-Speed (1994): 10/10



Almost 25(!) years later, Speed remains one of the high points of 90's action cinema, anchored by a high-concept hook (explosives-rigged bus must maintain a speedometer rating of 50 MPH or else go boom) that yields high-octane thrills thanks to the steady hand of ace cinematographer Jan De Bont, making a smashing directorial debut he never managed to live up to (in the parlance of Jeff Daniels, he "couldn't hold his wad"). Keanu Reeves plays Daniels' partner, a hotheaded SWAT officer named Jack Traven who, along with partner Daniels, crosses paths with an off-kilter mad bomber named Howard Payne (Dennis Hopper, clearly having a blast) who sets up said bus, causing Reeves to maneuver his way on board and attempt to keep the passengers calm and "not dead" with the assistance of spunky Annie (adorable Sandra Bullock, in a star-making turn), who takes the wheel after the driver is incapacitated. There's a hint of 70's disaster-movie peril in the makeup of the passengers (Alan Ruck gets numerous laughs as a smartassed tourist), as well as the gleeful, crunched-metal anarchy of George Miller's Mad Max series, but despite all of the pyrotechnics and amazing stuntwork, it's the chemistry between Reeves (the most zen SWAT officer imaginable) and Bullock (looking like she's gonna step off the set and right into a guest shot on Friends) that really makes the film's zingy pop thrills resonate. Add in Hopper's megalomaniacal zeal in delivering his charismatically hypnotic rants and a pulsating score by Mark Mancina and you've got a movie that has weathered the last quarter-century remarkable well, and still holds up to this day, especially in the era where CGI and green screens have taken all of the actual peril out of genre filmmaking. Here 95% of what you see it done for real, and the kinetic awe of seeing a full-sized city bus plowing through rush hour traffic retains a palpable sense of white-knuckle suspense. Fantastic movie...!

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun (AKA Doppeganger) 8/10

(spoilers)

Gerry Anderson's first foray into live action drama still holds-up today, with believable, three-dimensional characters and a (mostly) engaging script. The entire cast is spot-on, with Roy Thinnes as the solid, all-American astronaut, and Ian Hendry as the ambitious (but in-over-his-head) scientist who probably shouldn't be training for manned spaceflight. Patrick Wymark is also excellent as the cantankerous, ruthless head of "Eurosec" (a prescient prediction of the real-life ESA which would emerge years later). Ed Bishop and George Sewell have arresting chemistry in their smaller roles -- it's obvious why they were both cast in UFO soon after. Fans of British sci-fi TV will also spot Keith Alexander (also later cast in UFO) as well as Nicholas Courtney (soon to star as the Brigadier on Doctor Who) as mission control operatives.

Derek Meddings' effects work looks very good even by today's standards (and in some ways better -- as it utilizes real, physical models and not CGI). The art direction is beautifully designed, and exquisite down to the most minute detail (such as the quick glimpse of the Rolls-Royce emblem on the Phoenix). Barry Gray's score is among his finest work -- romantic, otherworldly, and by turns traditional and surrealistically innovative -- and also the best science fiction film score of the 1960s (sorry Planet of the Apes).

It's surprising to me this film was released with a "G" rating though, given the scene where Thinnes strikes his wife when he discovers she has been taking birth control. Perhaps the ratings board were simply programmed to think "science fiction means children's movie".

In regard to the script though, I have some nitpicks...

The story involves the discovery of another planet -- the same size as Earth and in the same orbital path around the sun (hitherto undiscovered because it is also orbiting at the same speed as the Earth). Implausible, but fair enough. Of course it turns out that this planet is a "mirror image" of Earth, inhabited by "doppelgangers" of everyone on the Earth, and every incident on one Earth occurs simultaneously on the other.

But when two doppelgangers look up at the heavens at night, they would see different constellations and planets in the sky. Someone on "Earth A" could not gaze upon Mars or Venus at the same time as someone on "Earth B" since those planets would be in different positions relative to each Earth. So how can every incident on both Earths truly be simultaneous?

These things don't ruin the film -- which is still very entertaining and watchable -- but the question of how and why a "duplicate Earth" exists is never really explained, and that's a little unsatisfying. Apart from the scientific gaps, the subplot involving Herbert Lom as a mole spying on Eurosec never really goes anywhere (he is killed in the first half hour). However his glass eye with the hidden camera is genuinely cool (as is his nifty little darkroom and film processing gadget).

It seems at times that the script was secondary to the style and spectacle -- which was an issue with a lot of Gerry Anderson's productions. However -- again with many of Anderson's productions -- the look and feel (and dramatic situations and character interactions) are so good it makes it easier to overlook the plot holes and less-than-stringent scientific accuracy. It remains an enjoyable and entertaining picture.

"G" ratings in the early years of the ratings system were for a much more relaxed standard than what we later saw. I think that film was released before the "GP" standard which then became "PG" was devised. This is why a "G" was also slapped on "Airport" with its subplots of adultery and discussions of abortion and "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" with tons of violent shootings and blood and its downer ending.

"Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun" infuriates me because it takes forever to establish the premise of the film that we know what it's about going in, and then it basically just stops dead and cold as far as the story goes.

Lynn Loring at the time was Mrs. Thinnes.

That, IMO, is one of the worst movie endings of all-time. lol. I have the Blu-Ray and think it's OK (good for the score and the effects), but talk about a story that ultimately doesn't deliver.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:55 pm That, IMO, is one of the worst movie endings of all-time. lol. I have the Blu-Ray and think it's OK (good for the score and the effects), but talk about a story that ultimately doesn't deliver.

This is one of those examples where a great score can effectively gloss-over a movie's weaknesses. Without Barry Gray's music, Doppelganger would be a much-harder sell (and might not even work at all). But Gray invests it with genuine gravitas.

United 93 (2006) 9.5 of 10

-Had to see this again today. As the years go by the meaning of this day has been lost in a sea of political correctness and a chorus of snark that will exploit the victims of that day to make outrageous comments about how someone saying something or someone being in office is somehow worse for the country than what happened that day.

A Taxing Woman (マルサの女) (8/10)

You wouldn't expect a Japanese movie about a middle-aged female tax auditor to be particularly interesting, but this film from Juzo Itami (Tampopo) proves an entertaining thriller / comedy. Itami's wife Miyamoto Nobuko shines in the title role as an eccentric auditor who takes the serious risk of trying to nail a Yakuza businessman for tax evasion. This is one of those "foreign" films which definitely transcends the language barrier and speaks universally (with nary a dull moment). Recommended.

My Generation (6.5/10)

Presented and co-produced by Michael Caine, My Generation is a documentary which examines the "Swinging London" culture which burst forth in the 1960s, and how it turned the nation (and later, the world) upside-down. The way Britain went from a dreary nation, bogged-down in post-war austerity, and then suddenly transformed into the world's most colorful, hip culture (which holds an influential nostalgia for people even to this day) is a remarkable story.

Unfortunately My Generation misses the mark in a lot of ways.

A number of significant developments do get spotlighted -- in particular the way Britain's astringent class system was suddenly starting to disintegrate. Caine in particular notes that he, as a cockney, would never have gotten cast as an upper-crust British officer had Zulu been directed by someone British. This is perhaps the most illuminating aspect of the production, which shows how he and other "working class lads" -- actors, musicians, designers, etc. from all over Britain -- would experience a level of success unheard of at any time prior.

Naturally, a fair amount of time is devoted to The Beatles, and pop music coverage continues with The Rolling Stones and The Who. Pretty-much everything these bands contributed to the culture is sufficiently stated early on -- but for some reason the documentary keeps coming back to them, again and again, and redundancy sets-in. Things later get off-topic, with footage of the Beatles' US tours, and we're shown images of America, and (yawn) Vietnam protests -- but what does this have to do with Swinging London?

Moreover, these boy bands were not the only popular music to emerge in 1960s Britain. What about Petulia Clark, or Cliff Richards? They may not have been famous in the US but they were hugely popular in Britain at that time. Even John Barry made a big splash with the James Bond scores -- the Goldfinger soundtrack actually outsold all the Beatles' albums in 1964 (Barry and Michael Caine were even flatmates for a while, yet this doesn't rate a mention?).

David Bailey's fashion photography is covered, as are Vidal Sassoon's shocking new hairstyles. But strangely, despite the fact My Generation is presented by movie star Michael Caine, it almost completely ignores British cinema of that time. Other than a few clips from some of Caine's movies, no mention is made of Britain's film production boom of that era. The James Bond films, which were among Britain's most popular exports of the 1960s, are ignored. Apart from Bond, a lot of Hollywood-funded movies were made in 1960s Britain -- The Pink Panther, The Blue Max, The Dirty Dozen, Fahrenheit 451, Where Eagles Dare, Battle of Britain, Charade, Frenzy, etc. In fact, in the 1960s, there were as many (or more) Hollywood movies being made in Britain than in California (Jerry Goldsmith very nearly settled in London permanently because that was where he working most of the time).

Many young British actors became international stars in the 1960s -- Peter O'Toole, Albert Finney, Julie Christie, John Hurt, Susannah York, Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, David Hemmings, et al. And a good deal of British films resonated with young audiences in Britain (and beyond) -- Help!, Blow-Up, Tom Jones, The Knack, To Sir With Love, etc. But again again, none of this is mentioned.

Furthermore, My Generation ignores British TV altogether, despite the emergence of young, revolutionary talents in that medium during the 1960s. Fresh, offbeat shows like The Avengers and The Prisoner were a product of how people were "thinking outside the box" in this new Britain, as were Gerry Anderson's innovative children's series. Doctor Who (the brainchild of two young, maverick BBC producers) premiered in 1963 -- and ran for another 25 years (then it came back 13 years ago and is still going strong!). Even Monty Python (which debuted in 1960s) is ignored. Many of these series went on to find audiences around the world.

Britain also led the way in radically-innovative new television commercials, thanks to up-and-coming maverick directors like Ridley Scott and Alan Parker. Seriously, none of this deserved a mention? The filmmakers honestly thought endless stock footage of Lennon and McCartney was more relevant?

Toward the end, the film address the ultimate downfall of "Swinging London" -- which it attributes mainly to the drug cuture (and the drug busts of several famous pop stars). And while that was a factor, the main reason (which isn't mentioned) was the insane tax hikes, which resulted in these British celebrities being squeezed for over 80% of their income. This is what prompted the Rolling Stones to flee the UK, to be followed by The Beatles, David Bowie, etc. -- and eventually Michael Caine himself.

It's a shame My Generation was not more well-rounded, and that it offers such an incomplete picture of the time and place it has chosen to spotlight. Another irritating aspect of the movie is that several significant figures from that era are interviewed, but they are only heard on the soundtrack -- we never see their faces! And you can hear Michael Caine conversing with them, so it is clear they were interviewed expressly for the production. You just don't get to see them -- and that gets old real fast.

A missed opportunity.

-A Simple Favor (2018): 8.5/10



Just when you thought there was no more juice to squeeze out of the "Airport Novel" thriller, along comes the bracingly daffy entry in the genre that upends clichés in a variety of head-spinning ways, one that's just knotty enough to get you engrossed in a variety of double-crosses and unexpected slot shifts while semi-lampshading the very idea of the kind of "sexy thriller' we used to get boatloads of back in the 90's. And from director Paul Feig, no less, finally breaking away from a spate of foul-mouthed Melissa McCarthy comedies of varying quality. The film is very funny in spots, and anchored by a pair of terrific performances from Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick (the human chipmunk), who play the film's overheated, pulpy plot machinations for all they're worth while the preposterously handsome and charismatic Henry Golding (from Crazy Rich Asians) is stuck in the middle of it all. It's wry, witty and stylish, and boasts a surprisingly lush score by Theodore Shapiro that's honestly one of the best I've heard this year. It's not quite a ZAZ-style spoof of flicks like Gone Girl or The Girl On The Train, but it's smart enough to lampshade all of the kind of contrivances and plot holes that films of this type wallow in, and turns out to be one of the more pleasurable surprises of the year.

Had no idea the movie was a comedy or even supposed to be funny.

Because I avoid trailers in general, I had no idea what to expect going in except that the reviews were very good, and it had two very attractive leading ladies. It somehow works as both a straight "sexy" thriller and a quasi-satire of same, with the humorous bits being very well-woven into the overall fabric of the piece. I haven't read the book it's based on, so I have no idea if it played more "straight" on the page, and that Feig and his screenwriter added quirky touches around the edges in adapting it, but whatever the genesis of the movie, I found myself with a big, silly smile on my face as the credits rolled. Definitely recommended!

EDIT: Holy hell, this is NOT the movie they're advertising...!



This is PRECISELY why I never watch trailers anymore.

I can avoid trailers when its a movie I know I want to see, but otherwise I like to have some idea of what I am going to watch ahead of time. Absolutely nothing...the title, trailer, synopsis, nothing...looked remotely funny associated with this movie! I mean it looks like THE GIFT. Seems like they could have gone for a Coen approach in marketing it, and it wouldnt have hurt it.

Then again maybe they wanted it looking like GONE GIRL or one of those "female psychothrillers" to get that audience into it.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:21 pm
Then again maybe they wanted it looking like GONE GIRL or one of those "female psychothrillers" to get that audience into it.

This is what I'm thinking...they're piggybacking on the two recent Girl movies (Gone and On The Train) by cutting the ads to omit as much of the overt comedy in the film as possible, which is probably gonna piss off a LOT of people come Monday. Then again, my audience was laughing at many key moments, and not the kind of derisive WTF? laughter you often get in movies that strain for actual thrills, and end up unintentionally amusing. This is definitely a Paul Feig movie that just happened to cross over into a thriller, and the tone is a lot more arch and comedic than the ads are letting on. It's Gone Girl Lite, but since I hadn't had my expectations "tainted" by what the trailers promised, I just went with it, and ended up enjoying myself quite a bit.

The recent Alpha is another great example. I looked up the trailers on YouTube after I saw the film, and they make it out to look like a Disney Channel original (with cheesy narration that obscures that the dialogue is completely subtitled), instead of the Quest For Fire/Never Cry Wolf tone of the actual movie.

SOLO
5/10

Wholly unnecessary attempt by Disney to placate its stockholders with another “Star Wars story” (err, cash grab), “Solo” tries to be “fun” and freewheeling as opposed to the ponderously stuffy “Rogue One.” Despite good intentions, the results are perfunctory, bland and so unappetizing from a visual standpoint that one struggles to envision that its original directors – animators Phil Lord and Christopher Miller – wouldn’t have brought more energy to the table than Ron Howard, who helms the Jonathan-Lawrence Kasdan script with all the appropriate anonymity of most Disney live-action product.

It doesn’t help that “Solo” gives you no reason, at all, why it ever had to exist in the first place. An endlessly grinning Aldren Ehrenreich doesn’t recreate any part of Harrison Ford’s legendary performance as George Lucas’ resident galactic rogue, here seen in his “Origins” as an impressionable young man who runs from the Empire and into a gang of thieves overseen by Woody Harrelson. Soon, Han is in over his head, meeting Chewbecca for the first time, trying to woo back lost love Emelia Clarke, and weaving his way through stock situations meant to evoke the earlier, and better, “real” Star Wars films.

At one point during “Solo” my wife leaned over and asked why we were still watching it. In fact, I had checked out long before that point – this is a pedestrian film that just sits there, listlessly, as it unspools a series of by-the-numbers action scenes (whether it’s Han Solo or Black Panther or Superman, these set-pieces all look and sound the same) meant to evoke the franchise Disney paid billions of dollars for, but does so in name only – not spirit. Like the Abrams/Johnson films and “Rogue One,” it sounds kind of like Star Wars (with its faux-Williams scoring by John Powell, augmented with horrific choral strains and enhanced percussion), it sorta looks like it…but it really isn’t “Star Wars,” more a mega-corporation’s middle-of-the-road, bland take on a galaxy far, far away.

Unsurprisingly a film most audiences stayed far, far away from, “Solo” makes the leap to 4K UHD this week but it’s such an unappealing looking film that no amount of HDR and Dolby Vision can save it. Howard and cinematographer Bradford Young shot the film in an excessive amount of low light and drab surroundings – so much that the movie looks like you’re watching it through a filter. The muted color scheme is uninteresting as well, making for a tepid visual presentation that’s entirely due to the source material. On the audio side, the Dolby Atmos sound is mixed with a definite lean on effects, while extras include a handful of deleted scenes, interviews and featurettes, the Blu-Ray and Digital HD copy.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:05 am SOLO
5/10

Wow, you liked it even less than I did! (I gave it a 6/10!)


SPOILER BELOW...






Agreed on all points -- but the nail in the coffin was the "surprise appearance" by -- oooooooo -- Darth Maul!!!

I was discussing this ludicrous plot development with someone else, and questioned how and why someone who was sliced in half years earlier could still be around. Their answer was that some spinoff Star Wars comic or book explained what happened to Darth Maul and why he wasn't dead. (Sorry, that doesn't work for me.)