rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

A couple more of my Criterion purchases from a couple weeks ago. These are some heavy adult films from my childhood that were not aimed at people like me (though I did see one of them and not the one you might think!)

Being There (1979) 7.5 of 10
-I think up to that point in time as a kid I thought "Pink Panther" movies were the only things Peter Sellers did. I didn't see it at the time and not until on VHS in the late 80s but it took me awhile to revisit it again. It is a brilliant performance and honestly if the Academy had known Sellers just had a few months to live when they gave out the awards, maybe they would have given him the recognition he deserved (I have not seen "Kramer vs. Kramer" but who honestly remembers that??). Supposedly Sellers though the decision to run an endless scene of blooper outtakes from an unused scene over the credits killed his chances and he might have been right because after seeing him maintain his poise throughout the film suddenly we get this jarring sight of Sellers letting go and getting giggle attacks as he was so often prone to do (similar behavior can be seen in many Panther film outtake reels). Curiously when I saw the film on VHS I know this was NOT the end credits version used then.

-The film takes its time for the humor to kick in when everyone starts misinterpreting "Chance" and what he really is and that's when the satire does become quite effective. In effect from today's vantage point the fact that someone like Chance is able to confound the masterminds of the Deep State of politics *really* hits close to home when you think of how a 20 year old kid could likewise outwit our vaunted security agencies and nearly bring down this country as I think Crooks would have done. Plus there is also the sense of how simple-minded Chance with his simple-minded declarations at the end being touted as the next President sure makes one think of how we got sold a leader with his tall tales of Corn Pop and his uncle the cannibal victim etc.

-I think the scene of Shirley MacLaine pleasuring herself goes on way too long. If they wanted to make the point then just shorten it. It came off as the one moment of really bad taste (at least they didn't thankfully retain the scene from the book where Chance is shown going up to watch the two men engage in gay sex). As for the ending.....it is indeed positively surreal and I guess open to interpretation. The alternate ending, which I wasn't familiar with was amazingly conventional.



The Elephant Man (1980) 7.5 of 10
-This one I did see when I was 11 because it had a PG rating (which looking back seems very inappropriate). The film has incredible B/W photography, outstanding performances and the makeup is incredible (The failure to give it a special award was what shamed the Academy into creating a makeup category). The story is also moving and touching on many levels and special kudos to John Hurt (doing this just a year after "Alien" really shows how much he was being put through the wringer!) for enduring the makeup and giving a great performance that works because he wasn't a big name (as they pointed out if you'd cast a big name you would have probably been looking to see where the makeup ended and the familiar face began) What I think keeps me from giving me it as high as a 9 is the dramatic liberties that were taken that IMO stretched things too much. Joseph Merrick (Dr. Treves for some reason deliberately changed his name to "John" in his memoir and consequently most people don't realize that Joseph was his true first name and he was always know by it) actually wasn't abused by a sadistic freak show owner, he had actually gone into it willingly because he knew it was the only way he could likely make a living. He did find himself cheated and broke in Belgium and made his way back to London and only then did he meet Dr. Treves. I think it would have been a lot more credible that if there was going to be a need to show Merrick as the victim of sadism that should have come upfront in the beginning of the film and the rest of the film devoted to his attempts to adjust to the care of Treves. To me, the sudden plot twist of the ridiculous night watchman raid on his room (could a hospital like this REALLY be so lax in its security??) and being kidnapped back into slavery by Freddie Jones occurring so late in the narrative really is too much of a gut punch to the audience that's been cheering him along up to this point and it wasn't necessary to do it this way. This was the young David Lynch going for shock value and IMO losing the audience for a brief stretch. Put that up front in the beginning and the story narrative would have been better. The trade-off probably would have been that if you did it that way you couldn't do the game of hiding Merrick from view for the first 50 minutes which of itself is effective and the fact we don't see him as he is at first allows us to build sympathy for him before we see him unmasked (I would note the image of the masked Merrick became VERY iconic in pop culture in the day. After the film came out was when New Orleans Saints fans started wearing bags over their head as a statement of protest over their team's futility and I can remember a "Barney Miller" episode about a man being denied service in a restaurant because of his appearance and how people were shouting, "Get a bag for the Elephant Man!") Lynch's surreal opening and ending though was a little too bizarre as well.

-This was the first film I ever saw Anthony Hopkins in and because he is so good as the kindly Dr. Treves, it was hard for me to think of him as a screen villain in his later parts (and I've never seen his Hannibal films). It's worth nothing this came out at the same time when there'd been a hit Broadway play of the same name but it was not an adaptation of that production necessitating the rather silly credit, "Based on the True Story of John Merrick and not upon the Broadway play of the same name or any other fictional account." This credit I think tried to be too cute and suggest there's was the TRUE story in all details compared to the play but that wasn't exactly so.

-In the end, the film is ultimately powerful but just short of being a true masterpiece. But since it was the only film nominated for Best Picture in 1980 that I actually saw (and to this day I have still not seen "Ordinary People", "Raging Bull", "Tess" or "Coal Miner's Daughter") I was rooting for it at the Oscars and it struck out on all of the ones it was nominated for (0 for .

[AndyDursin]

CIVIL WAR
7/10

Alex Garland’s latest is a “hot button” look at an America torn apart by a fascist President (Nick Offerman) whose third term and abolition of “Democracy” has led to “separatist” uprisings throughout the country. Into the fray come press members Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura, who end up on a road trip to D.C., charting the state of the fractured union – and getting into some harrowing situations – along with a young, aspiring photographer (Cailee Spaeny) who has yet to experience the reality of war and a grizzled news vet (Stephen McKinley Henderson) who has.

Garland’s work as a visual stylist is on full display here, with the director and cinematographer Rob Hardy capturing the nightmarish scenario of their “Civil War” in a hugely compelling visceral manner. Few directors working today capture a setting as Garland does here, often employing wide shots of the Mid-Atlantic countryside where the picture mostly takes place and then moving into his characters and their plight. It’s an effective tactic that fully captures the epic nature of the picture and also the beauty of our country, making the horrors seen in the picture all the more disturbing.

Alas, Garland’s script isn’t nearly as well articulated, the movie losing steam in its final act while introducing abrupt shifts in its protagonists without any explanation. This especially pertains to Dunst’s grizzled photographer, whose resolution Garland backs into with disappointing predictability; ditto for the formulaic arc of Spaeny’s naive young character. Dunst does a convincing job here in spite of the script’s lack of development, but her role’s abrupt shift very late in the movie is a serious problem, while other performances seem likewise affected by an undernourished screenplay – Moura’s broad performance particularly. One moment his supposedly experienced reporter acts like a teenager out for a joyride, the next he seems absolutely shocked when they’re tormented by an unhinged soldier (an uncredited Jesse Plemons, Dunst’s husband, in the movie’s most heavy-handed sequence).

“Civil War” ultimately is a disappointment dramatically (and don’t bother looking for detail on what caused its apocalyptic premise to play out, as the movie’s more a road trip than a political screed), yet there’s no doubt the picture’s visuals and direction alone make for a highly compelling view.

[Paul MacLean]

^^
You're too generous.

Civil War (3/10)

I agree the film is visually striking, but at the same time its visuals adhere to that formulaic "A24" look -- a splashy, over-saturated color scheme and high contrast grading (a novelty now over a decade old). The excessive use of "bokeh" (i.e. out-of-focus backgrounds) actually compromises the production value, by making the film look like a cheap "indie" movie (it's become something of a joke among filmmakers, the way low-budget wannabees use excessive bokeh because they think it makes their movie look more "cinematic").

Wagner Mouar's character is a useless fifth wheel, who should have been excised from the script. But I felt the dynamic between Kirsten Dunst and (the cute-as-a-button) Cailee Spaeny had some genuine chemistry -- and as such this could have been a decent film, had they adapted the script and set it in a real conflict -- maybe Vietnam, the Middle East, Ukraine, etc.

Instead Civil War is fatally compromised by it dystopian setting. The fanciful scenario lets the air out of what might (with some script alterations) have been an effective drama. But I agree, Andy, the film's futuristic setting is not well thought-out. Why are the "rebel forces" comprised of people from California and Texas? Those two states couldn't be more ideologically-opposed. Yeah, I know, "This is the future! Things have changed!" Fine, but how? How did a consummately liberal state come to be allied with the nation's most conservative state? How did they merge forces when they are hundreds of miles apart?

Why is the president such a bad guy? What's he done (besides bear a slight resemblance to Donald Trump)?

If this is the future, and Dunst and co. are the kind of "socially conscious" people which the script purports, why are they driving an old gas-guzzling SUV instead of an Electric Vehicle? (Because Alex Garland wouldn't have been able to include the gas station scene of course, which depicts the paranoid leftist fantasy that Middle America is sadistic and xenophobic).

The two kooky journalists who catch-up with our heroes are obviously introduced so they can die in the next scene (their imminent demise as obvious as any "Red Shirts" who ever joined Captain Kirk in the transporter room).

I got restless in the final half hour of this movie. The assault on the White House took way too long, and it is unlikely that the president would still be in the White House as enemy forces closed-in (he would have been evacuated days prior to this). The final still of the soldiers posing over the president's corpse was an obvious reference to the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- a didactic (and almost funny) attempt to depict the "disturbing similarities" between those two and American conservatives.

Moreover, Garland's depiction of "rural right wingers" is just plain false. He plays to the out-of-touch delusions of limousine leftists -- the people who live in gated neighborhoods with private security -- and who castigate gun owners (who can't afford private security) as a threat to democracy. Of course you can still find gun-toting bigots in pockets of conservative America (just as you can in wealthy suburban neighborhoods of liberal America) but such people are a rarity in 2024. But unlike Alex Garland, I know plenty of "reactionary" rural gun owners. Many of them are among the kindest, most ethical people I know. Believe it or not, one of them even has a black son-in-law (and yes, they have a good relationship ).

I won't deny Civil War is suspenseful and has moments that are emotionally-affecting (particularly in scenes between Dunst and Spaney). But I'm not sure if Garland was trying to make a film about the profession of war reporters and just used a dystopian scenario as a "container" to which (he assumed) modern audiences would relate -- or if he was making a cautionary tale about the danger of right-wing extremism and hung it on a story involving war journalists. Either way, the film doesn't work.

This movie also loses points for some of the worst use of music ever. There's no rhyme nor reason to the use of songs, and the "score" has all the dramatic potency and musical sophistication of a dial tone.

[Eric Paddon]

I believe the idea is to depict their "Trump" like President as a coward before he gets killed? If so, then in light of the courage the REAL Trump showed when he took a bullet (even though the despicable FBI director and despicable talking heads on MSNBC try to say otherwise) the pathetic bad taste of the movie is even more evident to me and why I will never see it since I long ago decided that wet dream leftist fantasies of how they see the world aren't going to get the time of day from me (and brother has there been no END of such things!)

[AndyDursin]

But I'm not sure if Garland was trying to make a film about the profession of war reporters and just used a dystopian scenario as a "container" to which (he assumed) modern audiences would relate -- or if he was making a cautionary tale about the danger of right-wing extremism and hung it on a story involving war journalists. Either way, the film doesn't work.

My impression was the former and I think most people felt that way. Not that I disagree with your points but that's how I reviewed and interpreted it. The element of how why and what this scenario played out doesn't make sense or is believable but I didn't feel the movie itself was even about that (beyond just a liberal coastal elitists view of what small town America is probably like).

[Eric Paddon]

NARROW MARGIN (1990)
5.5/10

Peter Hyams’ 1990 remake of the 1952 RKO thriller “The Narrow Margin” looks the part, offering a terrific cast and crisp action sequences, but ultimately succumbs to Hyams’ own script, which regrettably is one of his weakest.

In the midst of his prolific run of ‘80s/early ‘90s features, Gene Hackman plays an L.A. Deputy District Attorney attempting to put a mob boss behind bars. He finds the perfect solution to do so after Anne Archer’s blind date (J.T. Walsh) turns out to be a mob attorney who’s rubbed out while Archer is watching. Alas, the mafia soon wants Archer dead, forcing Hackman – questioning even the motives of his own superiors – to take Archer on a speeding train through the Canadian Rockies.

A Carolco production that died at the box-office in September 1990, “Narrow Margin” boasts Hyams’ trademark use of widescreen and features a litany of superb character actors in support, from James B. Sikking (as a mob assassin) to M. Emmet Walsh and Harris Yulin. The director’s lensing of the train sequences is effective but the character element of the picture severely lags; Hyams’ dialogue could occasionally come off as heavy-handed and much of the interplay between Hackman and Archer is strained. The quips between all the characters, in fact, mostly come off as contrived, and as a result there’s not much chemistry developed between the two leads, which the movie desperately needs for the audience to make an emotional investment in its outcome.

Kino Lorber’s 4K UHD includes a SDR 4K transfer (2.35, 5.1/2.0) that offers fine detail and warm colors. Extras include an older Hyams commentary, a new commentary with Pete Tonguette, a few vintage EPK materials (brief cast interviews, featurette) and trailers. The Blu-Ray is also on-hand.

I gave this film a look. I would give it a point higher than you did Andy, since I liked the premise and I was also glad that they didn't contrive some stupid on the fly romance between Hackman and Archer which kept the film's story grounded in a bit more authenticity. I would agree that the script had some flaws in that they telegraphed too obviously their twists. The minute Hackman phones the ADA you KNOW we're going to learn he's the crooked leak and not J.A. Preston (wouldn't do to have the black DA be crooked!) and I pretty much figured out the twist regarding the other lady on the train whose fate was telegraphed in a contrived TV episode fashion (complete with a lame crack by Hackman). A much too quick wrapup also doesn't help. Still, it was a nice timekiller that could have avoided an R-rating easily if it had just left out the needless profanity (which largely came from the protagonists).

[jkholm]

The Man Without a Face 8/10

Surely one of the best directorial debuts of all time, Mel Gibson's 1993 film comes across like Dead Poets Society or The Karate Kid but if written by Flannery O'Connor. Instead of a wise-cracking rebel like Robin Williams' teacher we get a bitter and lonely man who has become an outcast after an accident deformed one side of his face. And instead of likeable, charming Daniel LaRusso we have Nick Stahl's character Chuck, a twelve-year old boy who pretends to be a nice kid but is prone to outbursts of anger and meanness. Both of these flawed people are in desperate need of forgiveness and grace which they only find through trusting each other.

The film touches on issues of masculinity and fatherhood as it contrasts Gibson's stern but loving teacher with Chuck's endless stream of deadbeat stepdads. His mom's current boyfriend is a hippie (hilariously played b Richard Masur) who also happens to be a professor at Yale. While this character doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, he also represents the contrast between 60's liberals and the classical education Gibson is giving Chuck by teaching him Latin, geometry and poetry. There are also some nice digs at clueless psychiatrists.

Perhaps the film's conservative outlook is why it isn't discussed much these days? Until recently, I didn't think it was available to stream. I watched it last night on Prime Video. It doesn't even have a U.S. blu-ray release which is odd as it seems a perfect choice for Warner Archive. Also interesting that the movie was not nominated for Best Makeup (although the guy who did the makeup did win an Oscar that same year but for Mrs. Doubtfire.) One last thing, when I was growing up, a guy who lived directly across the street from me had been in a train accident that left him with burn scars all over his face. The makeup on Gibson thus seemed very accurate to me.

[AndyDursin]

I picked up the Vudu stream of that one a while ago, and it's probably time for a rewatch. I always loved the Maine locations in and around the Rockport area, many of which are easy to find, and which I remember visiting with my wife before Theo was born (2011-13 or so).

I missed the movie when it first opened because I was away at my freshman year at college in Ithaca NY and for whatever reason -- even though we went to the movies at least once a week that year (and there were some good movies that fall) -- it opened late in August when school was starting and we decided to see SON OF THE PINK PANTHER instead (bad choice!).

Horner's score is one of those lovely, emotional efforts that he became synonymous with during the '90s and the movie was well performed. It's funny how it's fallen through the cracks but it's probably mostly to do with Mel's tarnished star in Hollywood so to speak. But John you're right, it's curious Warner Archive has never gotten to it.

I also wonder if it had anything to do with the apparent sex subplot of the book which the screenwriter removed and which Gibson detested. I don't remember if there was any controversy surrounding that but a molestation element couldn't have helped. (Apparently the book's general tone was changed also for the film).

[Monterey Jack]

Horner's score is one of those lovely, emotional efforts that he became synonymous with during the '90s and the movie was well performed. It's funny how it's fallen through the cracks but it's probably mostly to do with Mel's tarnished star in Hollywood so to speak. But John you're right, it's curious Warner Archive has never gotten to it.

I remember there being an ad for Horner's soundtrack album at the beginning of the VHS tape!

[AndyDursin]

Interestingly Warner doesn't have rights to the movie anymore. Icon must've gotten them back as they are now listed with Samuel Goldwyn (which is not coincidentally also the current distributor of APOCALYPTO). Perhaps they'll finally release the movie on Blu-Ray, though there is a very inexpensive, region free Capelight disc from Germany that might be worth picking up:

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/movie/detail/- ... um/8430329

The movie must have been completely an Icon production where WB only picked up the domestic distribution, with the rights reverting back after a set number of years.

[AndyDursin]

THE BIKERIDERS
6/10

Moody, uneven yet moderately entertaining period look at a Midwestern motorcycle club, from its relatively humble beginnings as a social hangout for its married founding member (Tom Hardy) to its recruitment of young riders (Austin Butler) through its eventual downfall when it becomes more of a criminal gang.

Jeff Nichols wrote and directed “The Bikeriders,” basing his original script on a collection of ’50s/’60s photographs captured in a book by Danny Lyon. His script moves through numerous years in a “Goodfellas” type of way, narrated by Jodie Comer playing Butler’s girl — a tactic that proves to be the movie’s weakest element as the highly regarded Comer comes off flat, seemingly miscast as a heavily accented Midwesterner (she sounds like she’s channeling Frances McDormand’s “Fargo” role). Nichols’s script has other issues too — Butler’s role is thinly defined, as are supporting parts for Michael Shannon and Norman Reedus — yet I can’t say “The Bikeriders” didn’t keep me watching. There’s a compelling visceral quality to the film and the soundtrack mixes David Wingo’s original score with a number of period tunes in an effective way. It doesn’t completely work yet it’s a decent picture and well crafted.

Universal’s Focus Features picked up the Regency-produced “The Bikeriders” after Disney decided to pass on its distribution. The 4K UHD offers a dynamic HDR10 (2.39) transfer with a highly effective Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Nichols’ commentary, several featurettes, a Digital HD code and the Blu-Ray round out the disc.

[Paul MacLean]

Far and Away (8.5/10)

This is the first time I've watched this film since around 1993. Far and Away is a classic -- but sadly an unrecognized one. I call it "the best film John Ford never made". Fortunately screenwriter Bob Dolman and Ron Howard's did make it, and for me, this is Howard's finest film. Not only it is an inspiring romantic adventure, but a film that also reveals some of the hardships which immigrants to the US had to endure.

Tom Cruise has never been better, and he and Nicole Kidman have a compelling chemistry together (not surprising, as they were married at the time). The entire film is luminously photographed, its gorgeous images captured by Mikael Solomon (and is among his best work). John Williams' score is one of his absolute best, in which he shows off his unequaled gift for soaring, inspiring adventure and romance, while garnishing it with a wonderfully infectious Irish flavor (featuring non other than The Chieftains). It's a pity though that much of his end credits music got shoved aside for that sappy Enya song.

I was also struck by how much Titanic was influenced by this film -- both movies center on a common poor boy who falls in love with with high society girl as they sail to America, rousing the jealousy of the wealthy man to whom she is betrothed (though obviously Cruise and Kidman's voyage was a little more successful!). The strong Irish flavor in Titanic's score also suggests Far and Away's influence (there was never any real reason for Titanic to have a "Celtic" score).

In any case, I rate Far and Away much more highly than a lot of more acclaimed pictures from the 1990s (like Forest Gump or Saving Private Ryan) and it's a shame it isn't better recognized.

[mkaroly]

Williams' End Titles piece to Far and Away is one of my favorites of his, if not my all time favorite. Ridiculously great piece of music - I wish I had seen him conduct it live at some point. I have never seen Far and Away - shame they put Enya over the end credits score.

[Paul MacLean]

I have never seen Far and Away - shame they put Enya over the end credits score.

It's a wonderful film, and definitely worth a look.

I was talking to Andy the other night, and he blamed its poor reviews on critics being down on Tom Cruise at the time. The trailers for the film were also poor, and made it look like some kind of generic Harlequin Romance, plus it didn't feature any of Williams' score -- instead it was tracked with Yanni!

I had no interest in seeing Far and Away at all when it was released. I only saw it because a friend wanted to see a movie, and it was the only thing playing that looked mildly interesting. To say it turned out to be more than mildly interesting is an understatement!

[AndyDursin]

I remember I was doing my high school service project in my school's after-school day care program, and I had developed a pretty good crush on this teaching aide (who must've been in graduate school). I even bought her a tape of the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST soundtrack for her trip back to Philadelphia (only to never see her again!!

Anyway we were coming to the end of the school year, and when I told her I saw FAR AND AWAY she was like, are you kidding, why did you see THAT. And she wasn't alone. I think the bad trailers -- which made it look as Paul said like some kind of humorless "Tom & Nicole Romance Movie" and not the old-fashioned, romantic adventure it was -- were a huge turnoff. And I think the reviews were unnecessarily harsh, heavily putting down Cruise and Kidman's relationship at the time (which was all over the tabloids).

The main reason I went -- besides my Mom wanting to see it -- was because of Williams' score. I'm pretty sure that CD was out a few days ahead of the movie and I always hit the record store on Tuesday after school to see what new releases were out (wasn't that a time?). That experience of hearing Williams' score was unforgettable, because with some scores you needed to see the film to appreciate them fully. Not FAR AND AWAY. That score was absolutely rapturous, and the way he weaved through every theme in that end credits track is so glorious and spectacular... it's right up there with everything so to speak.

The movie itself is solid too as Paul wrote, but I would wait for the 4K remaster to hit -- which people have rumored is coming from Shout Factory. The Blu-Ray is an old HD master and it doesn't hold up. Certainly for a movie shot in 70MM it ought to look better than that and the prospects of a new Dolby Vision HDR presentation of the movie are exciting (and long overdue).