1997 Movie Review: AIR FORCE ONE, 1997 (starring Harrison Ford)

 

AIR FORCE ONE MOVIE POSTER
AIR FORCE ONE, 1997
Movie Reviews

Directed by Wolfgang Petersen
Starring: Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Glenn Close, Wendy Crewson, William H Macy, Dean Stockwell, Tom Everett
Review by Emma Hutchings

SYNOPSIS:

After Russian terrorists hijack the Presidential plane, the only hope of regaining control and averting disaster is the President himself. He has just made a speech stating he will not negotiate with terrorists, but is he willing to stand by that if it means sacrificing his wife and daughter?

OSCAR NOMINEE for Best Film Editing, Best Sound

REVIEW:

‘Harrison Ford is the President of the United States’. If that tagline fills you with dread, chances are you probably aren’t going to enjoy Air Force One. However, if the image of the great American action star playing the President, as a tough, heroic, Medal of Honor winner, beating up the terrorists who dare to take control of his plane, makes you grin, then you’ll love this action-packed thrill ride.

At the start of the film, President James Marshall makes a brave speech in Moscow condemning terrorists and saying he will not negotiate with them. Coincidentally, upon leaving, a group of Russians sympathetic towards General Radek (the once tyrannical leader of Kazakhstan, now in prison) board Air Force One posing as a press crew, helped by a mole in the Secret Service.

When things get hairy, the President is rushed to an escape pod in the cargo hold. But what the hijackers don’t know is that the President refused to leave and while his staff and family are held captive, he endeavours to rescue them single-handedly.

Consequently, what ensues is your typical ‘lone hero against a group of criminals’ scenario (think Die Hard or Under Siege). The terrorists conveniently prowl around the plane individually and he is able to pick off a few before being rumbled.

This rather tired formula is given a new lease of life and works mainly because of Harrison Ford’s star power. Ford inspires confidence; he does the right thing no matter how difficult, the audience know this and have that expectation before the film even starts. We know he’ll do the right thing, take care of his family and be a great leader of his country because he’s Harrison Ford, the Hollywood star. If it was an unknown actor we perhaps wouldn’t know how he’d respond in certain situations, and we wouldn’t be drawn into the film as much as we are, knowing Harrison Ford is going to save the day. This is basically, ‘what would happen if terrorists hijacked a plane and Indiana Jones was on board?’ or Jack Ryan, or any number of the characters he has previously played.

Praise must go to Gary Oldman as Ivan Korshunov, leader of the group of terrorists. He excels at playing the bad guy but I think this character is something special. Usually the villain’s motives aren’t explained, they are de-humanised and the audience feels no sympathy for them. But far from being a crazy lunatic, he makes Korshunov human, which can be quite unsettling. There are times when his persuasive rhetoric (combined with a convincing Russian accent) makes you wonder if he isn’t just a regular guy who was pushed to the very edge and foolishly chose to resort to extreme methods. In using the argument, “You, who murdered a hundred thousand Iraqis to save a nickel on a gallon of gas, are going to lecture me on the rules of war?” he makes the audience see the Americans, and by association The President, in an unflattering light. Korshunov is a powerful character, and pitting him in opposition to the President adds an extra interesting facet to the film.

The bottom line is that Air Force One is completely unbelievable. It’s a fantasy story about the President saving the day. Yet it keeps you hooked. It’s a little longer than I like my action movies but it held my attention. There are some great action sequences; the pilot’s urgent attempt to land the plane at a German airbase near the start of the film is a remarkable set piece. My advice is don’t think about it too much because if you start to examine the plot you will find gaping holes and you’re likely to realise it’s all a bit silly. But it’s a very enjoyable film if taken for what it was meant to be; a summer blockbuster, a popcorn movie, a film you can sit down and enjoy without taxing your brain. So, just go with it and enjoy the ride, or should that be flight?

AIR FORCE ONE, 1997

1997 Movie Review: ABSOLUTE POWER, 1997 (dir. Clint Eastwood)

ABSOLUTE POWER MOVIEABSOLUTE POWER, 1997
Movie Reviews

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Ed Harris Gene Hackman, Laura Linney, Scott Glenn, Dennis Haysbert, Judy Davis, Richard Jenkins
Review by Surinder Singh

SYNOPSIS:

Professional thief Luther Whitney (Clint Eastwood) finds himself the sole witness to a murder involving the US President Richmond (Gene Hackman) during a routine robbery. A dangerous game of cat and mouse begins. Whitney must stop the murder weapon and his own daughter Kate (Laura Linney) from falling into the hands of the corrupt President and his aids. How can a guilty thief bring the President of the United States to justice and still make a clean getaway?

REVIEW:

Absolute Power is a feast for movie lovers with its all-star cast (including Eastwood’s own daughter Alison Eastwood). Also, with it being a thriller directed by the capable hands of Clint Eastwood himself you really can’t lose! Absolute Power is indeed a brilliant thriller with solid performances all round (not that this is a surprise). The nineties marked Eastwood’s transition to senior roles where his age became a large part of his roles. In The Line Of Fire (1993) and Unforgiven (1992) showed us Clint Eastwood actually exploring his age as a subject/theme in his work.

As the older thief, Luther Whitney has to reflect on the life he has lead. His wife is dead and he’s trying to make amends with his estranged daughter Kate. Naturally the event of the murder will change his life forever. The murder scene is quite simply an exquisite piece of filmmaking; bringing together acting and writing to sinister effect. We watch Whitney observe through a one-way mirror a simple affair turn into a tragic killing. Eastwood crafts the scene with a voyeuristic suspense and intrigue allowing the action to unfold dramatically but also showing us the important details. You can imagine the scene being in a Hitchcock movie.

As President Allen Richmond, Gene Hackman takes a role going against his usual typecast. Rather than being the brash hard man on the front line, Hackman plays a scheming, snake-in-the-grass of a President who gets others do his dirty work! Richmond’s partner in crime is a thoroughly nasty piece of work: Chief of Staff Gloria Russell (Judy Davis). She’s the real personification of evil using her two Secret Service agents: Burton (Scott Glenn) and Collin (Dennis Haysbert) to carry out her deeds. The idea of a US President trying to cover up an affair was certainly a relevant topic given the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal in 1997.

Hot on the trail of both Whitney (and trying to get his head around a murder scene that makes no sense at all) Seth Frank (Ed Harris) is a good cop who gets close to Whitney’s daughter Kate during the investigation. In wonderful scene in the art gallery both Frank and Whitney cross swords and discuss the case at hand. Both Harris and Eastwood show what great actors they are here. Not a single line of the script becomes cryptic and they both make clear the underlying conversation about the investigation.

Another interesting element is the Secret Service agent Burton. His guilt bears down hard on him, unlike Collin who is more of a cold killing machine that only responds to orders from above. Burton represents the only person inside the President’s circle who seems to realize the moral issues at play. While everyone is blinded by their duty to the President, he is the one who stops and realizes they made a mistake that was not just. It’s fascinating that two men like Burton and Collin (so different in beliefs) can work side by side in government.

As fate would have it Whitney’s daughter Kate is of course a law prosecutor. This is quite an obvious move by the script to push moral questions onto Whitney who (being a thief) obviously an individual moral compass. Kate also provides a good motive for him to come out of hiding. In the scene in the outdoor cafÈ we see Whitney risk snipers to see his daughter who is now working with Frank to bring her father in. Eastwood does well to keep the action simple and not go over board.
The key to Whitney’s redemption is for him to allow the law to solve the murder and bring the real killers to justice. Whitney uses his slippery skills to incriminate the guilty people but not before he reverses his own sin (putting the swag he robbed back). The movie is about the importance of telling the truth sure, but the movie also makes the point that corruption blinds good people and so bad things happen.

Absolute Power is solid viewing and well worth a watch on a Saturday night in. Like much of Clint Eastwood’s directorial work in the 90s, it shows him building toward the quality of directing we now take for granted in his more recent work: Million Dollar Baby (2004) and Mystic River (2003).

Surinder Singh – Feb 2010

 

ABSOLUTE POWER, 1997

Full Review: VICTORIA AND ABDUL (UK 2017) ***

Victoria and Abdul Poster
Trailer

Queen Victoria strikes up an unlikely friendship with a young Indian clerk named Abdul Karim.

Director:

Stephen Frears

Writers:

Lee Hall (screenplay), Shrabani Basu (based on the book by)

Stars:

Judi DenchOlivia WilliamsMichael Gambon

Director Stephen Frears has made great controversial films like SAMMY AND ROSIE GET LAID, THE SNAPPER and MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE.  He has also made films about royalty before, like THE QUEEN and also sentimental slush like PHILOMENA, with Judi Dench.  VICTORIA AND ABDUL a film about Queen Victoria (Oscar Winner Judi Dench) and her Indian servant Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal) contains a cocktail of all the elements of the films mentioned above.  The result, as expected as a mediocre Jack of all Trades Master of None film, which shines but only occasionally.

 

The film chronicles with humour and insight the friendship between Queen Victoria and a decades-younger Indian clerk named Abdul Karim.  Karim has been summoned because of his height to present in England all the way from Agar, India the colonized homeland, a present.   The present is satirically, a ceremonial coin on behalf of British India to the Queen as a part of her Golden Jubilee in 1887,  Abdul with another travel for the intimidating task. 

 

Abdul has done what is forbidden during the ceremony.  He makes eye contact with the Queen who finds him handsome.  In no time he is cooking her curries, talking to her about his culture, and being elevated to the post of official clerk, or Munshi, becoming an indispensable part of the household — and state.

 

This is where trouble boils.  The Queen’s son, Bertie and the household take offence that this ‘coloured’ lowly servant is treated royally.  The ultimatum comes when the Queen decides to knight Abdul in order to have her household respect him.  The opposite occur.  The household threaten to resign if Karim is knighted.  This is where the Queen uses her brain and oratory to win the day.  Frears uses the incident to make a statement about the refugee crisis and racial prejudice.  The film’s best segment occurs here when the Queen chides her entire household with a speech that put them to shame.  This is a Dench’s award winning performance.

 

Frears’ assessment of Britain and royalty remains respectful.  The Queen at one point remarks: “A lot of people around the world hate me.”  Abdul says of the British as uncivilized on the ship en-route to England for the first time: “They put it’s blood in their sausages and eat sheep’s brains.”  The first words heard by Abdul on landing: “Welcome to Civilization!”

 

Queen Victoria is revealed in the film with all her grandeur (her robe and servants) but also with all her faults and her ageing process.  When she is first seen in the film, her face is not shown, but her body covered in white (like a shroud) in bed with snoring heard.  She also claims herself to be and shown as well as cankerous, ill-tempered, fat but also one that has held five generations of household and mother of many children and grandchildren.  “I am the Queen of England and the Emperor of India,” she claims proudly.

 

VICTORIA AND ABDUL is Frears’ mediocre film which is tolerant of everything and offends no one.  These kind of films are often humorous, handsomely mounted, well acted but unfortunately forgetful. 

 

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT2Ph_9bGPs

Full Review: STRONGER (USA 2016)

Stronger Poster
Trailer

Stronger is the inspiring real life story of Jeff Bauman, an ordinary man who captured the hearts of his city and the world to become a symbol of hope following the infamous 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Director:

David Gordon Green

Writers:

John Pollono (screenplay), Jeff Bauman (based on the book “Stronger” by)

Stars:

Jake GyllenhaalTatiana MaslanyMiranda Richardson

The Boston marathon.  PATRIOT’S DAY saw Mark Wahlberg star in the film that hunted down the terrorists responsible for the bombings.  STRONGER, on the other hand, looks at the Boston marathon from the point of view of a victim.  And a really bad victim at that – one that has lost both his legs in the middle of the bomb explosion.

 

To the film’s credit, the film is an adaptation of the memoir by Jeff Bauman, recounting his struggles to adjust after losing his legs in the Boston Marathon bombing.  So, it is a true story, rather than one based on true events.  But unfortunately the film wallows in self pity.

 

The film tells the story of Jeff’s tragedy and rebirth. 

 

Runner Erin Hurley (Tatiana Maslany) was still a mile away from the finish line when the bombs went off.  Her boyfriend, Jeff (Jake Gyllenhaal), however, was right there.  He is rushed into surgery, but his legs must be amputated.  The bombing’s immediate aftermath provides Jeff with an unexpected sense of purpose as he had seen one of the terrorists responsible for the blasts.  He gives information to the FBI that proves instrumental in their investigation.  But this is not seen in detail in the film.  So one wonders, whether Jeff really saw the bomber or imagined it.  Once that very public drama quietened down,  Jeff’s personal drama, a challenge as much for his morale as his body, is begins.  With Erin by his side, Jeff slowly recovers, one arduous step at a time.

 

Green’s film centres on the travails and sufferings of Jeff.  But it opts out for cheap shots – like showing the parts where Jeff has trouble in the toilet trying to shit or urinate. 

 

Jeff is shown in the film on the road of self destruction.  Erin scarifies her all for him.  But he is shown as unrepentant, unhealed by his mother who want him to get all the glory and money for his mishap. 

 

The film shows Jeff’s change in outlook.  Unfortunately, this change is shown coming from just one event instead of a gradual progression – the meeting of the Mexican who attended to him during the bombing.  Though this might be true, this one event that apparently changed Jeff’s outlook on life seems quite incredible.

 

Jake Gyllenhaal, Tatiana Malsany and Miranda Richardson (as Jeff’s mother) deliver excellent performances despite the film’s flaws.  If the film turned out better, they might be up for acting Oscars.

 

The film ends, expectedly during the closing credits with shots of the real Jeff and Erin.  It is revealed  that that the film is based on the book written by Jeff which is not mentioned at all in the film.

 

One can only wish the film would have been a better one that would show more of the triumph of the human spirit instead of one that showed a man wallowing is self pity.

 

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6MN0QfQx7I

Full Review: BATTLE OF THE SEXES (USA 2017)

 

Battle of the Sexes Poster
Trailer

The true story of the 1973 tennis match between World number one Billie Jean King and ex-champ and serial hustler Bobby Riggs.

Writer:

Simon Beaufoy

Stars:

Emma StoneAndrea RiseboroughSteve Carell

BATTLE OF THE SEXES begins with Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) just winning the women’s singles tennis championship making her number one female player in the world. King is outraged with the inequality of pay by the National Tennis League, especially with Jack, the chairman (Bill Pullman), who is shown to be the real villain of the story.

Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell), arranges the battle of the sexes match, using his loud mouth and publicity to earn himself some cash to aid his failing marriage. To King, winning this match is more symbolic. It is a milestone for women’s rights for equal pay, a point that is mentioned at the film’s end credits but not made clear throughout the film.

The lazy script by Simon Beaufoy (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) never bothers with important details of the story. How, for example did King’s husband Larry, learn of his wife’s sexuality. In the film, King tells her hairdresser lover that this is her first time with women, but apparently the husband knows King has has same sex relationships before.
The film overdramatizes to the point of laughter. One scene has Billie’s lover in her hair salon shop hearing the news of Billie, realizing that she is needed and dramatically drops everything to leave the salon.

The wardrobe of the 70’s has never looked so awful in any other film. Did we, in the 70’s really look that bad thinking we were looking so cool? Billie’s husband, Larry ‘s clothes are the worst. Perhaps that might be one reason she later left him. The hair of everyone is just as bad, including Billie’s even after a hairdo from her girlfriend.

The script contains lots of inane dialogue and unfunny jokes. One line has Larry asking his wife if she was getting a blow dry, with full sexual innuendo. The film sheds no real light on the female rights movement, except what we already know. The dialogue contains lot of cheap jokes on women like Riggs saying that he believes women should be on the tennis court, but for picking up balls. These jokes are predictable, told many times before and if they meant to offend women, they still might. Two anti-female remarks are also voiced by two stars Llyod Bridges and Ricardo Montalban shown on old TV footage.

The crucial tennis match between King and Riggs can hardly be called exciting. For one, history already dictates who had won and the audience is in for no surprise. The camera is also placed mainly in one spot, showing the overhead shot of the players. The directors appear more concerned to show the match in long takes than any thing else.

Oscar Winner Emma Stone is too skinny to look like a tennis player. Carell looks remarkably like Bobby Fisher as they are right around the same age in the story. The nude picture of Carell resembles the one taken by Riggs. The rest of the cast of Sarah Silverman, Elisabeth Shue are largely wasted by the script that are unbothered with these characters.

BATTLE OF THE SEXES ends up a boring film on an exciting sport.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ykcuAS1F4

BATTLE OF THE SEXES 1

TIFF 2017 Movie Review: VISAGES, VILLAGES (Faces Places)(France 2017) ***** Top 10

 

Movie Reviews of films that will be playing at TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) in 2017. Go to TIFF 2017 Movie Reviews and read reviews of films showing at the festival.

Faces Places Poster
Director Agnes Varda and photographer/muralist J.R. journey through rural France and form an unlikely friendship.

Directors:

JRAgnès Varda

Stars:

Jean-Luc GodardJRLaurent Levesque

Faces Places have received high critical praise from critics at Cannes, many calling it a masterpiece. That might be too big a term to use for this little personal film but VISAGES VILLAGES is simply the most delightful and personal film at the festival.

Director Agnes Varda (wife of the late Jacques Demy), now 89 is famous for her films, photographs, and art installations that focus on documentary realism, feminist issues, and social commentary with a distinct experimental style.

In this latest and perhaps her last doc (she is losing her vision), she and fellow friend and artist known as JR travel around France, particularly the North in their photo camion to take pictures of the people they visit. At Le Havre, for example they photograph the images of three wives of the dockworker and paste them on stacked containers.

In a deserted mining town, they paste the photograph of the last woman (wife of a miner) still staying in the old house district. When asked the reason she does this, she replies it is too demonstrate the power of imagination.

No doubt about that, this film is personal, inspiring, powerful, sad and happy and perhaps ‘masterpiece’ might be really an accurate term to describe this film.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHG5HXYc9w
 

VISAGES, VILLAGES 1

1987 Movie Review: SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT 2, 1987

 

SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT 2SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT 2, 1987
Movie Review

Directed by Alexander Payne
Starring: Eric Freeman, James Newman
Review by Russell Hill

SYNOPSIS:

An evil, psychotic patient at a Mental Hospital tells a psychiatrist of his murderous past.

REVIEW:

Having become an internet phenomenon due to the line “Garbage Day”, this was meant to be a film to scare its audience, chilling the bones to their very core. But instead of a non-stop scare-fest we are treated to what has to be one of the most outrageously funny movies ever released.

Due to Eric Freeman’s fantastic, over-the-top acting we see one of the most unintentional comedic performances this reviewer has seen for some time. Initially told in flashback, we first find Ricky in a mental hospital. A psychiatrist (James Newman) asks Ricky (Freeman) about his brother Billy. To cut a long story short, Ricky’s brother and he had witnessed both their mother and father’s murder at the hands of a man dressed as Santa Claus, as well as her being raped. Fast forward a few years and they find themselves in an orphanage being looked after by Nuns.

Some of the Nun’s are nice, but then there’s Mother Superior. The ultimate bitch in all cinema, she mentally tortures little Billy to the extreme that upon leaving the orphanage he is given a job; as a Department Store Father Christmas. Ultimately, Ricky goes a little crazy, and goes about killing anyone and everyone he sees as being “naughty” and must be “punished”. Thanks to his mental imbalance, he heads to the orphanage to finally see off Mother Superior, but instead is stopped just as his axe misses her. And all this in front of Ricky!

Onto Ricky, he is soon adopted by a young couple and soon leads a normal life. Suddenly his adopted father dies when he is a teenager and decides to go out on his own by landing a number of menial jobs. However, the years of mental torture at the hands of Mother Superior take their toll on poor ol’ Ricky. He too starts seeing people being “naughty”, and carries out punishment in a number of ways, whether it is strangulation or putting an electrical wire in their mouth’s and switching the voltage to its maximum. But the question remains; can Ricky be stopped before finishing the job started by his brother? Will Mother Superior ever be saved?

Only available to the UK on YouTube or if you have a spare £20 to spend on EBay, this was recommended by a workmate who said of the “Garbage Day” quote and since then it was on my list of movies which have to be seen and, boy, it certainly doesn’t disappoint.

The makers were told to re-edit the original film, and then make a supposed sequel. As they discovered that making a completely new movie just by editing the original they realised they had to shoot some new footage but with a substantially low budget. Sometimes, even the filmmakers were paid such a low wage that negative memories are held who worked on the movie. But hey, if you ignore this lack of funds and concentrate on the film as a whole you are treated to such a great flick which is due to raise a smile. And the main reason for such cheer? The answer: Eric Freeman and his eyebrows.

Apparently hired because he looked more like a movie star than another actor who was a better talent, Freeman looks the part of a Hollywood tough guy but just fails on every level. As Stallone and Chuck Norris have both the looks and capability of looking the part of ripping a mans heart out whilst its still beating, Freeman looks as though he would find it impossible just to sneeze in your face. And those eyebrows! Whenever you seem him “threatening” someone, his eyebrows take off like an aeroplane and never seem to land back in one place. According to the production staff, they tried to track down Freeman when the film was recently released in order to do a commentary track. They soon discovered that he is untraceable and cannot be found anywhere. I do hope this guy is still around and not six feet under as it would be great for him to continue acting.

I guess to those who like more highbrow movies should avoid “Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2”. This is merely a cult movie which many love and even more hate. The sight of a murderous Santa Claus might not be their ideal cinematic representation, but for many this is downright laughable. Anyways, what is not to like? Over the top acting by Freeman, great shootouts and even a love story for the romantics in the crowd. For those reading this not from the USA and Canada, this movie will prove quite troublesome to track down. But then again, there’s always YouTube. Go on, I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.

 

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

1987 Movie Review: THE UNTOUCHABLES, 1987

 

THE UNTOUCHABLES MOVIE POSTER
THE UNTOUCHABLES, 1987
Movie Reviews

Directed by Brian De Palma
Starring: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro
Review by Mike Peters

SYNOPSIS:

Chicago-1930-Eliot Ness is an idealistic and ambitious Treasury officer new to the ranks of the corrupt Chicago Police Force. His goal of cleaning up the streets is thwarted by the presence of the larger than life gangster, Al Capone. Overcoming hardships and threats against his family, Eliot Ness rounds up a group of “Untouchables” (men who are unable to be corrupted) and decides to challenge the Mega Empire of Capone.

Review:

To some, The Untouchables may not be considered a “classic film”. I would disagree. Growing up, I became enamored by the visual sight of gangsters in film. They appealed to me for many reasons. The freedom and the power they achieved through their modes of conduct was always a road I wanted to travel on. Then I grew up. I realized that this would not be the life for me. The danger and violent nature needed to be a part of this sort of “group” was not who I was. I could never kill a man, nor beat a man to a bloody pulp for minimal reasons. No, the life of the gangster was not for me. But, it is still an entertaining world in which to inhabit for two hours.

The Untouchables arrived in 1987 and was directed by Brian De Palma. A director, well known for his controversial films, had been deemed violent, misogynistic and anti-social by many of his critics. Known for such films as Carrie (1976), Scarface (1983) and Body Double (1984), De Palma has never shied away from controversy. Arriving at a time when Hollywood was undergoing great change, De Palma rose through the ranks with other directors such as Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola. Studios had lost control of their films for a brief period of time and it was the director who was allowed to have full control of his film. It was his vision, not a producers or studios, which gave the director an unbelievable sense of importance and power. This was good and bad in a sense. Some directors blew it through their egotistical ways while others managed to make a name for themselves and remain an important part of the industry. De Palma was the latter.

De Palma began making films that strived to push the limits of acceptable behavior deemed appropriate by society. Growing up the son of a surgeon, De Palma never shied away from the images of violence and blood. It was a natural part of life in his eyes and he strived to depict it in, as some would say, voyeuristic ways. However, many could not see that he was critiquing the images that he presented on screen. He understood that he had become a controversial figure and regularly poked fun at this classification.

Studios were afraid to work him. However, in 1986, he directed a film called Wise Guys. This film was not well received and quickly vanished from people’s minds. The film however proved that De Palma could be uncontroversial and as a result, he scored The Untouchables.

The Untouchables is an interesting film. It is largely a Hollywood manufactured production but it embodies so much more. Themes such as loyalty, corruption and perseverance are readily presented in a beautifully crafted film. The production design is immaculate in its recreation of 1930’s Chicago. The buildings and the streets are simplistic and very formal in their design which helps to create a sense of nostalgia of what it might have been like to live during this time.

The clothes, designed by Giorgio Armani, are perfect and help to define the characters in truly distinctive ways. Al Capone and his cronies all live an upper class life. Through their suits to Al Capone’s silk pajamas, these men are deemed with high regard because of their social and financial standings. In many De Palma films, he has been known to upend the iconographic modes of good and evil. For instance, Frank Nitti is always represented by his white suit. Typically white has been linked to wholesomeness and purity but here, it is defined as corrupt and a color to be avoided. The police force on the other hand is visualized through their extremely dark police uniforms. By wearing these, the corrupt officials blacken the very meaning of what these uniforms are supposed to represent. The fact that every color is deemed corrupt only helps the audience to understand that Chicago has very few straight arrow citizens. The fact that the four “untouchables”, Ness (Kevin Costner), Malone (Sean Connery), Stone (Andy Garcia) and Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) are all represented through individualistic clothing attire helps to represent their non-conformist (corrupt) ways. They do not wear a uniform but rather wear their street clothes which allow them to be characterized as a group that cannot be swayed by the corruptive nature of the city.

The story is very linear in its approach. The film moves along at a decent pace which helps to settle the audience into sort of a lull but then immediately, and out of the blue, explodes into extreme violence. Just because De Palma was deemed uncontroversial at this point did not mean that he would totally shed his old ways. When the violence strikes, it has an impact that is harsh and unrelenting. When a particular star of the film is murdered, the film is merciless in its depiction of brutality and anguish. De Palma sets the tone very early in the film through the use of violence. At the beginning of the film, one of Capone’s men attempts to force a bar/diner owner to buy alcohol from them. He refuses. The man leaves. Another man, dressed in white, leaves the bar as well but leaves his briefcase sitting on a stool. A little girl, who is in the diner, attempts to track down the man but as she reaches the door, the briefcase explodes, killing everyone in the diner. This scene emphasizes that during this time everyone was fair game to be killed, even children (this scene is also important to imply that everyone is capable of being murdered within this film). It attempts to identify the fact that this was a very dangerous time period in American society. If you didn’t comply, then you would have to face the penalties. This scene also helps to foreshadow a scene later on in the film involving a child.

There are some memorable scenes in this film. The first is a P.O.V. perspective shot through the eyes of a gangster breaking into Malone’s apartment. This P.O.V. shot also works as a long tracking shot which creates a sense of suspense and fear because the viewer has now taken on the identity of the assassin. As we track Malone through his apartment, tension increases causing a fear that this man, whom we have come to admire throughout the course of the film, is about to be killed. It is a brilliant use of camera work displayed by De Palma in this scene.

Perhaps the most famous part of the picture is the train station scene. Inspired by Sergei Eisenstein’s Soviet silent film classic, Battleship Potemkin (1925), this scene is long and dragged out but manages to create an unbelievable sense of unease within the audience. While Ness and Stone are awaiting the arrival of the bookkeeper (who they need to apprehend), whom is being escorted out of town, the pacing slows to a crawl. We wait as Ness and Stone wait. There is no immediate rush into the action. We know that there will most likely be a violent confrontation but we must wait and thus the tension rises to an all new high. To make matters worse, a woman struggles to drag her baby carriage (with baby inside) up the stairs where this confrontation is likely to take place. I will not ruin it for those who have not seen it but this is a scene that is perhaps one of the greatest suspense sequences in film history.

The script by David Mamet is filled with suspense and tension and the actors help to bring his story to life. Sean Connery, in an Oscar winning performance, is magnificent as the over the hill Malone who still has a hunger within him to fight the fight. As well, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith are well cast as new recruits to the “untouchables” team. Robert De Niro provides an interesting performance as well. He provides little nuances to his portrayal of Al Capone, like a smile or nod, which adds flavor to the character but in some instances he glides, knowingly and flamboyantly, over the top. The one problem with the casting is in Kevin Costner. When he is surrounded by the likes of Connery and De Niro, it is hard to accept him for who he is trying to be. I understand that his character wants to embody a sense of innocence and that he must learn how to achieve victory, but I felt he was weak for the role. He didn’t instill a fear within me throughout the course of the film. I enjoy him as an actor, just not in this film.

The Untouchables is a well made and crafted film. There are some slight problems with the film however. For instance, the editing is abrupt and distracting at times. Some scenes that should have had a few seconds of pause prior to edit are cut prematurely. But, these are small problems. This film attempts to encapsulate a time period while placing its’ own spin on the genre. The gangster film had all but disappeared from cinemas but, in my mind, this film helped to reestablish its’ roots (and as well make it a commercially viable genre once again). The film was one of my favorites as a child and still holds a special place within my heart. If one wants to witness the blending of a controversial figure like De Palma with the mainstream ideas of Hollywood, watch this film. You won’t be disappointed.

 the untouchables.jpg

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

1987 Movie Review: WALLSTREET, 1987

 

WALLSTREET MOVIE POSTER
WALLSTREET, 1987
Movie Reviews

Directed by Oliver Stone
Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen
Review by Mike Peters

SYNOPSIS:

In 1985, an ambitious young broker, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is lured into the illegal, lucrative world of corporate espionage when he is seduced by the power, status and financial wizardry of Wall Street legend Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas).

Review:

Janwillem Van De Weterling once said that: “greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough”. Greed is good according to Gordon Gekko. It is the template of society. Without greed, there would be no progression, no desire, no nothing.

Michael Douglas’s portrayal of Gordon Gekko is masterly. The slick and calculating financier who uses and abuses the people around him is perhaps one of the most vile and despicable characters in film history. However, for as much as the audience hates him, they can never take their eyes off of him. He controls the gaze and manipulates and twists the emotions of the people he is trying to convince. As he notes to Bud Fox, there are no friends in the business world: “If you want a friend, buy a dog”.

Gekko’s name has clearly been inspired by the insect that feeds off insects less powerful. Scaly and slithery, the gecko is a creature that is quite innocent from a physical perspective but is driven by a desire to live and survive in the jungles of the land from all adversaries. Gordon Gekko is exactly the same. He is not content with merely surviving in the jungles of the business world but rather is determined to destroy all of his competition with a vengeance. He is a greedy, self absorbed mongrel but people attach themselves to him as if they were moths to a flame. Bud Fox fits this analogy to a tee and is definitely burned by it.

The 1980s was a decade in search of an identity. The 1960s and 1970s had been tumultuous years for America and great change was thus needed in the 80s in order to instill some sort of defined leadership to appease society. When Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1980, he demanded alterations in hopes of witnessing the revival of The United States of America. He pushed forward the prospect of individual freedom and the idea that the individual could accomplish anything on the strength of himself rather then through a reliance on government institutions. In connection with this, Reagan also wanted to reinvigorate the United States economy. As a result, the 1980s became more about the self rather then the country for many individuals. Driven by the idea that dreams could be accomplished through capitalistic practices, America became a self-absorbed culture of excess.

Bud Fox is a man driven by these very needs. A broker who frantically must sell himself to clients all day long finally begins to become disillusioned with his current status. At one point, he notes that he wonders when he will be on the other end of the line. Instead of selling, he wants to be buying. His desire is to be like Gordon Gekko. He is passionate and determined and after 40 days of constant harassment, Gekko finally agrees to see Fox. But he is in over his head from the get go. When he enters Gekko’s luxurious office (which is ten times the size of his apartment on the upper west side of New York), he stares in amazed wonderment. Gekko is such an imposing figure that he intimidates the young Fox. Being slightly coy with him, he demands that Bud tell him something worthwhile. He is playing and toying with him the entire time and is setting him up for the kill. That is until Fox surprises him with a tip. Gekko no longer feels the need to kill him off (figuratively) and cast him back out in the harsh world of bureaucratic business. Gekko understands that he can now use him and mold him into someone who can help him become even richer.

Fox is so enamored by the chance to alter his present situation of financial strain that he quickly is enveloped into the lecherous world of Gekko. Immediately, Fox begins to change both externally and internally. His suits become darker, his hair becomes slicker rather then frazzled, his ideals begin to change and arrogance begins to manifest itself from within (which has never been transparent before). In one instance, his desire to become someone has corrupted his ideals and has transformed him into the man Gekko wants him to be.

Oliver Stone provides an interesting sub-story at this point of the film. Fox’s father, Carl (Martin Sheen), is an honorable working class man who fixes airplanes. He is a morally centered man. He dreams that his son will make something of his life and desires the best for him. He truly cares for his son whereas Gekko merely uses him. In a sense, Carl Fox and Gordon Gekko are vying for the soul of Bud. He must choose between the ideals emphasized by the character traits of these two men. Bud’s desire has always been to become successful and rich and he is easily manipulated by the temptation of what Gekko has to offer him. Gekko not only blackens the soul of Bud but he also becomes a new father figure to him by lavishing gifts and women on him (which Carl never had the ability to do). Bud turns his back on his father because success has tainted him. Money has become his life; his new family. Wall Street is not a perfect film in any way. In fact, it is not one of Stone’s masterpieces. But it does capture a time period with magnificent clarity as a result of Oliver Stone’s ability to capture greed at its finest. With this being said, there are some elements that take away from the overall impact of the film. For instance, Darryl Hannah’s performance is forgettable, Sean Young’s turn as Gekko’s wife is small and unmentionable (she is barely in the film although I assume that this is the point-the business world and personal world do not mix and Gekko has clearly chosen the professional world as his family), the music is typical cheesy 80’s fare and the self reflecting dialogue by Fox is sometimes forced and illogical.

Though the story follows a familiar trajectory with rise, fall and redemption elements, there is still something truly intoxicating about the film. As we journey with Fox, we realize what he is becoming. He is no longer in control of his destiny. He has sold his soul to the devil in order to feel superficially happy. It is a morality tale that can speak to the likes of everyone. How much is too much? Is financial success the true meaning of happiness? Gekko is happy but he never truly lives in this film. He lives for the money but for nothing else. Is this the symbol of what life should be? Only you, the individual, can decide for yourself.

wallstreet.jpg

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

1987 Movie Review: WITHNAIL AND I, 1987

WITHNAIL AND I,  MOVIE POSTERWITHNAIL AND I, 1987
Movie Reviews

Directed By Bruce Robinson

Starring Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann, Richard Griffiths, Ralph Brown
Review by Christopher Upton

SYNOPSIS:

Two unemployed actors tire of their impoverished surroundings in London and head off to a cottage in the countryside for a weekend of heavy drinking, drug abuse and fresh air. However uninhabitable conditions and a home invading uncle with deviant intentions quickly destroy their plans. Based on the life of the director Bruce Robinson.

REVIEW:

The art world is full of people completely convinced the only reason they aren’t famous is because of some horrifying conspiracy, Withnail is such a person. Bruce Robinson based the character on someone he shared a house with in the Sixties, and the film is a mostly autobiographical account of their time together. Withnail was notable for being the first acting job for Richard E. Grant, who captured the drunken spirit of the titular character impressively considering he is a teetotaller.

Trapped in the squalor of his London flat with his long suffering flatmate, the thespian in Withnail itches to get out as it struggles against his alcohol dependency and his, unfortunately all too obvious, lack of talent. Living from week to week, surviving on benefit, the two actors feel the weight of busy London crushing down on them.

The two of them decide on a break and convince Withnail’s equally deluded actor of an uncle to lend them his cottage, a chance to reacquaint themselves with nature in order to rejuvenate and come back fully charged and better than ever. The problem is that what they mainly reacquaint themselves with is pills and enormous amounts of alcohol. In a sense it has a slapstick feel to it, the two of them trying to gather fuel, barter with a local farmer and fend off a bull are sort of a re-imagining of Laurel & Hardy- if they’d had access to a selection of fine wines and a courser grasp of the English language.

Then Uncle Monty turns up and the weekend takes on a much more threatening tone for Paul McGann’s Marwood (though he is never referred to by name in the film, he’s just ‘I’) who has managed to snare the affections of the rotund ex-thespian, much to his horror. The rest of the time at the cottage is spent desperately avoiding flimsily disguised advances and, at the extreme end, avoiding a buggering. Try as they might, they never managed to tackle that storyline in those old silent shorts. Richard Griffiths manages to inject a feeling of deviant menace into every flirting gesture or comment he makes to Marwood, every word is so lascivious and over acted; also a great reference to why the character of Monty never captured his much desired fame.

Over the course of the weekend the two friends start to pull further and further apart, possibly because of Withnail offering up Marwood in exchange for the cottage, and what starts off as a vacation quickly becomes a goodbye note to their friendship. There’s a definite sadness in the way that Withnail is outgrown. You can tell that director, Bruce Robinson, had a real affection for his friend and Paul McGann manages to convey both frustration and adulation towards Withnail effectively.

Clearly, both characters have a similar problem and their chemical dependencies are more than likely what is holding them back. The thing that separates them, and what allows Marwood to move on, is his recognition of his situation. Withnail is stuck within a trap he created and is far too ingrained now to escape. The character is trapped as the world moves on around him, a sign of the times for many towards the end of the decade.

 

WITHNAIL AND I, 1987

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com