Short Attention Span Review: Electra Glide in Blue (1973)

Short Attention Span Review: Electra Glide in Blue (1973)

I watched a rather unique film this weekend, and I'm pretty sure that it was an American classic.  I had never heard of it before happening upon it by chance, and I'm not sure what drew me to it in the first place.  Maybe it was that groovy title, Electra Glide in Blue.  From the onset, two things were readily apparent: the craftmanship was sublime, and the subject matter was deep and open to interpretation.  A captivating character study and a meditation on so many different things, to include ideals as opposed to reality, isolation, civic duty, machismo, and even the merits of peace in a violent world, ten different viewers would likely draw ten different conclusions from the picture.  The cinematography was nothing short of superb, and while I greatly enjoyed the cast (in particular, star Robert Blake fully committed to the lead role and offered up a bravura performance as a result), the way the shots were framed and the powerful combination of riveting close-ups and compelling wide shots may have been the picture's greatest strengths.  It was impossible to look away no matter how bleak the movie became, though there were flourishes of humor and excitement sprinkled throughout.  The ending served as the perfect punctuation for a quizzical and startling film that worked for me on a great many levels.  As with any movie of this ilk, I do think it would prove divisive for most.  While I found it incredibly satisfying and worthy of repeated viewings, many would likely view it as too broad and ambiguous--or take offense at some of the conclusions they draw from it.  Of course, I tend to think that a film that can provoke such reactions is often a rich find, and I am certainly glad that I took a little ride with Electra Glide in Blue.

Final Grade: A

Electra Glide in Blue deserves another look, and the juxtaposition of civility and brutality is as relevant now as ever.

 

Short Attention Span Review: Annabelle (2014)

Short Attention Span Review: Annabelle (2014)

Annabelle is a basic bitch, truth be told, but that doesn't render her ineffective.  In fact, I found a lot to like in this simplistic throwback.  A bit classical in its approach, Annabelle doesn't arrive with any grand aspirations.  This one didn't aim to reinvent the wheel, and there were no attempts to ratchet up the tension with a hyper-kinetic array of malevolent jolts.  No, we're dealing with a straight-forward and measured endeavor here.  In that regard, Annabelle reminded me a lot of the claustrophobic character-driven spookshows of yesteryear.  Throw in a tough female lead and some quality effects work, and you're in for a good time at the movies.  Intriguing and creepy in equal doses, this unassuming addition to The Conjuring family won't take you anywhere you haven't been before.  Yet, if you're a fan of the genre, you will get to revisit the old neighborhood in an efficient and moderately unnerving trip into terror.  That's good enough for me.

Final Grade: B-

When things got out of hand, Annabelle's owners reached out to this priest, and he had the situation under control for approximately 90 seconds.

 

Short Attention Span Review: Silverado (1985)

 For my money, it's hard to beat a great western, and Silverado is one of the best westerns that you're apt to see.  Everything about this one is grand, to include the magnificent cast, the epic locations, the fabulous script, and the stellar direction.  A big picture that deftly intertwines several gripping stories on the road to a corrupt town where all these stories come to a rousing conclusion, Silverado is a love letter to all the wonderful westerns that came before it.  It's also a reminder that genres may rise and fall, but so long as a top-notch script and the right talent join forces, no genre is ever truly forgotten.  The western may never be as important to the film industry as it once was, but it will always present the right people with an opportunity to tell a powerful story.  That's precisely what director Lawrence Kasdan did with this vibrant gem that he penned alongside his brother, Mark.  A good western can make adults feel all warm and fuzzy inside while encouraging their children to run around pretending that they're cowboys making a stand for all that is right.  Silverado is precisely that kind of film, and as such it is just as adept at presenting us with sound characters facing difficult decisions as it is at offering up thrilling shootouts.  There's also a lot of warmth and humor riding shotgun with the heroic antics that are the backbone of the western genre.  Kevin Kline, Scott Glenn, Kevin Costner, and Danny Glover shine as the heroes, while Brian Dennehy makes for an excellent villain.  Linda Hunt, Rosanna Arquette, Jeff Goldblum, and John Cleese are among the supporting cast, and Jeff Fahey makes an impression as a grimy henchman in one of his earliest roles.  The movie is certainly not lacking for star power, but then I don't see where Silverado is lacking anything.  A stunning example of what could be my favorite genre of film, this is a fantastic movie that I would heartily recommend to anyone.

Final Grade: A+ 

There are numerous established stars playing robust parts in Silverado, and then
there's my man Jeff Fahey hitting the scene and striking a chord as a sleazy deputy.

Short Attention Span Review: Milius (2013)

As documentaries about filmmakers go, it is hard to imagine any subject being more prolific or intriguing than writer and director John Milius.  It should come as no surprise then that Milius is such a spectacle.  Even as a fan of this gifted filmmaker and his larger-than-life personality, I was surprised to see just how broad his impact on the film industry has been.  Those who aren't as familiar with John's body of work will likely be flabbergasted to learn that one man played such a pivotal role in so many iconic pictures and performances over the years.  His contributions to movies like Jaws and Dirty Harry are discussed along with movies he scripted (Apocalypse Now and Jeremiah Johnson, among others) and directed (films like Dillinger, The Wind and the Lion, and Conan the Barbarian).  Professional accomplishments aside, the stories about his larger-than-life antics and his brazen disregard for going with the flow are wildly compelling.  This documentary also benefits from more than just a wealth of intriguing material; the number of famed participants who share their thoughts on John's work and persona throughout the picture is positively mind-boggling.  It is entirely possible that it would be easier to list the major actors, directors, and producers who weren't in this documentary than it would be to name everyone who appeared in the picture.  Milius offers far more than reflection on the cinema and funny stories about a brazen individual, touching on politics and delving into some truly emotional territory in the closing reel.  As a fan, I was totally captivated, but I imagine that those who aren't as familiar with the subject--and perhaps even those who don't like John's filmography--will be entertained by this documentary.  It is bold, colorful, and surprisingly nuanced, much like John Milius himself.

Final Grade: A

Short Attention Span Review: Prince of Darkness (1987)

Prince of Darkness is one of horror maestro John Carpenter's most underrated fright flicks, which is a bit surprising to me as I feel that it is easily his most terrifying movie.  It isn't a big budget affair, but that doesn't lessen the impact of this nightmarish battle between good and evil.  The cast is game, the effects are solid, and the plot is gripping.  The movie slowly unfolds, steadily growing in intensity on the way to a hellish crescendo, and the final frame is one of Carpenter's finest moments.  The picture may not boast as many jump scares as the legendary director's biggest hits do, and the sinister nature of Prince of Darkness doesn't really allow for much in the way of his trademark wit, but this one does do everything possible to get under your skin.  In that regard, it is incredibly successful, and there are a number of scenes that will stick with you long after you're done watching it.  The nightmare sequences are particularly noteworthy, striking a surreal tone that is brimming with dread and terror.  The score is another gem from this superb director and composer, and it's nothing if not appropriate for the material.  It's a bit subdued and it builds slowly, drawing the viewer into a stark web of terror--just like the film itself.  Donald Pleasence hams it up a bit as a weary priest, but he's terrific as always and his boisterous performance is a welcome presence in this grim affair.  Jameson Parker does a fine job as the lead, and while he doesn't necessarily light up the screen, it certainly seems as though he warranted more attention from the industry.  Alice Cooper is on hand for a nice part that's really more of a cameo, and Dennis Dun (who killed it as Wang in Carpenter's beloved cult classic Big Trouble in Little China) is also a joy to watch in Prince of Darkness.  There's a scene where he loses his shit that stands as one of my favorite Carpenter moments, and I'm a bit of a Carpenter devotee*.  If you somehow missed this one, don't fret, you're not alone.  However, if you're a fan of the spooky stuff, you owe it to yourself to check it out.  It's not my favorite John Carpenter film, but it's a damn fine motion picture that will scare the hell out of you.

Final Grade: A+

*But you already knew that.  If you didn't, you must have missed these blogs:
Top 5 John Carpenter Films
Top 5 Main Themes from John Carpenter Films

Prince of Darkness isn't my favorite John Carpenter movie,
but it is his most frightening motion picture.

Short Attention Span Review: Dracula Untold (2014)

I've got a lot of love for all things Dracula, and lately that equates to being harshly critical of the way that brand is utilized.  In my personal opinion, the ill-fated television show that hit the scene in 2013 was maybe the worst television show that I've ever watched--and that's not hyperbole.  I hated that shit.  So, I have to admit that I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Dracula Untold.  The previews had promise, but the approach bothered me.  Yes, this is Dracula as an anti-hero, and there's a definite comic book feel to the piece, but what can I say?  It worked, and most importantly, it was entertaining.  Luke Evans was a quality Drac, and the effects and the direction were worthy of the Count.  I thought the sets were gorgeous and the mood and atmosphere really did the job.  Okay, so it's a far cry from Coppola's version, but as a fresh take it never stood any real chance of challenging a faithful adaptation of Stoker's timeless tale.  In the end, Dracula Untold fully realized its potential; it wasn't destined for greatness, but it did a great job of delivering upon its cooky premise.  Bonus points: it will leave you longing for a sequel.  That's always a good sign for a fresh take on a beloved property. 

Final Grade: B

Look out--some damn fool has gone and pissed Dracula off!

From the Archives: The Best of Times

Yes, I'm still recycling, but there's a method to the madness.  Football is almost upon us, and that means it's time . . . for The Best of Times.  This piece was also originally published in RVA Magazine.  Enjoy!

From the Archives:

The Best of Times

What is it?

The Best of Times is a 1986 comedy starring Robin Williams and Kurt Russell.  In the film, the two reside in the small town of Taft, where lovable loser Jack Dundee (Williams) is still haunted by the pass from local hero Reno Hightower (Russell) that he dropped in the big football game 13 years ago.  Dundee decides to stage the game once again in the hopes of atoning for his biggest mistake, but first he has to sell this ridiculous idea to both the town and his former teammates.  Once he manages to do that, it will be a miracle if he can get his old team in shape, and speaking of miracles, do you think Jack can actually catch the ball this time out?

Why don’t I know about it?

The film didn’t win over many critics or audiences when it debuted, and despite being televised routinely after its release and gaining a meager following, The Best of Times never really evolved into a true sleeper either.

What makes it unique?

Before Ron Shelton (Bull Durham, White Men Can’t Jump, Blue Chips, Cobb, The Great White Hype, Tin Cup, Play it to the Bone) gained notoriety for creating some of the best-received sports films ever made, he wrote this little gem for Kings Road Entertainment.  Shelton got the idea for the film when the high school he attended in Santa Barbara actually re-staged several big games against rival San Marcos in the early 80s as part of a fund-raising effort.  The first such game was a huge success, selling out, and according to Shelton sub-sequent games were also successful until the practice was discontinued due to injuries. 

Shelton has some issues with the piece, most notably his displeasure in regards to an epilogue left unfilmed.  He also doesn’t like some of director Roger Spottiswoode’s choices, though he claims that the studio gave the director a tough time.  Shelton wasn’t pleased with the publicity the film received either, and as far as business relationships are concerned, he writes the whole thing off as a very bad experience.

Kurt Russell was already a budding star when this picture was made, but Williams was just a zany comic with some success in television and a few mediocre films under his belt who would hit the big time with Good Morning, Vietnam a year later in 1987.  They have great chemistry here, and the film works best when it is centered squarely on their shoulders, yet they have never shared the screen again. 

When I was composing this piece I couldn’t find any commentary from the stars themselves.  That leads me to believe that this film probably doesn’t rank among their personal favorites, though it is entirely possible that they have made comments to the contrary that aren’t currently available.

For the most part, this is a truly a forgotten film within the industry.  Despite the star power and the creativity at work behind-the-scenes, there isn’t a lot of fanfare for this one to be found.  In fact, while I was putting this piece together, I didn’t find any retrospectives or features devoted to The Best of Times, though I should not that there are a wealth of forums and reviews where fans express their strong feelings for the film.

Is it any good?

I have loved this picture for a long time.  I have loved this movie for at least as long as I have loved football, and that’s a very long time indeed.  It is a bit clumsy in places and I know the stars of this piece have certainly offered up better performances, but this will always be a personal favorite of mine for a variety of reasons. 

First off, Kurt was at a point here where he could no wrong, and his Reno Hightower is a joy to watch.  Kurt doesn’t miss a beat throughout this irreverent and ultimately heart-warming little oddity.  Williams is often a bit much for yours truly, but here he is subdued enough (and trust me, a subdued Robin Williams is still a lot like you or I on crack) to amuse me without annoying me.  His Jack Dundee is a wounded man, but seldom has another man’s misery been so incredibly funny to behold.  The scene where he goes to a massage parlor and pays someone to listen to his agonizing self-dissection, all of which is based upon dropping the football in the big game, is one of his funniest bits ever, and he is consistently amusing throughout. 

While clearly the stars of the piece, Russell and Williams receive a lot of help from a great cast.  M. Emmet Walsh, R.G. Armstrong, Pamela Reed, Holly Palance, and Donald Moffat are all game for this quirky comedy, and everyone brings some humor to the mix.  Everyone fares well unless they happen to be involved in a poorly-staged song and dance routine that is positively embarrassing to behold and nearly drags the whole affair into oblivion.  Yet the film survives and offers up several far more entertaining and memorable setpieces along the way.   

Williams and Russell are both at the top of their game throughout, and their reliable performances are a model of consistency.  This is my favorite film featuring Robin Williams, and in truth I like Russell’s Reno Hightower almost as much as I like Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, and R.J. MacReady.  That’s high praise indeed coming from yours truly, and if you don’t believe that you need to take another look at my Top 5 John Carpenter Films.   

Additionally, the home stretch is definitely a crowd-pleaser.  The film that stumbles occasionally in the first and second acts really nails the big game in the third act.  Russell is truly magnificent, and the fire and determination he shows in this muddy battle makes you want to go out and block for him.  The film becomes surprisingly dramatic as the contest unfolds, and it’s hard not to cheer when fate is kind enough to offer Jack a shot at redemption in the closing seconds. 

The verdict:

The Best of Times isn’t a great picture, yet it still works.  Don’t be surprised if there are a few scenes in the mix that are so bad you can’t comprehend why they weren’t cut altogether, and yet don’t be surprised if you do find yourself incredibly moved by the silly happenings of this fun little film.  It’s whimsical, it’s absurd, it’s a little sloppy here and there, and it is anchored by two terrific performers in great roles who make us care about this imperfect movie that slipped through the cracks.  In the end, The Best of Times succeeds because it is fueled by warmth and a premise we can all identify with—after all, who wouldn’t like a shot to make up for at least one grievous error from the past—and even if it is a bit rough around the edges, it remains a lovable winner with a lot of heart.   

Which Jaws has the bigger bite?

While I'm resurrecting old bits, here's the first piece I published in RVA Magazine.  It's a comparison of Steven Spielberg's film and Peter Benchley's book.  It's brief, but since that there are few (if any) tales that I enjoy more, it's something I had a lot of fun with.  Enjoy!

Which Jaws has the bigger bite?

It’s a true anomaly: a stellar book is optioned by Hollywood and brought to the screen in epic fashion, surpassing the source text in the eyes of many.  For once, fans of either format can sit and ponder the merits of these beloved blockbusters, engaged in a difficult debate.  Which version has the sharpest teeth? 

            When Peter Benchley wrote his signature novel, he ignited the literary world with a gripping “Man vs. Nature” opus that plunges the reader into a marine nightmare on the first page and never looks back.  Benchley based his work on an actual series of attacks on the East Coast attributed to a single shark and this gives his plot a potent dose of realism.  The characters are well drawn, the setting is perfect, and the prose is both rhythmic and knowledgeable, a delicate balancing act performed to perfection here.

            Steven Spielberg took Benchley’s book to tinseltown and frightened audiences across the country out of the water with his amped-up approach and an explosively different climax (literally) that won the author over despite some initial conflict.  Young Spielberg was willing to take more chances and it shows, this stark and scary picture is a far cry from the family fare the director is also known for.  Here, his ambition and ability join forces with an exceptional cast to land an instant classic.  Give an assist to John Williams, the famed film composer who supplied one of cinema’s grandest scores.

            Since there can be no doubt that both versions of this tale have touched countless lives, a prominent question arises: which is the better fishing trip to go on?  Unfortunately, this is a query that simply cannot be answered.  The two visions vary enough that it simply will not work if one attempts to compare and contrast them.  Prominent characters and subplots within the novel didn’t make it before the cameras, most notably an extramarital sexual encounter between Matt Hooper and Ellen Brody that charges the third act of the book with blistering tension as three men take to the sea in pursuit of one of nature’s most violent killers.  Alas, who can forget Robert Shaw’s incredible monologue regarding his service on the Indianapolis, a plot device Spielberg originated and a setpiece the actor ran wild with.  There is also the conclusion to consider, as well as the fact that a primary character who survives on celluloid perishes in print.

            This is all a blessing, as those who know and love the story have two separate experiences to enjoy, both of which are frequently cited as favorites by bookworms and film buffs alike. 

Black-and-White Isn't Bad

I love my wife, I truly do, but we certainly have our differences.

For example, earlier today I asked her what she thought of Run Silent Run Deep.  Her response: "That stupid black-and-white movie you were watching?"  It wasn't stupid and black-and-white, it was stupid because it was in black-and-white.

Seriously, if it's in black-and-white, she can't hang, and she's not alone.  Yet the girls have watched a number of movies and shows in black-and-white without complaint, so it's not some new age dilemma, I think it's just a natural tendency for many to discount that which isn't contemporary.  The less contemporary, the worse. 

Folks, there are too many good old movies for that type of logic.  And I don't care what's being released on Blu-Ray next week or the week after, if we turn the clock back and direct our attention to some true classics, we'll wind up with better films.  Greatness isn't contemporary, it has no age.  It's where you find it, and there are a lot more old movies than new ones. 

Don't apply this line of thought to films alone, for it holds true with any type of art I can think of.  Also, don't miss out on Run Silent Run Deep.  My wife is right about a great many things, but this isn't one of them.  How can you go wrong with Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster? 

Of course, I should probably pay more attention to the new stuff.  My wife was unfamiliar with Gable and Lancaster, so I began to describe them, and in doing so, I noted that Gable was before my time.  He is, . . . and so is Lancaster.  In fact, both men were stars long before the time before my time.  But I digress . . . 

Thanks, Roger

I didn't always agree with him, but I loved to read his reviews, for he did such a fantastic job of expressing his thoughts.  Indeed, it wasn't just his sound understanding of film that made Roger Ebert so special, it was his ability to provide such vibrant depictions of his reactions to the movies he watched.  While I always found time to see how he sized up my personal favorites, his writing was of such quality that I was compelled to read his take on titles I had no interest in as well. 

I always felt that he was very honest, and whether I shared his opinion or not, I never felt that he harbored any ulterior motives for rating movies as he did.  In short, his work didn't seem as empty or contrived as much of what's out there.  It was always refreshing to know that he was never going to use his platform to direct attention toward himself or tow any company lines.  He was there to do a job, and he did it well.  Too many critics seem to think their reviews are about them, and too many are too quick to echo one another when they compose their reviews.  Now, Roger was very opinionated and he had unique ways of expressing himself, so there was a wealth of personality in his reviews, but that was merely a side effect.  He wrote about the films and their stars, the directors, the writers, and the producers who fund it all.  He wrote about their efforts lovingly, and he didn't mind going against the grain. 

There can be no doubt that Roger Ebert treasured movies, and I think his passion was a boon to the very art he so cherished.  He was good for the movies, no one can argue that, and his voice will be sorely missed.  I'm sure there are countless people across the globe giving his legacy a big thumbs-up today, and he surely deserves it.  Thanks, Roger.