics of the first movie while also adding his own signature touches and new bits of lore (like the M41A Pulse Rifle and the Alien Queen). It’s a fairly unique watch in terms of the simultaneous level of action and terror.

Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the true thread holding these films together, that being Sigourney Weaver. Her portrayal of Ripley is nearly flawless (although I like her hair better in ‘Alien’, but that’s superficial).

Ultimately, both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are must-see, Whether you prefer more slow-moving hard sci-fi or futuristic action will likely determine which you think is better, but, personally, I don’t feel compelled to choose.

Ratings:
‘Alien’ ★★★★☆
‘Aliens’ ★★★★☆

P.S.
Shout out to NECA Toys for showing off some wares and doing some giveaways before each movie.

Quick Thoughts – Summer Round-Up, Part 5 of 5

Whew, we finally made it. The last bit of backlog left from the summer.

‘Best in Show’ (2000)

As far as I know, Woody Allen invented the comedic “Mockumentary” with ‘Take the Money and Run’ back in 1969, but it was Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer who took it to the next level with ‘This is Spinal Tap’ in 1984.

Christopher Guest writes, directs, and acts in this pastiche of dog shows, and the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in particular. Every Guest regular (Eugene Levy, et al.) is in the film, save for Harry Shearer, and everybody gets their moment to shine and give the audience a good laugh.

What makes movies like this so tremendous is that there’s not a single bit of written dialogue. Every line is improvised by the actors and the reactions are equally on-the-spot, like watching a bunch of great jazz musicians playing together. Not only that, but the details in this production’s design are spot on as well; I mean, I think the filmmakers pretty much had to put together a reasonable facsimile of a dog show in a real venue, which gives the movie a grounded sense of realism, even when the dialogue is getting over-the-top silly.

I can’t say if ‘Best in Show’ is the best of Guest, but it’s definitely worth seeing.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Maniac Cop 2’ (1990)

I can’t lie, I think this one got a little overhyped for me. People were saying it’s definitely better than the first ‘Maniac Cop’, but I don’t know. To me, both movies work fine as a continuous story, and seeing as how they’re both 90 minutes or less, you could easily watch them back-to-back in a single evening (I have yet to see the third installment, but will definitely check it out one of these days), but the first one has Tom Atkins, so, I’m hard pressed to say the sequel is superior.

‘Maniac Cop 2’ is pretty good for a late-80s B-horror flick, and, like its predecessor, an interesting time capsule for New York City, but it’s hardly any sort of required viewing in my opinion. The one sequence of particular note is the police station shootout, which rivals an analogous scene in ‘The Terminator’.

Performance-wise, Robert Davi is strong as usual, and Bruce Campbell and Laurene Landon do a fine job continuing their roles from the first movie.

Other than that, not much else to say.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

‘Above the Law’ (1988)

This isn’t the best Steven Seagal movie, but it is the first, which makes it somewhat important. It’s also the first of two collaborations between Seagal and director Andrew Davis, who would later reunite for arguably Seagal’s best movie, that being ‘Under Siege’.

‘Above the Law’ is far from perfect. Seeing it now, many of the performances come off as rather hackneyed, but, it does offer some quintessential Steven Seagal martial arts action, and some signature Seagal one-liners. My personal favorite: “Ever notice how clean babies smell? Like nothing in the world has touched them yet.”

‘Above the Law’ is also a very Chicago movie. Not only was it mostly shot on location in the Windy City, but every working Chicago actor of note is in the movie. You’ll recognize them from other movies such as ‘The Blues Brothers’, ‘Backdraft’, ‘The Fugitive’, even ‘The Dark Knight’.

If you’re a Steven Seagal fan, this one’s a must see; otherwise, it’s hit or miss.

Rating: ★★★☆☆