The Towering Inferno (1974) 8 of 10
-Like "Poseidon Adventure", this keeps improving with age IMO and it's unfortunate I think that the two movies haven't gotten a definitive "making of" book treatment because IMO these films aren't given enough credit for paving the way for the blockbuster success of "Jaws" and the Star Wars franchise (because neither film was a summer release I think their influence gets obscured since "Jaws" was admittedly the first summer blockbuster success). "Inferno" represented a bigger challenge than "Poseidon Adventure" not simply because it was combining two disparate novels into one storyline, but unlike "Poseidon" where the actors are part of one unit, "Inferno" has to give us a number of separate storylines and make it all hold together. That it does is not just a testament to the acting and directing IMO but also the outstanding Oscar-winning film editing work that keeps the pacing going (and Williams score also brilliantly moves things along too)

-There had once been a time when I worried after 9/11 if I could handle this film again. There are some parts that do call to mind what happened later, particularly the death of Susan Flannery and the WTC victims leaping to their deaths. But it's because I'm fascinated by the actors on-screen and because the danger thrills come off as a natural progression of events and not an exploitative moment like all the set pieces of the Emmerich disaster porn movies, that I don't get too self-conscious.

-The supplements contain all of the footage that was shown in the two part network TV airings (in pan/scan format and to differentiate from what isn't new they show the new footage in color and shift to B/W when it isn't new footage). There are some clarifying scenes that explain just what Newman is quitting Holden's firm for to do and why Dunaway doesn't want to go along (Newman wants to design a rural community located in the northern California coastal community of Mendocino), a key scene that establishes how Astaire and Jennifer Jones have met (he walks in on her giving the painting lesson to the children before their deaf mother arrives), a big scene of Wagner in his office getting the gold scissors for the dedication from the jeweler and also calling a friend in Arizona to get him to part with the case of 1929 wine for Senator Robert Vaughn (this establishes what Wagner's role with the company is but it would have slowed down the pacing of the film), and later a couple more scenes of Susan Blakely interacting with Dunaway and then Holden during the party. After the disaster starts there's also a scene of firemen trying to revive someone unsuccessfully. When I was a kid I initially thought wrongly this was an attempt to revive the dead Wagner, but it isn't, and some people wonder if it's in fact Don Gordon who isn't seen again after the halfway point (and is he possibly the one dead fireman that they point out to McQueen that "by the time we got to him he was covered in hot stuff"?) But this isn't right since Gordon is the one who tells McQueen that the scenic elevator blew off its tracks.

-While Astaire's performance calls to mind his role as Wagner's father on "It Takes A Thief" and later his guest shot on "Battlestar Galactica" as Dirk Benedict's father, I wish they'd given him the Oscar anyway since I'm no longer at a stage where I think much of DeNiro!

I dug up my negative review of F.X. Feeney's commentary track on "Towering Inferno" from 2006 on this forum. I listened to it again for the first time in nearly 14 years today. OMG, how was this guy ever picked to do this?? He is so ignorant of many details not just in regard to the film's production but also he keeps mucking up details about the on-screen action! At one point he deludes himself into thinking the two kids Newman and Jones rescuses are deaf, when it's their *mother* who's deaf! (is he listening to them talk???). Then later, when McQueen is getting ready for the rescue on the scenic elevator he says that the fireman inside the elevator is the one who was too scared to go down the elevator shaft with McQueen. WRONG! This is one film that could use a do-over as far as a decent commentary track goes because this one laid an egg big time.

GEMINI MAN (2019)
5/10

Just as Robert Zemeckis fell in love with “new tech” during the latter portions of his career, director Ang Lee seems to have left his penchant for choosing smart dramatic projects behind in lieu of something to show off his “new box of cinematic toys.” After scoring a major hit with “Life of Pi,” Lee made the inert “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk” and then took a major shift, signing onto the forever-in-development hell action vehicle “Gemini Man” for Paramount and producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

Originally scripted in the mid ‘90s by Darren Lemke for director Tony Scott, “Gemini Man” went through an endless series of potential stars (reportedly everyone from Sean Connery to Harrison Ford were at one point bandied about) before the plug was pulled since the technology to make its premise – a hitman finds himself being hunted by a younger clone of himself – work was either too expensive and/or or too primitive.

Envisioning this – like “Billy Lynn” – as another vehicle ideal for high frame-rate, Lee’s “Gemini Man” offers a reasonably photorealistic depiction of a Fresh Prince-era Smith being sent off to knock off his older self: a wisened, retired government agent being stalked by his clone and joined by another covert op (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). The duo, along with one of Smith’s pals (Benedict Wong), traverse the globe trying to avoid young Will and his surrogate father (Clive Owen), a slimy government op who cloned Smith during the “Men in Black”/”Independence Day” era.

The action is smooth, the detail high, and the colors smashing – especially when you view “Gemini Man” in its 60fps 4K UHD presentation – but to what end? This is such a dull, and lifeless, thriller that it’s stunning Lee had anything to do with its creation. It’s also truly remarkable that, for all the years “Gemini Man” was in development, this movie’s screenplay is such a mess. There’s no clear reason why Owen is even after the elder Smith, as the movie seems more interested in showcasing its backdrops and special effects than its story and characters.

As for all the technological advances that enable two Will Smiths of differing eras to square off with one another, the project would’ve been more effective if it paired a truly aging, near-elderly star with a younger model – say, Connery 10 or 20 years back – instead of a charismatic star like Smith who doesn’t look or even sound all that different from a couple of decades ago.

“Gemini Man” certainly held a lot of promise – there are obvious reasons why someone would be compelled to produce it – but also just as many reasons, judging from the finished product, why nobody bothered to before.

Paramount’s 4K UHD offers a 60fps version of the film exclusively on UHD that more closely represents Lee’s conception as opposed to its standard 24fps presentation (which is preserved here on Blu-Ray). The 60fps presentation is silky smooth and looks like a HD travel video as opposed to a typical movie – but once you get past the initial shock of seeing a movie look as if it’s employed the “soap opera effect,” the viewer is rewarded with dynamic colors and detail far surpassing the 24fps 1080p Blu-Ray. The “hyper-reality” also increases the effectiveness of the CGI effects since the entire environment is more life-like than conventional film. Despite its blah Lorne Balfe score, the Dolby Atmos sound is satisfyingly rendered with extras including an alternate opening and deleted scenes, over an hour of featurettes, a VFX scene breakdown (in 60fps high framerate on the UHD), and a Digital HD copy.

1917
9.5/10

WOW. A real movie? About time.

Go see this one.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:34 pm 1917
9.5/10

WOW. A real movie? About time.

Go see this one.

Seeing it tomorrow with my Dad.

Phenomenal. Best movie I've seen in years and bests all the overrated war movies people go on about (Dunkirk, Private Ryan). May be too subdued for "the kids" used to having gore and bodies splattered around...it probably got an R more for language than violence...but this is Mendes crown jewel.

Mesermerizing filmmaking at a time when we need it most.

Seeing it tomorrow morning - have been looking forward to this film for a while now.

1917
9.5/10

There aren’t a lot of opportunities to talk about movies that push storytelling boundaries and employ technology in new and exciting ways, but Sam Mendes’ spectacular 1917 is happily one of those instances. A unique war movie that works as – and was intended to be – an immersive cinematic experience, this is a truly breathtaking piece of filmmaking – a dazzling trip into the battlefields of WWI that’s unquestionably the best film of this year (or the last few, for that matter).

In Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns’ screenplay – based on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather – a pair of British soldiers (George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message behind enemy lines in northern France. The retreating German forces, they’ve been told, have backed up only to fortify a more advantageous strategic location – making the British battalion they have to find believe they’re “on the run” but are, instead, being intentionally directed towards a trap. The duo – one more world-weary than the other – must battle the elements, rogue German soldiers, and other assorted perils en route to finding – and stopping – that battalion of some 1500 men, ready to assault at dawn.

With Mendes working alongside the great cinematographer Roger Deakins, “1917” has been designed to bring the viewer into, and inside, its straightforward premise in a manner only today’s technology would allow. Shot as one continuous take, the flowing, and masterfully executed, visual design proves to be fascinating all by itself: locations are laid out as if you’re traversing an actual map – a tree blocking a roadway in one shot becomes an obstacle being removed by soldiers several minutes later – and it’s all executed so brilliantly that you may drift away from the story to ponder just how it was done. Yet it's also a testament to Mendes and Deakins' work that, as the film progressed, I found myself no longer looking for the seams and truly accepted that the camera was really following these young men through the actual battlefields of the war in one flowing, “real time” movement.

It’s also more of a war-time adventure, a story of survival, than a film that follows the conventions of most genre movies. If you’re looking for the WWI equivalent of “Saving Private Ryan,” you’re going to be disappointed – the movie certainly paints a brutal portrait of its era, but its R rating is virtually more warranted for profanity than gore. The characters traverse its environments mostly on the periphery of conflict, skirting the dead, the wounded and those affected by the battle – along the way there are moments of introspection, but don’t expect the pretentious poetry of “The Thin Red Line” either. Mendes keeps the movie moving, constantly, pausing for moments of unfortunate tragedy, stopping occasionally for a flash of fortuitous fate (such as Mackay’s meeting with a young French girl hiding in her bombed-out village) – yet sticking to its thesis that the war is going to be won by the last man standing.

The message is clear, yet “1917” conveys it in an unpretentious manner that puts filmmaking first and foremost. This is a masterpiece of visual storytelling, showing that new technology can invigorate historical settings as well as the generic Hollywood franchise film when placed in the hands of master filmmakers. We all know that there aren’t a lot of them left, which makes “1917” such a movie-going experience to savor.

Andy, your review pretty much says it all. It is an outstanding movie - great performances, engaging and moving as heck (cried at the end). I did find myself wondering during the film how in the heck Mendes pulled off the way he filmed it - obviously there were edits, but what an achievement. So refreshing to see a movie that doesn't put in an ADHD edit every 2 seconds. Loved Thomas Newman's score - his scoring follows the story's ebbs and flows nicely, adding to the emotional pay-off of the film...which felt sincere and honest, not heart-stringy and artificial. I don't know what else to say...so worth going to the theater to support this film.

Loved Thomas Newman's score - his scoring follows the story's ebbs and flows nicely, adding to the emotional pay-off of the film...which felt sincere and honest, not heart-stringy and artificial

Quite unlike the cornball end of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, for example. This works, and the very end is extremely moving indeed, but it's done in a poignant and quiet manner and isn't drawn out at all. You can believe something like that happened (and undoubtedly did, many times).

Generally speaking, I feel like Thomas Newman is really good at capturing the emotional undercurrent of a film. He is less about specific character themes and more about the emotional atmosphere of the scene he is scoring...though each of his films do have a specific theme one can associate with that film. I think that's why his scoring style and musical language work for Mendes' films in general, and why it works well here with 1917.

That's a good analysis Michael. I think his approach and overall scoring works very well in this film, certainly. As for Newman in general, I always enjoyed his mid 90s era with Shawshank and Little Women. Most of the time I'm not moved to check out his music beyond the movie but seldom do I think it's a shortcoming, he knows how to support a film. One of the few times his music didn't work at all was on the Bond movies for me. They're noisy and uninteresting, and didn't play at all to his strengths. Had Mendes not been involved Newman would basically be the last composer you'd expect to be working on that kind of a film.

MacArthur (1977) 6 of 10

-Despite the presence of Gregory Peck, this biopic comes off more like a late 70s TV movie because it was primarily a Universal backlot production and also the fact that the script is very superficial giving us only a pedestrian, by-the-numbers look at MacArthur from the time of Corregidor to his firing by Truman with his final "Duty, Honor, Country" speech bookending things. The film is more about Peck doing a MacArthur enacting familiar moments without giving us much of an in-depth look at MacArthur the man in the way "Patton" did.

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood (3/10)

SPOILERS

Yet another long-winded Tarantino exercise in self-indulgence -- with some irresponsible revisionist history thrown-in for good measure.

While it is a more straightforward narrative than Pulp Fiction (if not nearly as good a film), and not as boring as Jackie Brown, Inglorious Basterds or Death Proof, it remains a thoroughly unsatisfying movie, filled with hammy acting, and scenes that don't advance the plot.

In spite of the barrage of period "details" that keep screaming "Look! We're in 1969!" the film never once feels like the actual time and place it is trying evoke (in contrast to pictures like American Graffiti, or The Wanderers). It all has the look and feel of a TV movie, right down do Sharon Tate's pregnant belly, which is obviously nothing more than a lightweight balloon. There are scenes of Leonardo DeCapprio acting in a fictional 1969 western -- but this fictional film is not even lit or photographed like a film from 1969 (it's shot like something you'd see today).

I also wonder how many people even get Tarantino's obscure references to the era. How many people actually know who James Stacy was (moreover what happened to him the 1970s)? How many people know who Sam Wanamaker is? (He's not the doofus he's made-out to be in Tarantino's film -- he was in fact a great Shakespearean actor, and was largely responsible for the reconstruction of the Globe Theatre in London). We have a scene in which Sharon Tate buys a copy of "Tess" to send to Roman Polanski -- but so what? Tarantino never follows-through to tell us that Polanski eventually adapted "Tess" into a film (which he dedicated to Tate's memory).

The soundtrack is littered with "affordable" period songs -- but nothing really ionic. You'd think they'd have at least shelled-out the money to license the most obvious tune to use in the film -- The Beatles' "Helter Skelter" -- but I guess it wasn't in the budget (or perhaps Tarantnino isn't aware of its relevance). Bernard Herrmann's unused music from Torn Curtain is also used in several scenes.

The climax is a vulgar orgy of carnage, and leaves me thoroughly convinced Tarantino is an amoral man, with no sense of decency, or right and wrong. The Manson murders are not some tabloid urban legend you can play with (much less depict with an entirely different outcome than what actually took place). They were a shocking, sickening crime, in which real people were murdered -- gruesomely -- and Taratino appropriates it to create an infantile, violent fight sequence (complete with a flamethrower) like some kid playing with his action figures.

A waste of time, and among Tarantino's most distasteful efforts.

TERMINATOR: DARK FATE (2019)
5.5/10

Despite returning director James Cameron to the series for the first time since his 1991 juggernaut “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” TERMINATOR: DARK FATE sputtered and collapsed at the box-office last fall. The latest – and very likely last – attempt at rebooting a franchise that produced four prior sequels with little connective tissue between them, “Dark Fate” aspires to be the first “legitimate” sequel to T2, bringing back Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor and reuniting her with Arnold Schwarzenegger for the first time in nearly 30 years.

Yet, while this reportedly troubled production offers more of a female-centric bent in this “woke,” post #metoo era product, it’s remarkable that the return of Cameron – who produced and receives a story credit – resulted in just the most rote remaking yet of his 1984 original classic.

“Dark Fate” pretends that none of the other, non-Cameron Terminator sequels occurred and picks up the action with the death of John Connor in the most audience-unfriendly about-face since Newt’s death at the start of “Alien3.” A grizzled Sarah Connor (Hamilton) has spent the last few decades offing a flurry of terminators who have fallen out of the futuristic portal – signaled by a mysterious source (you’ll never guess who it is) – until something truly different happens (well, not really): a new model of Terminator (Diego Luna) descends upon Mexico in order to off the next leader of the human resistance. This time it’s not Sarah’s deceased son but a Mexican girl (Natalia Reyes) who’s the target, with the Kyle Reese function likewise gender-switched to a tough, futuristic, cyber-augmented female soldier (Mackenzie Davis). The trio bicker but eventually come together to try and stave off the next robot apocalypse from – shades of “The First Order” --“Legion,” the new name for Skynet.

Director Tim Story (“Deadpool”) and Cameron reportedly were at odds throughout the production of “Dark Fate,” which boasts a ridiculous amount of credited screenwriters – six – given how creatively challenged the film turns out to be. The gambit here is that the producers felt that, if they pretended “Terminator 3,” “Salvation” and “Genisys” didn’t happen, audiences would react to “Dark Fate” as if it were a new, fresh product, complete with a heavy push towards the Latino market.

That decision, though, only alienated the remaining fans the series had, since “Dark Fate” plays out in such a pedestrian, by-the-numbers manner that it makes “Salvation” look like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Hamilton’s gruff (and often stilted) reactions are “new,” but the formula isn’t, and the Terminator itself doesn’t do anything we haven’t seen before many times out. Switch out some dialogue with a predictable “female empowerment” angle and all we have – despite the Cameron brand name – is a transparent remake of the 1984 film, minus surprises and excitement save for Arnold’s late return as an apologetic Terminator who’s been spending the last few decades as a surrogate dad. Schwarzenegger’s performance is the best thing in this movie, yet he comes in far too late to make much of a difference to a sequel that deservedly tanked at the box-office – coming in under the prior reboot effort (the agreeable “Genisys”) and almost certainly ending future franchise revistations…at least for the foreseeable future.