Tag: Rance Howard

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

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 1

‘Suture’ (1993)

All I knew about ‘Suture’ going in was that it was something of a neo-noir, and it was shot in black and white (which is one of the most appropriate creative choices I’ve ever seen).  Beyond that, I didn’t know what to expect.

Given certain factors (like the “state of race relations” at the moment), I’m not sure if ‘Suture’ would be better received now, or more poorly received, because there’s a central conceit to the movie that if you don’t pick up on, it’ll go right over your head, and that is that Dennis Haysbert plays a White man.  Mind you, he’s not in any make-up or prosthetics with the intention of looking this way, but he plays the brother of a White man, and according to dialogue, they have a quite a familial resemblance.

I don’t want to get into any spoiler specifics, because I liked this movie and would recommend it, but I will explain that the point of casting someone like Haysbert in that role is to make it clear that he is not his brother, because the key theme of ‘Suture’ is not only identity, but what it is inside of us that lets us know who we are individually.

So, yes, it’s something of a heady movie, perhaps a wee bit pretentious, but as long as you understand the central conceit, it’s not all that complicated, and there’s no question that Haysbert carries the film on his shoulders with aplomb.  A fine performance from a fine actor.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

‘The Hunger’ (1983)

After seeing this one, I now understand why Paramount executives were so concerned when the first dailies that came back from ‘Top Gun’ were nothing but magic hour shots from the deck of the USS Enterprise, because if I were to describe ‘The Hunger’ in one phrase, it would most definitely be, “Too art-house for its own good.”  (‘The Hunger’ and ‘Top Gun’ are Tony Scott’s first two movies, in case you wonder what I mean.)

Like ‘Wolfen‘, ‘The Hunger’ is based on a novel by Whitley Strieber, and much like how ‘Wolfen’ is about wolf creatures that aren’t werewolves, ‘The Hunger’ is about vampires that don’t have fangs.  It’s weird.

Now, like I said, the movie is too art-house for its own good, and in that respect it’s too frustrating to recommend (not to mention there’s a lack of emotional connection for the audience), but I will give it props for perhaps the best old age makeup I’ve ever seen, used on David Bowie.

Frankly, the experience of this movie is not unlike 2014’s ‘Godzilla‘, in that once the most interesting character is dispatched (Bryan Cranston/David Bowie), there’s no need to watch anymore.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

 

‘Blazing Saddles’ (1974)

Seeing this movie on the big screen (in honor of the recently passed Gene Wilder) after seeing ‘Sausage Party‘ this summer just reinforced my assertion that trying to compare the latter to the former is absolutely ridiculous, because ‘Blazing Saddles’ is everything that ‘Sausage Party’ isn’t.  It’s consistently funny, it’s actually clever, and it deals with racism in a very real way (while still making you laugh).

I don’t know if Mel Brooks ever sat down and thought to himself, “Someday, I’ll be the king of parody movies,” like it was an actual goal, or if that’s just how his career progressed, but ‘Blazing Saddles’ was the start of all of it (for the record, ‘Spaceballs‘ is overrated, ‘High Anxiety‘ is underrated).  And what makes ‘Blazing Saddles’ great (besides, you know, everything), like all great parody or homage movies, is a love of the source material.  It’s one thing to sit back and make fun and take potshots at something you think is inherently silly, and it’s another to mine humor out of something you genuinely enjoy, which is true of most of Brooks’ work because he’s a lover of cinema.

Anyway, even if you’re not a fan of Westerns yourself, I can’t recommend ‘Blazing Saddles’ highly enough.  Every performance from the headliners down to random extras is spot on, I think most of the humor still holds up (and some is still quite shocking), and it’s a movie with a hugely important message that never, ever gets preachy about it.

Rating: ★★★★★

 

‘Gang Related’ (1997)

It’s safe to say that Tupac is basically Hip Hop Elvis, right?

A rapper, a dancer, a poet, and an actor, he left quite an impression on the world before (and after) his death at the age of 25.  It seemed fitting to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of his passing with a look at his final film performance.

Circumstances aside, ‘Gang Related’ is a decent movie.  I’d actually call it three quarters of a pretty great movie before it kind of falls apart towards the end.  Tupac and Jim Belushi play homicide detectives who have been using seized drugs to lure unsuspecting buyers to their deaths, then taking the money and covering up the murders as “gang related.”  One night, however, they kill somebody they really, really shouldn’t have, and that’s when things get complicated.

Anyone who was into ‘Breaking Bad’ will particularly appreciate the dramatic twists and turns of ‘Gang Related’, especially in the area of characters trying to cover up their crimes when pretty much everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

In terms of performances, I’m not going to lie and say that Tupac is super special, but given the heavy hitters he’s sharing the screen with, he more than holds his own (James Earl Jones, for one, isn’t in the movie very long, but his commanding presence makes up for lack of screen time).  I mean, if somebody saw Tupac’s performance without knowing who he was, I doubt they’d suspect he wasn’t exactly an actor by trade.

Also, props to Jim Belushi.  Again, his performance isn’t perfect, but it’s effective enough to carry the movie; and his character does get darker as time goes on, which he handles well.

If I have one particular criticism of ‘Gang Related’, it’s that you definitely feel its length, but it’s entertaining enough to watch one time.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

 

‘Mars Attacks!’ (1996)

It seems like they’ll make a movie out of just about anything these days, but 20 years ago Tim Burton made a movie out of a trading card series (usually it’s the other way around).

I have to admit, I’m not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Tim Burton, and this particular movie doesn’t help my opinion of him at all.

At face value, ‘Mars Attacks!’ seems like a great idea: a simultaneous pastiche of 1950s alien B-movies and later Hollywood prestige pictures (the kind with more movie stars than you can shake a stick at, e.g. ‘The Towering Inferno‘).  The problem lies with the execution.  There are so many baffling creative decisions, I hardly know where to begin, so let’s just discuss a couple.

Number One: Why does Jack Nicholson have two roles?

Look, I get that Tim Burton loves Jack Nicholson so much that 1989’s ‘Batman’ should really be called ‘Joker’, but he’s one of the most recognizable people in the history of ever.  You can put some sunglasses and a wig on him all day, everybody is still going to know it’s Jack Nicholson, because Jack plays Jack in every movie, and twice in this movie.  Peter Sellers in ‘Dr. Strangelove‘ he is not.

Number Two: Why, why, why so much CGI?

I get mad when I see period piece movies obviously shot digitally rather than on film, and this is a similar gripe.  I’m sure CGI in the mid-90s was super expensive, so why, especially when making a film based on 1950s B-movies, would you choose that option rather than investing in stop-motion animation and rubber puppet monsters?  This is especially egregious when you consider that Burton had just recently written and produced a little movie called ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’, which was done entirely in stop-motion animation.  Unforgivable.

Ultimately, as is so often the case, the biggest issue with ‘Mars Attacks!’ is the tone.  To say it’s all over the place is an understatement; certainly a far cry from other successful horror comedies.  At one point, the film cuts to a clip of ‘Godzilla vs. Biollante‘, and I immediately said to myself, “I wish I was watching that movie.”

I will admit though, the very end is a good bit, but I’m also a total mark for Tom Jones, so, there it is.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆