Ricco Ross – People Talking

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.

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)

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 – ‘Mission: Impossible’ – Rulers Who Had Gold

Original Release Date: May 22, 1996
Directed by Brian De Palma
Written by David Koepp (story and screenplay), Steven Zaillian (story), and Robert Towne (screenplay), based on the television series created by Bruce Geller
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Béart, Henry Czerny, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave, Ingeborga Dapkunaite, Rolf Saxon, Andreas Wisniewski, Ricco Ross, Dale Dye, Marcel Iures, Emilio Estevez
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman

A lot can happen in twenty years.

Just ask Paramount. In the two decades they’ve been releasing Mission: Impossible films, they’ve also managed to put Star Trek into a space coffin, only to successfully resuscitate it again (although it did take them three movies to really get it right). Certain wisdom might suggest they think about packing the M:I series in after five films in twenty years, but it doesn’t look like they plan on stopping anytime soon, so long as Tom Cruise is still willing and able to do big, on-camera stunts.

What’s really funny, though, is that for a franchise that’s become synonymous with top-of-the-line action, the original movie seems quaint in comparison. In fact, outside of the helicopter vs. train sequence, 1996’s Mission: Impossible barely has any “action” as we think of it today. Yet, it’s still utterly engaging from start to finish. Who, you might ask, is responsible for this?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Brian De Palma.

His own contentious relationship with the movie aside, it’s undoubtedly one of his babies. Outside of gratuitous nudity, pretty much any De Palma hallmark you can think of can be found in Mission: Impossible: killing off important characters for shock value, rogue investigations, crane shots, Steadicam shots, sharply-angled shots, POVs, split diopter shots, stairwells, murder, blood, murder, payphones, murder, and, of course, lots and lots of tension.

He’s never gotten the same level of respect as his contemporaries (Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese), despite directing at least a few movies that have left indelible marks on pop culture (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables), but Brian De Palma is a remarkable talent nonetheless; unabashedly visual in his direction, and a quintessential expert in cinematic language [that’s sadly being lost as time goes on].

That said, the movie doesn’t rest entirely on De Palma’s shoulders, broad as they may be. At the time of its release, Mission: Impossible was, as the kids say, “a big effing deal,” and a lot of heavy hitters were involved. You had De Palma himself; you had Tom Cruise on top of the whole wide world (and producing his first picture); Jon Voight was still very much in the public eye (a cameo on Seinfeld certainly didn’t hurt his Q-Rating); Danny Elfman did the score; you had Paul Hirsch in the editing room (he cut together a little film called The Empire Strikes Back); and, last but not least, special make-up effects by Rob Bottin (The Howling, The Thing, RoboCop).

In other words, Mission: Impossible was always intended to be a big movie, not something the studio took minimal financial risk on and hoped did well, because they clearly went out and hired tried and true professionals, and, in the end, the investment paid off very well. The film is wonderful to watch, filled with all sorts of visual sumptuousness; the vault sequence where Tom Cruise is hanging on wires makes you tense up every time; and, as silly as it is, the end action sequence still looks fine, especially comparing effects from twenty years ago to modern CGI.

Again though, what makes Mission: Impossible truly special, in comparison to other action-espionage films as well as its own sequels, is the lack of reliance on gunplay and general action schlock. It may not be a hard spy film like A Most Wanted Man, but, like many other Brian De Palma features, it starts out grounded enough in reality to make the insanity that comes later seem plausible while you’re engaged with it.

As much as I do enjoy the recent entries in the series, Mission: Impossible is still the best of the bunch. Quite simply, it’s captivating, gorgeous, and fun. A great popcorn movie if there ever was one.

Rating: ★★★★½

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.