Quick Thoughts – Autumn Round-Up, Part 2

In November, I took a week’s vacation in Colorado, and I got to see a couple of classic movies at the Alamo Drafthouse in Littleton while I was out there.

After Hours (1985)

You know that Family Guy bit where Stewie keeps demanding Brian to name more songs named after girls?  If you did a similar exercise with movies directed by Martin Scorsese, I don’t imagine too many people would name After Hours.

Obscurity aside, the movie is essentially a version of Homer’s Odyssey played out over a night in SoHo.  All our protagonist (played by Griffin Dunne) wants is a little fun on a date with a girl he just met, and, once that fails, to just get home; but, despite all efforts, he can’t do it, and things only get worse as the night goes on.  It’s the sort of meandering story that you think you have figured out until you don’t.

Honestly, I liked the movie well enough once it was over, but I don’t really see myself revisiting it in the future.  I think I got more enjoyment out of spotting all the familiar faces (the cast is quite expansive) than the story itself, which is not to say I wouldn’t recommend it.

If you’re into darker comedies, New York-heavy movies, or are a Scorsese completionist, definitely give After Hours a whirl.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

 

The Shining (1980)

I’m sure I’ll take a lot of heat for this, but I think Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is vastly overrated.

Is the cinematography excellent?  Of course; that’s a Kubrick staple.

Is it sometimes successful at being legitimately creepy?  Yes.

Does it work overall as a movie?  No.

I don’t need to get into plot points or performances; I’m sure if you’re reading this then you’ve either seen the movie already or are familiar enough with it through cultural osmosis.

What it all comes down to is that the character of Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson) as written and portrayed in this film begins the movie as a jerk, and ends the movie as a jerk.  Regardless of any involvement of supernatural forces, he is essentially the same character throughout, which is to say he effectively has no arc, and if he doesn’t have an arc, then there is no real tension, and what is horror without tension?

All of this is not to say Kubrick is not an all-time great filmmaker.  Clearly, he is.  It’s just that in this particular area, he’s not as effective as, say, Alfred Hitchcock.

Rating: ★★½

Quick Thoughts – Summer Round-Up, Part 2

Continued from Part 1

The Stepfather

‘The Stepfather’ (1987)

With the proliferation of PG-13 “horror” films these days, it’s almost hard to imagine a movie actually adding things to justify an R-rating, but back in the day the producers of ‘The Stepfather’ saw a PG-13 rating as a potential marketing problem.  Really though, the whole movie was kind of a marketing problem.  As you can gather from the poster, this got pushed out as something of a slasher movie, but it’s really more of a Hitchcockian thriller, like if ‘Rear Window’ and ‘Psycho’ had an Eighties baby (not that it’s Hitchcock-level quality, but the director apparently saw it as more of a dark comedy, which is a lens Hitchcock viewed much of his own work through).

We already know who the bad guy is from the very beginning, so the tension doesn’t come from the audience discovering who the killer is, but rather the characters in the movie.  It really only works as a product of its time (why they even tried to remake it and update it is beyond me), but it’s effective, and it still holds up pretty well today. despite the generational gap.

Terry O’Quinn’s performance is unquestionably the centerpiece of the film.  He’s on his A-game as a very disturbed individual trying to see if he can finally hold it all together, but the supporting actors, particularly Jill Schoelen, hold their own as well.

It might get a little corny at times, but for a horror/thriller, ‘The Stepfather’ makes a solid movie night pick.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Thunderball

‘Thunderball’ (1965)

“There’s a lot of movie in that movie.”

It’s a true statement of pretty much every Bond film since ‘Goldfinger’, but it’s perhaps most true of ‘Thunderball’.  In fact, there’s so much movie here it’s almost exhausting: you’ve got airplanes, you’ve got nuclear weapons, underwater combat, fast cars, deadly sharks, multiple bombshell women, fast boats, world extortion, electrified conference room chairs, Bahamian street festivals, an actual jetpack, Tom Jones singing, and a peeing dog.

All that said, while you do feel its length, I appreciate the producers’ effort to make a real crowd-pleaser.  The underwater scenes in particular, from both a visual and technical perspective, are overwhelmingly impressive, even now (“it’s so dense, every single image has so much going on…”).

Now, I’ll be honest, I actually like the remake (‘Never Say Never Again’) better, but only because the interplay between Sean Connery and Klaus Maria Brandauer is so much fun, at least in my opinion.  On the whole, I’d say ‘Thunderball’ remains the superior film (especially in the Bond Girl department).  Plus, ‘Thunderball’ might be the most influential spy movie on pop culture in general (it’s still the highest grossing Bond film when you adjust for inflation).

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’ (1988)

Boy, that Bob Zemeckis sure had a strong foothold on the mid to late Eighties, didn’t he?

I think computers have made us numb to the appreciation of animation, but back in the day (and even as recently as 2004) it was a highly labor-intensive process.  It may not have been the first and it certainly wasn’t the last, but I personally don’t know of another film that blends live-action and traditional animation to the degree that ‘Roger Rabbit’ does, and in that sense alone it is an incredible triumph of cinema.

Perhaps lost on today’s audiences is the wrangling of so many different characters from different (and, traditionally, very competitive) animation studios to be in one movie.  For people who grew up watching the old cartoons, it must’ve been mind-blowing at the time to see Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Felix the Cat, and Woody Woodpecker all in the same motion picture (not to mention the dueling piano scene with Donald Duck and Daffy Duck actually sharing the screen together).

It might not be in the AFI Top 100, but this is a seminal movie nonetheless, and, like so many other Eighties “kids movies”, it will traumatize your children (seriously, I still don’t know if I’m over that ending).

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Full Metal Jacket

‘Full Metal Jacket’ (1987)

Thirty years after making one of the best war (and anti-war) films of all time in ‘Paths of Glory‘, Stanley Kubrick unleashed himself on a whole new generation of moviegoers with ‘Full Metal Jacket’.  This is another classic that I can’t say too much about that hasn’t been said already, the most obvious being that I can’t believe it was only nominated for one Academy Award, so I’ll praise a couple of things that I think have been underrated over the years.

First of all, most people talk about R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D’Onofrio, and that’s fine, but Matthew Modine as Pvt. Joker (you know, the protagonist of the film) gives a really good performance as well.  One of my favorite moments is the “Virgin Mary” scene, when he’s the first Private to actually stand up to Gny. Sgt. Hartman and earns himself a promotion to squad leader.  It’s a very emotional scene with a lot of shouting, yes, but you never feel like, “Oh, they’re just performing.”  No, they’re in it, and he’s in it in particular.

Secondly, did you know this entire movie (outside of some archive footage of a Parris Island graduation) was filmed in England?  England!  I bet you thought they went to the Philippines or Taiwan or at least somewhere in Asia, but no, they filmed a movie that takes place in South Carolina and Vietnam entirely in jolly old England!  If that’s not “movie magic”, I don’t know what is.

It’s a very dark movie (but surprisingly funny at times), for sure, but if I was making a list of ten war films everyone should see (regardless of your feelings on war), I’d be hard pressed to leave this one out.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

The Burbs

‘The ‘Burbs’ (1989)

For some reason I keep thinking I’m not much of a [New Jersey’s own] Joe Dante guy, but after looking at his filmography again, I’m not sure that’s true.  There must be someone else I keep confusing him with.

Anyway, I really enjoyed this movie.  It’s a very funny blend of mostly comedy with horror elements.  The wonderful ensemble cast is what truly makes it: you’ve got Tom Hanks as the stressed-out everyman who just wants to relax at home for his vacation; Carrie Fisher as his dutiful wife; Rick Ducommun as the wise-cracking sidekick and general instigator; Bruce Dern as the wily and paranoid ex-military man; Wendy Schaal as his wife (and neighborhood eye-candy); Corey Feldman as the teenager next door; and Henry Gibson, Brother Theodore, and Courtney Gains as the mysterious Klopeks (not to mention cameos from Dick Miller and Robert Picardo, because this is a Joe Dante film).

For anyone who’s ever had strange neighbors you wanted to avoid at all costs, you’ll definitely relate (and probably feel justified in that thinking).

If you’ve not seen it, definitely check it out, especially around Halloween time.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Continued in Part 3

Classic Movie Shandy: ‘Ben-Hur’ (1959) & ‘Spartacus’ (1960) – Swords and Sandals and Stanley Kubrick

 

Hey everybody!

It’s been so long since I wrote anything, I almost forgot my password.  But, we’re here now, so let’s go!

I’m calling this dual review a “Shandy” because I’ll basically be reviewing both movies at the same time, as opposed to writing individual reviews.

Now, naturally, I saw both of these films on a big screen at the Alamo Drafthouse Theater [Yonkers].  Alamo is awesome; you should totally go if there’s one near you (I swear they’re not paying me to say this).

I had seen bits and pieces of both movies on television while in my youth, but I have to admit I was too young to appreciate them at such a young age.  These days, I’m in a much better position to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

But why review these movies together at all?  Well, other than taking place in pretty much the same era of history, and having the Romans as the bad guys, and being released theatrically within a year of each other, and both being over three hours long (Intermission!), there’d likely be no Spartacus had Kirk Douglas not been turned down for the role that Charlton Heston ultimately occupied as Ben-Hur (he didn’t get to be in one epic, so he just went and made his own; that’s pretty epic).  So, yeah, I think it makes some sense.

Just to quickly sum up the plots of these films, Ben-Hur stars Charlton Heston as a Jewish prince who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans until Jesus comes and and makes everything better and is also crucified.  Spartacus stars Kirk Douglas as a slave who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans, but is unfortunately unable to make everything better and is also crucified (SPOILERS!  Oh, wait, I should have put that before.  Whatever).

If I only had one sentence to compare Ben-Hur and Spartacus, it would be this: Ben-Hur is a better film, but Spartacus is a better movie.

What I mean by that is that Ben-Hur, from an artistic standpoint, is more complete in the execution of its vision.  The writing, acting, direction, and visuals work in near-perfect concert (it didn’t win 11 Academy Awards for nothing).  But, it’s largely slow-paced, which means you do feel it’s massive length.  Spartacus, on the other hand, hardly ever lingers, its plot almost constantly in motion, which makes for terrific viewing, but it does suffer at times from strange creative decisions, mostly casting-related (I’m so sorry, John Gavin, but I don’t buy you as Julius Caesar one bit).

This contrast largely has to do with the men who directed these films (and produced, in the case of Spartacus).  William Wyler, director of Ben-Hur, began directing shorts and some features in the Silent Era, so his overall style is highly reflective of “Old Hollywood” (other than Ben-Hur, perhaps his most famous film is ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’, another epic-length Oscar-grabber).  Although it wasn’t his last hit, Ben-Hur essentially is the beginning of Wyler’s twilight, as he would direct only five more movies afterward (out of roughly seventy career credits).

Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, has roughly one-fifth the career credits of William Wyler (he would only direct eight more films after Spartacus), but with Kubrick it truly is about quality over quantity.  Kubrick is a quintessential “New Hollywood” director, having started his career in the 1950s and pretty much directing two or three highly influential films in each of the following three decades. However, Spartacus is something of an asterisk film for him, as it was not his project from the outset, but rather he was brought on by Kirk Douglas (the executive producer as well as lead actor) after his firing of the original director.  The lack of complete creative control (which Kubrick would maintain for the rest of his career) is evident; there are scenes which feel as if they could be perfectly inter-cut with Ben-Hur.  Because of Kubrick’s involvement, Spartacus is a movie which often but not always feels ahead of its time, but for him it feels like a overall step back compared with his previous film, ‘Paths of Glory‘ (also starring and produced by Kirk Douglas).

Overall, I have to rather strongly recommend both epic movies, particularly if you’ve never seen them before.  And if you’re into the history of film, then you definitely need to see them.  Although Ben-Hur is slow-paced overall, the Chariot Race is a wonderful centerpiece; quite frankly it’s one of the most visually stunning action sequences ever put to film.  I don’t know if I can say much more about it that hasn’t been said already, but I have to give William Wyler credit for making a rather progressive creative decision by not adding any music to the scene, giving it an even greater sense of realism (he could have easily asked composer Miklós Rózsa to “Mickey Mouse” it, but he made the right choice).  And Spartacus, well, it’s quite a lot of fun, and although there are some questionable casting choices, overall the performances are quality.  Kirk Douglas’s natural screen presence and likability do a lot for the film, and having an old pro like Laurence Olivier as your main villain is never a bad thing.

Go watch ’em!

Ben-Hur:
★★★★½

Spartacus:
★★★★★