Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Love the actor, hate the person: The Gary Oldman conundrum

Gary Oldman
In case you haven't already heard, Gary Oldman thinks Mel Gibson got a bad rap.

Yeah, that Mel Gibson, the one who spews the most extreme Anti-Semitism and racism you've ever heard after he's had a few drinks.

Yes, the Mel Gibson who threatened his longtime girlfriend with violence repeatedly in funny/not funny surreptitiously recorded rants.

Oldman also casually remarked recently that Hollywood is "run by Jews" and that if you didn't vote for 12 Years a Slave as last year's picture then Hollywood's "politically correct" elite considered you a "racist."

What is the obsession with denigrating so-called "political correctness"? What does that term represent other than tolerance, racial, gender and sexual preference sensitivity? And that is horribly why?

I won't waste time arguing why these statements are wrong or untrue, I'll just say I'm deeply disappointed. Oldman is an actor I have always had immense respect for. He is a consummate character and he seemed to be a nice enough guy.

Now I am faced with a conundrum I am often faced with. I find his views repugnant and yet I've enjoyed his films and, if the new trailer for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is any indication, I will continue to. I have enjoyed quite a few Mel Gibson movies in my time too for that matter.

When having these debates I always lean towards the concept that a person's craft or creativity should be separated from the individual. I am a fan of Roman Polanski as a director but I also think he was/is a rapist who deserves to be in prison instead of making major motion pictures.

This whole Gary Oldman thing got me thinking about other actors whose work I've always enjoyed, even loved, but who frankly make my head hurt half the time they open their mouths.

Clint Eastwood: That empty chair. That RNC stunt almost singlehandedly wiped away decades of good will. I always thought of Eastwood as sort of a libertarian but his appearance at the GOP's 2012 convention not only made me question his intelligence but also his sanity. I love his work as a filmmaker and a director but his off-screen behavior has often left me with a bad taste.

Chevy Chase: This man seems to live to break my heart. He has and remains my personal comedy idol. I grew up wanting to be this guy, and his onscreen persona will always be something I cherish. But off-screen there is just too much evidence to support the fact that he is an egotistical and generally mean-spirited person who doesn't play well with others, whether it be his SNL cast-mates from nearly 40 years ago or his far-too-brief stint on the sitcom Community.

James Woods
James Woods: One of Hollywood's greatest character actors is usually the best thing about any movie he is in (with a couple high profile exceptions). He seems incredibly smart and can be wickedly funny but for whatever reason the Obama administration has turned him into a reactionary nutcase. He has grown increasingly offensive with his rhetoric in recent years but alas I still admire his talent.

Tom Cruise: As I've written before, I have sort of been a Cruise defender. But reading Going Clear, Lawrence Wright's blistering expose of Scientology, has me second guessing my judgment. I think he has often been a terrific actor but he also seems totally unhinged. His egomania off-screen is always working against his performances and the success of his films. And his increasing outspokenness has only alienated me more.

Mickey Rourke: He was one of the greatest actors of his generation and yet he's been reduced to being a punchline on 30 Rock. After his promising comeback in The Wrestler, he's once again wasting his talent in terrible direct-to-DVD quality roles. This man is one of my favorite actors and yet he comes off as alternately insincere and contemptible. I lose patience with actors who repeatedly admit to taking roles purely for the paycheck. Especially in his case, when he's capable of so much better.

Jon Voight: This may be the most off-putting of them all. Voight was a great actor and movie star. His work in movies like Midnight Cowboy and Deliverance is impeccable, and he's done excellent character work in recent years too. But for some reason he drank the conservative Kool-Aid and started parading around on television claiming that our president is trying to indoctrinate our youth to become Communists. Color me confused.

I am obviously someone who wears his political views on his sleeve, but that said I don't have any real issues with say Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone or even Schwarzenegger, all right-wingers, but also all pretty tight-lipped and reasonable about it. Sure, Schwarzenegger was a governor and pretty proactive conservative but he was good-natured, which goes a long way with me.

What rubs me the wrong way about Oldman's remarks is there's an anger behind them which is a little troubling to me. All the people who you watch or listen to and enjoy are not going to live up the image you hold in your mind -- that's obvious to any adult. But it's still a bummer.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

'The Hitcher': 1986 Rutger Hauer film is a horror masterpiece

Rutger Hauer in The Hitcher
Rutger Hauer is often overshadowed by the likes of Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman when film fans describe their favorite movie psychopaths.

But in my opinion, he may just be the greatest.

His role in 1986's The Hitcher, coupled with his work in the classic sci-fi noir Blade Runner, are both compelling works of art.

Of course, Blade Runner is widely recognized as a masterpiece, whereas The Hitcher is largely unknown and was re-made recently as a mediocre Sean Bean vehicle, further diminishing its reputation. It was reviled by critics when it first came out for being both implausible and relentlessly bleak -- which is a large part of why it's a genius horror film.

The plot is deceptively simple. A young guy (played by '80s heartthrob C. Thomas Howell), with no real backstory, is dozing as her drives along the highway during a thunderstorm. He picks up a hitchhiker, a man who calls himself John Ryder, who almost immediately threatens to kill him. The Howell character, horrified, asks Ryder what he wants from him and Ryder says "to stop me," a cryptic line, laced with deeper meaning.

Although the boy succeeds in pushing Ryder out of his car, this is just where the fun begins. Ryder seems to be imbued with some sort of omnipresent power. He continues to terrorize the Howell character in increasingly menacing ways and every time he commits a crime he manages to incriminate our hero when he does it.

Critics who viewed this film in 1986 just didn't get it. They complained that the Hauer character is unrealistic, that there's is no way he could show up where he does when he does and do the things he does. They also attacked the film for being violent without purpose (Siskel & Ebert called it "sick"). But the movie is not interested in sensationalism, it's about a sadistic mind game. This is what makes the movie intriguing and ripe for all sorts of interpretations.

Does Ryder have a death wish? The enigmatic character is a man of few words. Hauer's face, oozing both sensuality and insanity, speaks volumes. When he does talk he alludes to being tired and he spends much of the movie bating Howell to kill him, with caveats of course.

Rutger Hauer and C. Thomas Howell in The Hitcher
Is the entire movie a figment of Howell's imagination? One of the first shots of the film shows Howell falling asleep at the wheel of his car and nearly hitting an oncoming truck.

What if he indeed hit the truck and what we're seeing in a manifestation of his own personal hell?

The movie is largely bereft of gore and the action plays out in a tense but stately pace. I loved that the director, Robert Harmon, didn't MTV-edit the hell out of the picture and force easy jump scares. He lets tension build and early on establishes Ryder as so menacing that we come to believe he's capable of almost anything.

There's a scene late in the picture where Ryder has been arrested, is handcuffed, and being led to an armored police truck by about half a dozen officers, and you find yourself believing with the utmost confidence that Ryder will kill them all.

The Hitcher is a movie I like more and more each time I see it and it definitely ranks among my favorite scary movies of the 1980s. It deserves rediscovery as does a lot of the work of Rutger Hauer, who's remained a cult favorite for decades but is a truly great actor who deserves  to be celebrated and revered.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

'Do the Right Thing' deserved the best picture Oscar 25 years ago

Rosie Perez and Spike Lee in Do the Right Thing
Do the Right Thing is one of my favorite films of all time.

It might be the best film I've ever seen on the subject of race.

And it's quite possibly the best thing Spike Lee has ever made (although his 1992 biopic Malcolm X gives it a run for it's money).

It came out 25 years ago this week and was inexplicably ignored by the Academy Awards, which chose to honor the forgettable (but feel good) Driving Miss Daisy instead.

All these years later, the movie has lost none of its power and insight. If anything it's both a sad reminder of how far Lee has fallen since his film-making heyday and how under-appreciated this movie was then and now.

It was only Lee's third major motion picture and he was only 32 years old when it came out (my age now). His accomplishment is staggering. The movie is teeming with life. From the vibrant cinematography (from frequent Lee collaborator Ernest Dickerson) to the pulse pounding music (supplied by Public Enemy and others) to warm and compelling performances from a diverse cast that includes Ossie Davis, John Turturro and the late Ruby Dee -- this movie has so much to enjoy and also a lot of content to provoke.

The action takes place on a steamy summer day in the predominately black Brooklyn neighborhood in Bed-Stuy. Tensions are bubbling between black and white, as well as with Latinos and Asians in the community -- but not in a trite, overblown Crash sort of way. The interactions are subtle and authentic yet brimming with wit and insight.

Bill Nunn in Do the Right Thing
I'll give you one example -- one of my favorite scenes in any movie ever. Lee's character (a pizza man named Mookie) frequently butts heads with his bigoted co-worker Pino (an excellent Turturro). Eventually Mookie pulls Pino aside and quizzes him about who his favorite pop culture icons are. They turn out to be all black -- legends of the 1980s: Eddie Murphy, Magic Johnson and Prince. Mookie earnestly asks him how he can throw the n-word and other racial insults around and yet revere black celebrities. Pino inarticulately tries to explain that those blacks are somehow "more than black."

This profound conversation -- which speaks to the heart of how race prejudice is deeply entwined with class -- leads to a surreal and infamous montage of different ethnic and social minorities (Jews, Koreans, Latinos, etc.) rattling off the most hateful (but also undeniably amusing) stereotypes about other cultures directly to the camera. The impact is startling and refreshing.

Lee was so in command of the cinematic form at this time. Even his missteps, like Mo' Better Blues, were still fascinating and incredibly watchable. Sometime after Bamboozled (2000) he fell off and the only glimmer of hope came in 2006 when he scored his biggest commercial success ever with the fun, fleet-footed heist film Inside Man and triumphed with his breathtaking documentary about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, When the Levees Broke.

Since then, Lee seems content to revel in his angry man persona and make films that are alienating at best. Miracle at St. Anna was beautiful looking but a narrative mess and his low budget Red Hook Summer was offensively bad and, at times, difficult to watch. His Oldboy remake looked promising but it was oddly under-promoted and failed horribly at the box office. As Lee approaches 60 he risks irrelevance which is a tragedy because Hollywood needs more voices like his.

Regardless of what you may think of him and some of his films (he has been heavily criticized for his portrayals of women, for instance) he could never be accused of making mindless entertainment. In fact he has dared to confront the issue of race in ways that are both rare and emotionally satisfying.

When Hollywood attempts to raise the racial question they usually air on the side of life affirming liberal fantasies like The Blind Side, but a film like Do the Right Thing, with its violent, confrontational climax, isn't interested in making people pat themselves on the back.

It's sad frankly, that we were able to get this kind of thought-provoking entertainment back in 1989 and now we can only look to TV shows like The Wire to get some semblance of realism. Spike Lee may have lost his way but I will always cherish his work in his prime.

Monday, June 16, 2014

'To Kill a Mockingbird' still speaks volumes on race

Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird
This past Father's Day I had to privilege of attending the perfect screening to celebrate the occasion. I saw To Kill a Mockingbird at NYC's Film Forum, alongside a bunch of families and squirming kids.

And I can say without shame that the movie made me cry like a baby.

Not only does it feature Gregory Peck's most iconic performance of all time, as the ideal father figure Atticus Finch, but the 1962 adaptation of Harper Lee's classic novel also brilliantly addresses the class issues which are at the root of race prejudice, especially here in America.

I've seen this movie before maybe once or twice, but I have never been more overwhelmed by its power than I was this weekend. Perhaps, this was because I was experiencing it alongside impressionable youth, who couldn't even begin to comprehend what it would be like to grow up in segregation.

It may have also been my newfound appreciation for Peck, who has rapidly become one of my favorite leading men of Hollywood's golden age. The film could be dismissed as sentimental by some, but for my money it's one of the best films I've ever seen on the subject of race.

The movie is also brilliant when it comes to portraying the innocence (and lack thereof) of youth. Films today strive to make kids either punchline spewing accessories or little miniature adults with overly scripted quips. To Kill a Mockingbird got it right by using relatively inexperienced child actors who genuinely bonded with Peck on and off screen.

For those of you unfamiliar with the episodic story -- it tells the tale of a single father (Finch, played by Peck to perfection) who works as an attorney in the deep South and is raising a young son (Jem) and daughter (Scout). The kids get into mischief, largely centered around their preoccupation with an alleged neighborhood freak called Boo Radley, and watch as their father gallantly defends a black man (a heartbreaking Brock Peters) who has been falsely accused of rape.

I won't spoil the story for you if you haven't seen it but I will say that the picture is an indelible portrait of both good and evil, which I think lifts it above being a simple morality tale.

To Kill a Mockingbird cuts pretty deep for a pre-Civil Rights Movement movie. It may be hard to believe now but to even portray a black man as a martyr at that time was something of an act of rebellion.

There is a lot to unpack in this movie but I will focus on one key concept that I found especially compelling -- the racism is really about class, who ranks above who is the social hierarchy.

The ostensible villains in the piece are members of a poor, uneducated (and yes, bigoted) white family. The father beats (and it's suggested likely molests) his own daughter and the girl, in her hopelessness and desperation, has made overtures to Peters' character, who has wisely rebuffed them.

The pivotal moment in Peters' harrowing court testimony is when he says he "felt sorry" for the white woman, a cardinal sin in the segregated south. This simple utterance dooms his character as it did countless African-Americans who dared to show pride or dignity.

The other scene that I think illustrates the social structure dichotomy is the testimony of the girl. Any viewer can see she is lying under oath as Finch exposes her inconsistent testimony with relative ease. She snaps and delivers an angry tirade, directly addressing the jury of white men who she suggests are from a higher class than she is. She implores them to give her justice by sending a black man to his death and in uncertain terms implies that if they fail to do so they are tacitly admitting that she and he are equal.

Other great films on the topic of race (Do the Right Thing and Mississippi Burning come to mind) have tapped into this hypocrisy as well, but unfortunately far too often mainstream movies don't want to delve into the social and economic motivation for prejudice, they'd rather avoid nuance and provide easy victories for likable heroes.

To Kill a Mockingbird certainly has a likable hero, Atticus Finch was recently chosen by AFI as the greatest hero of modern cinema. And yet, he doesn't win, which is part of what makes this film great. The story takes place in the early 1930s when the threat of lynching was still very real. And Jim Crow laws were still in place by the time this film was released in 1962.

I always think it's important to keep history in perspective. My parents were both born in 1946. I am one generation away from bitter segregation. The film is both a classic and a telling harbinger of the times we live now.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

'Cruising': Controversial, flawed film is ripe for rediscovery

Al Pacino in Cruising
William Friedkin's gay-themed crime melodrama Cruising is one of the most infamous films of the auteur-dominated period of the 1970s.

Released in 1980, it can be seen as something of a finale to a prolific era that saw the rise of film-making titans like Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, De Palma and Altman (just to name a few).

Friedkin has always been viewed as someone who had great promise but flamed out due to hubris and excess. He became a star with his one-two punch of critical and commercial hits: The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973).

And while Sorcerer (1977), his ambitious remake of The Wages of Fear (1953), flopped upon its initial release, it has since been rediscovered and re-evaluated, and is rightly viewed as one of the great, nail-biting thrillers of its day. Cruising, however is a different story.

Ostensibly a detective melodrama set in the seedy underworld of gay S&M bars, the Al Pacino vehicle was widely condemned as homophobic before it was even released and the production was plagued with protests and controversy. The movie never lived down its reputation and has for years been seen as low point in both Pacino and Friedkin's careers.

Time and distance have softened attitudes towards the film. Some of its most ardent critics now admit that, if nothing else, the film presents a fascinating time capsule of a pre-AIDS era in gay life in New York City. It's graphic depictions of gay sex acts (even fisting!) is shocking even by today's standards and the film is also simply gorgeous to look at.

The film also has its defenders. It certainly isn't anti-gay, even if it does present a very narrow and at times problematic view of gay life and ultimately, the movie doesn't dare dive fully into the psychological questions it raises, relying more on its procedural police plot whenever it threatens to get really interesting. That said, it's a very intriguing movie.

The lurid plot centers around a series of gruesome murders that appear to be perpetrated by a gay serial killer on other gay men. Pacino's character, a low key, shy cop named Steve Burns is recruited to go undercover essentially as bait because he fits the profile of the victims. Early on, there are moments that suggest the Burns is slightly off. He seems haunted and fairly rapidly he his forays into gay life seem to draw barely under-the-surface desires out of him. This is the most interesting part of the film but unfortunately the movie never quite goes far enough to illuminate his character's inner turmoil.
One of many evocative images in Cruising

And whenever the viewer starts to get the sense that perhaps the Pacino character is actually gay there is a quick obligatory love scene with his live-in girlfriend played by Karen Allen, who is a sketchily drawn character at best.

This is clearly a movie where quite a lot has been left on the cutting room floor.

Friedkin had to lose a lot of graphic sexual footage in order to avoid an X rating from censors. But it also seems like a lot of plot points and nuances have been lost in the editing process as well.

Sometimes, the murkiness is a positive for the film. For instance we see Pacino's character seem like he may indulge in a gay encounter and then we cut away. We never know if he actually is having sex with the men who approach him or not, and that ambiguity is compelling.

Later, we are led to think that Pacino's character may be committing the crimes himself -- which gives the movie an even more interesting depth because it seems to be more about the self-hatred of a closeted gay man as opposed to some sort of moralistic condemnation of the gay lifestyle.

Unfortunately, this is all staged too awkwardly to come together well enough for the film to be deemed anything close to a masterpiece. Still, it's a much more worthwhile film that it was originally perceived to be.

It features one of the quieter, more mysterious performances of Pacino's career and it has some pretty unforgettable, shocking and challenging moments in it. Few films would dare to open with a scene of NYPD officers forcing cross dressing prostitutes to perform sex acts on them.

On the other hand, while the movie does make earnest attempts to portray more humane and likable gay characters (particularly in the character of an affable neighbor of Burns), it also falls victim to some of the hopeless stereotyping of its time.

Cruising will probably never be remade, but it deserves to be re-seen.

Monday, June 9, 2014

'Frenzy': Hitchcock's 1972 masterpiece still freaky after all these years

Barry Foster fights with dead body in Frenzy
The great Alfred Hitchcock movies have a power that transcends time. Even with the censorship constraints of the studio eras he worked in, he managed to craft stories that still resonate.

Frenzy (1972), his second to last film, is one of his greatest thrillers and yet, for some reason, it is rarely mentioned in the same breath as his more widely recognized masterpieces like Psycho (1960) and Vertigo (1958).

Thankfully, a bit of a critical re-evaluation has begun on what used to be derisively dismissed as Hitchcock's late period.

The Birds (1963) and Marnie (1964) are finally beginning to be viewed as the psychologically complex and ahead-of-their time character studies that they were.
Hopefully, Frenzy, with its simple but deeply scary premise and its gallows humor will be similarly resurrected and redeemed.

As it stands, Frenzy is unique in that it is in many ways Hitchcock's most sexually graphic film. Probably the film's most famous scene is a prolonged and truly shocking rape scene. But even this undeniably creepy moment is filmed with Hitchcock's signature restraint. Still, it's jarring to see nudity in a Hitchcock film.

He also eschews his traditional likable leading man, usually played by a star (Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant being among his favorites) for a testy and far-from-charismatic hero (played very well by British actor Jon Finch). The more genial character (SPOILER ALERT) is the killer, played by Barry Foster.


The role Foster plays was apparently intended for Michael Caine, and you can see why. He needs to be slightly charming even when he's doing the most reprehensible things.

This film was something of a return to glory for Hitchcock. After several of his Hollywood films failed commercially he returned to his native London and made this dark little thriller with no major stars or frills.

The premise has always been particularly disturbing to me, because I think, like a lot of people, I've always had a somewhat irrational fear of being accused of a crime I didn't commit.

Finch plays a man who is down on his luck and because of an unfortunate coincidence is linked to a series of murders he didn't commit. The crimes are actually being perpetrated by his "friend" played by Foster.

However, because of a series of unintentionally incriminating actions, Finch's character has set himself up to be the fall guy without even knowing it.  Meanwhile, as harrowing as all this is, Hitchcock still has his customary black humor.

The inspector investigating the case must endure his wife's increasingly grotesque homemade meals while the killer has to literally wrestle with the body of one of his victim's just to retrieve an item that could give away his identity. The fact that this is all handled deftly and hilariously is a tribute to Hitchcock's considerable skills, which were not diminished even though he was in his 70s by the time this film was made.

For me, the best moment/shot in the film is a quiet one. Finch's character's girlfriend (played by Anna Massey) runs into Foster's character in a public place.  By now we know he is the killer and, in typical Hitchockian fashion, she doesn't have a clue. He talks her into coming back to an apartment with him and as they enter he says a line we heard him say to a previous victim "You're my kind of woman."

Then they enter and the camera slowly pans backwards, out of the apartment building and onto the noisy London street below. We never see what happens to Massey's character and we don't need to and suddenly the moment takes on deeper meaning. These tragedies are taking place behind closed doors all the time and we are totally ignorant to what is taking place.

I find that the best Hitchcock films work on several levels. The plots make me think about real life dilemmas (albeit hypothetical ones), the visuals make me appreciate the power of cinema and the subtext makes me think about the deep psychological and philosophical meanings that can be interpreted under the surface of the melodrama. Frenzy works on all three levels. And it has a great punchline of an ending.

I suppose this is why they call him "The Master".

Friday, June 6, 2014

'Ghostbusters II' at 25: 10 reasons why it's a great film

The original Ghostbusters is one of my favorite films of all time, but it's unjustly maligned 1989 sequel has always held a special place in my heart.

Let me explain...

I was only 2 years old when the first film came out so I was too young to see it in theaters. I, of course, later discovered the movie on home video and television but I first really fell in love with the Ghosbusters while watching the animated series The Real Ghostbusters, which I assume for rights purposes, had a blonde Egon and a Peter Venkman with a pompadour.

By the time the sequel rolled around it had seemed like an eternity since the first film and my excitement for a new Ghostbusters adventure was off the charts. I was only 7 and didn't have a critical eye, I just loved those guys and earnestly wanted to be one.

At Disney World a caricature artist asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up and I enthusiastically said a Ghostbuster, assuming it would be a plausible profession, if not then, someday. I remember my Dad cutting an item out of the newspaper (remember those?) about the sequel filming in New York City with a set photo of Bill Murray and the rest, and I pinned it on my wall. So in June of 1989 -- which was one of the best summer movie seasons ever (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Do the Right Thing and Batman would come within weeks of each other) -- I was on the edge of my seat.

Seeing Ghostbusters II in theaters is one of the first truly vivid movie-going experiences I ever had. I remember my little sister was freaked out by it (and so was I in a few parts) and I also remember loving the hell out of it. Now, 25 years later, I still love it. It is isn't as fresh or classic as the original but as far as comedy sequels go it's still one of the best.

Today it's usually labeled a disappointment if not an all-out failure by fans. I find this curious since for years there has been exhausting chatter about a third Ghostbusters film, considering the fact that so many people dog the second one. You can put me firmly in the 'I hope that Ghostbusters III never gets made' camp, but not because part II was bad. I just think there's no point to making another one other than to make money. And without the involvement of Bill Murray (who has repeatedly passed on the project) and Harold Ramis (who died earlier this year) it will not even be a faithful addition to the series.

I will disregard any new Ghostbusters film the way I refuse to acknowledge any John McClane film after Die Hard with a Vengeance. But I digress. Ghostbusters II is a lot of fun, and yes, while it definitely pales in comparison to the original it has so much going for it. Here are ten examples:

Comedy gold
1) Bill Murray photographing Vigo: I would argue that this moment is just as funny as any moment in the first film. Venkman starts photographing the villain (who is currently encased within a particularly terrifying portrait) and he starts doing it in the style of a flamboyant fashion photographer. In the end of this shtick, in a very affected voice he says "I've had better, but not many." This scene has always had me in stitches.

2) Janosz: Some people may think of Peter MacNichol as the guy from Ally McBeal, while others may remember his dramatic performance opposite Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, but he will always be Janosz (pronounced yah-noh-shh) to me. He is sort of filling the role Rick Moranis did in the 1984 but he's even more delightfully weird and over-the-top. The exaggerated accent, the fecklessness, some people may have found it annoying, I think it's hilarious.

3) It's scarier: No one is going to a Ghostbusters movie expected a lot of actual big scares, but I would argue that Ghostbusters II has far creepier sequences than the original. This may be my childhood memories informing my present state-of-mind, but Vigo was a horrifying villain and the constant threats to Dana (Sigourney Weaver)'s infant son are truly terrifying if you think about them long enough.

4) The Venkman-Dana relationship: One of the great pleasures of the Ghostbusters movies (for me, at least) has been the underrated romantic chemistry between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver. He's had sparks with other actresses (Andie MacDowell in Groundhog Day comes to mind) but I don't think he ever had a more perfect match than Weaver. Her character always calls him out on his sardonic asides and forces him to grow up without being a wet blanket. You don't appreciate these things as much when you're a kid. But I think their romance makes these movies work and it only deepens in the sequel.

Bustin' makes him feel good
5) "On Our Own": This is minor thing but I would argue that Bobby Brown's theme "On Our Own" is just as good as Ray Parker Jr.'s iconic Ghostbusters song. It's one of the greatest New Jack Swing songs of all time and represents Brown at his pre-multiple meltdowns best. Also, kudos to the cameo. Remember when they used to be short and sweet?

6) Louis Tully gets to play hero: Poor Rick Moranis, always playing second fiddle to the cooler lead comedian (whether it be Steve Martin or Bill Murray). Although I prefer frosty Janine from the first film to the slightly slutty Janine of the second, I like that in this film he gets to save the day (sort of) and get the girl. Not bad for a guy who was turned into a monstrous dog in the 1984 original.

7) It's kind of realistic: I don't mean the whole absurd slime-drenched plotline where good vibes save New York City, I am talking about the opening of the film where the Ghostbusters have been deemed lame. I love this twist -- because it is so true to life and how New Yorkers would really have reacted. The amount of property damage and overexposure the Ghostbusters were responsible for following their first adventure would make them minor celebrities at best and pariahs at worst. Love that they're subjected to performing at birthday parties.

8) Bureaucrats are still the bad guys: Even though the third act pretty much repeats everything from the first film, I appreciated the fact that we get essentially a new (albeit not quite as good) version of Walter Peck, in mayor's aide Jack Hardemeyer (played by Kurt Fuller). These guys are always the perfect, straight-laced foils for the Ghostbusters.

9) Bill Murray in general: He deserves acknowledgement on his own. The other guys are lovable nerds --Dan Aykroyd, Ramis and Ernie Hudson are like big kids -- but Murray's Venkman is still the coolest guy on the planet. Whether hosting a bizarre talk show about the supernatural or being confronted by a dancing toaster, he is always one step, or at least one quip, ahead of everyone.

10) The painting finale: I always loved this image (pictured above) which ends the film. It's silly, goofy and kind of doesn't make any sense -- which is why it's the ideal fit for a Ghostbusters film. Even though Murray didn't want to make it and has since distanced himself from the project -- you can sense the genuine affection he feels for his fellow actors (particularly Ramis and Aykroyd, who he went way back with) in the movie's closing moments.

So I rest my case. Ghostbusters II can't hold a candle to the first movie but it's great fun. Comedy sequels are almost impossible to get right. National Lampoon's Vacation managed two solid spin-offs and I think there are a lot of great jokes in Wayne's World 2. And while Anchorman 2 has its detractors, I'm convinced that it will grow in esteem with time and distance. But generally they fall flat because humor is tricky that way and you can't catch comedic lightening in a bottle twice.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

'Don Jon': A disappointing movie in the worst way

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Don Jon
Some bad movies are excusable because the filmmakers never really had much ambition for their films in the first place (most Michael Bay films, I'd argue). Others are bad because they tried to aim high and crashed and burned (Showgirls). But the worst kind of bad movie is one that has some really smart, interesting ideas in it -- that could have made a great film -- but fatal errors keep it from fulfilling its potential.

For me, Don Jon is one of those films. It has likable stars in Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who also wrote and directed it) and Scarlett Johansson, and it wants to have something to say about the porn-addicted modern male, but in a way it's too much like the soapy romantic comedies its looking to subvert.

Personally, I never got past the casting. Gordon-Levitt casts himself and Johansson as extreme NYC stereotypes. He's a macho, misogynistic gym rat and she's a club hopping hottie who wants a "real man" like the ones she sees in the movies. They both nail their requisite "bridge and tunnel" accents, but it's like watching two kids play dress up.

Perhaps this movie wouldn't have been financed if it didn't have stars -- but I think it would have been far less distracting with unknowns. Gordon-Levitt is just too nice a guy to be believable as meat-head and Johansson also seems to be playing beneath her talents here.

Gordon-Levitt in more believable role
The porn angle is promising, this is largely unexplored territory in Hollywood movies, and it has become such a ubiquitous part of our culture over the last decade or so. And yet Don Jon's handling of the topic is largely pretty trite and then it just becomes repetitive. The first time Gordon-Levitt cuts to a graphic PornHub clip it's shocking -- when he doesn't it for the 30th time, it's numbing.

Eventually, the luminous Julianne Moore shows up and tries to inject some genuine life into the proceedings. She is the one character who doesn't play a type, and it's refreshing. But Gordon-Levitt telegraphs her story arc a little too much. And because, once again, because she's a star you know she is going to factor in the final act.

Tony Danza actually comes off more believably than anyone as Gordon-Levitt's immature father, I found myself wishing his character had more screen time.

Instead we get the same shot over and over again of Gordon-Levitt at his computer screen frowning while he pleasures himself to scene after scene of hardcore sex. It's not funny, it's not especially entertaining and I didn't really care about him or feel anything for his character.

That's because the character never rises above caricature. From his Catholic faith to his white tank tops and fastidiousness, everything about the part he plays (and wrote for himself) feel like a tired riff on The Jersey Shore

I do, however, think he's an interesting actor who is poised to become a major star. He has a great look and an appealing presence. I have never been a Brick fanatic, but I enjoyed his work in Inception and The Dark Knight Rises and Looper was a real breakthrough part for him.

There's been some speculation about his sexual orientation but frankly, I don't care about that. I just remember his adorably funny performance in a lip-syching contest on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show, and I think that's the kind of guy he should be playing.

A few years ago, there was a lot of talk that Shia LaBeouf was the "next Tom Hanks" -- a sentiment that would be laughable to most moviegoers now. But I think with the right film and the perfect role, Joseph Gordon-Levitt could be ideal the everyman star for our time.

But Don Jon is a step in the wrong direction. 

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Happy birthday to me! Top 10 from year I was born (1982)

Joanna Cassidy in Blade Runner
In case you didn't already know because of the good people at Facebook, it's my birthday today and in order to commemorate the occasion I thought I would write up a quick post on my favorite films from the year I was born -- 1982 -- yeah, that's right, I'm old.

It's actually pretty difficult for me to pick just 10 favorites from 32 years ago, because it was a pretty strong year for Hollywood.

Some terrific movies just missed the cut, including Michael Keaton's hilarious debut in Night Shift, a strong Rocky sequel and one of the most haunting Meryl Streep performances of all time in Sophie's Choice.

But hey, they call it top 10 for a reason. 1982 was an interesting year -- the economy was in the pits (as was Ronald Reagan's approval ratings contrary to conservative revisionism) and people were seeking upbeat entertainment, hence the blockbuster success of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

Later that year, Michael Jackson's Thriller would be released, cementing his pop cultural dominance over the decade and ushering in a golden age for blockbusters. But I digress. Some of my favorites were huge smashes, others cult classics. But, most importantly, like all great films, they stand the test of time.

10) An Officer and Gentleman - A movie far too often remembered for its cheesy ending instead of its gritty whole. A very emotionally-effective, character-driven drama features Richard Gere, in one of his best roles, as a troubled wannabe air force pilot who seeks basic training because he has "no place else to go."

9) Gandhi - It's now become something of a gimmick to say an actor "becomes" someone famous when starring in a biopic, but the description really applies when it comes to this best picture-winning epic starring Ben Kingsley. The acting legend won best actor for his incredibly powerful performance as the non-violent activist.

8) The Verdict - As I've written before, this is probably my favorite film about lawyers and it has one of the all-time best Paul Newman performances (in a career full of them). In this movie he plays Frank Galvin, a hard-drinking, down-on-his-luck lawyer who finds redemption in a medical malpractice case. A master class in movie acting is on display here.

7) 48 Hrs. - Eddie Murphy makes his glorious debut and kicks off a decade of screen dominance. The film's racial politics were problematic then and now, but few can dispute the chemistry and cool of Murphy's partnership with Nick Nolte in this edgy action comedy. The premise -- a cop springs a convict to help catch a killer -- is very B-movie, but the execution is first class.

6) E.T. The Extra Terrestrial - An intensely personal film from director Steven Spielberg that just connected with audiences, becoming one of the most beloved hit movies of all time. It holds up beautifully because it isn't burdened with too many special effects and instead focuses on, an albeit unlikely, timeless story about a lonely young boy (a fantastic Henry Thomas) who befriends a kindly child alien.

Ricardo Montalban in Wrath of Khan
5) Fast Times at Ridgemont High - One of the best and most honest high school comedies I've ever seen. High school wasn't particularly cool or memorable for me, so normally I don't find these kinds of movies engaging but director Amy Heckerling did such a great job of creating a rich tapestry of fully realized people, including Sean Penn's glorious stoner-surfer Spicoli, I was charmed. And that pool scene...

4) The Thing - John Carpenter's bleak and gruesome horror masterpiece was the anti-E.T., which is probably why it bombed when it was first released, but it has only grown in stature over the years. A grizzled Kurt Russell headlines a great cast of character actors stranded in a freezing terrain where a truly terrifying entity starts taking over their bodies. Unforgettable special effects.

3) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - The hit or miss nature of the original Star Trek cast movies is well-documented, but this something on which all of us can agree -- The Wrath of Khan was (and probably still is) the best Star Trek film ever made. Why? One word. KHHHHAAAANN! With all do respect to Benedict Cumberbatch, this role will always be owned by the fearsome Ricardo Montalban, who truly deserved an Oscar for his scenery chewing role as Captain Kirk's adversary. A genuine space opera.

2) Tootsie - Dustin Hoffman gives one of his greatest performances in this raucous and very smart comedy about a struggling actor who becomes a huge soap opera star after dressing up and posing as a woman. The writing is razor sharp, as is the supporting cast (Jessica Lange, Bill Murray, Teri Garr and the director Sydney Pollack, to name a few). But the genuine feeling and thoughtfulness behind the laughs, beautifully articulated here by Mr. Hoffman himself, elevate this movie to its status as a great film.

1) Blade Runner - Every time I see this movie I walk away with something new. From it's striking, gorgeous opening shot to its legendary twist ending, this movie grabs you and plunges you into a strange, complex vision of the future. This is one of the landmark science fiction films and one of my favorite movies of all time. Harrison Ford plays a stoic 'blade runner' tasked with retiring 'replicants' or cyborgs which have outlived their usefulness. That set-up is just an entry point to philosophical questions about what is real or fake and what makes one human? Is it our memories? Our physicality?

A brilliant film that was not appreciated in its time but thankfully has won a deserving place in the pantheon of classics. The highlight of the film is Rutger Hauer's eerie but ultimately touching performance as Roy Batty. See this film!

And happy birthday to me.