JayDee's Movie Musings

Nice reviews, seems like you put alot of time into them.

Really? But it's from 1990, seems a bit modern for you oh ancient one! I'd love to see you do a favourites list one day nebbit as I admire your tastes.

Thanks Masterman. I do indeed put quite a bit of time and effort in so it's always nice when someone notices.

__________________

I haven't seen Green Lantern or The Grifters. Seems like I made the right decision with the former.

Justin, good call, The Green Lantern was not that great of a movie.

Yeah I don't think you're missing out on much Justin. I didn't have much interest in it myself and certainly wouldn't have paid to see it, just decided to give it shot when it was on TV. I can allow myself to be easily entertained by just about anything and I'm a generally a generous rater so most people would have it lower I'm guessing. Indeed it proved so forgettable that because it took me about a week to finish off the review I was already struggling to remember a single thing about it!

As you could probably gather from my rating I would certainly recommend The Grifters though.

Plot – Charles 'Bru' Brubaker (Brolin) is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Just seconds before the launch however Bru and his fellow astronauts, Peter Willis (Waterston) and John Walker (Simpson), are removed from the capsule which then proceeds to launch without them. The head of the programme Dr Kelloway ((Holbrook) explains that the life support system would have failed but that NASA could not afford to have a scrapped mission in terms of funding and publicity. So they plan to fake the mission, while keeping the astronauts at a remote base until their supposed return. Meanwhile, going on a tip from a friend who is working on the mission and suspects something is amiss, journalist Robert Caulfield (Gould) starts to investigate and soon finds his life in great danger.

This is a rollicking good yarn. Yes it may be a bit cheesy and flawed in parts but yeah, rollicking good yarn sums it up pretty succinctly.

After the unnerving chills of Magic and the methodical drama of Escape from Alcatraz, this finds me firmly back on classic 70s thriller territory. We've got conspiracies, cover-ups, the ordinary man being squeezed under the thumb of the government, the conspiracy being blown apart by a tenacious journalist. Indeed much of it feels very All the President's Men, right down to the two films sharing Hal Holbrook as a member of their cast. He was Deep Throat in All the President's Men, and here he is the puppet master who makes the whole operation happen.

Quite obviously taking its inspiration from the numerous conspiracy theories that popped up after the Moon Landing in 1969 the film has a terrific premise to build upon. And while it may fumble a few elements here and there, for the most part if fulfils its great promise. Alongside the moon landing much of the story's inspiration comes from the growing indifference of the American public to space travel. It's amazing to think that the moon landing was one of the biggest events of all time, and yet in less than 10 years the American people were already bored with it, complaining when shuttle launches replaced old repeats of I Love Lucy on TV. Given how much the film was inspired by its time you may have concerns about it feeling very dated but for the most part it really doesn't. Thrillers taking in conspiracies and government cover-ups are always likely to be relevant; I mean just look at all the conspiracy theories that popped up surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq war. And the actual issue of the space program being closed still has a lot of relevancy with funding continuing to be cut by President Obama. The way that element is worked into the story is very clever, giving the cover-up an air of feasibility.

Film trivia - Strangely much of this film would later be recycled. The terrific aerial chase scene would later be used in an episode of The Fall Guy. The runaway car sequence was re-used numerous times in other movies and TV shows. And Jerry Goldsmith would later revive a bit of his own score in his work on Star Trek: Insurrection.

The film's taut story has some great twists and turns thrown in, although it has to be said that the pace does sag at times, largely down to the fact the scenes have a tendency to become dialogue heavy. And the middle stretch of the film between the cover-up and the escape of the astronauts perhaps pauses a little too much. All that aside though it is kept moving at a good pace by Peter Hyams, his direction delivering a couple of really nice set-pieces, from Gould trying to reign in his out of control car to a fantastic aerial battle which I'll talk about later. The star though on the technical side would have to be cinematographer Bill Butler. He delivers some great moments such as the pull back reveal of the studio-set Mars environment and in particular the way that the desert is presented. As the three astronauts try to escape, the film becomes a real tale of survival and visually the desert provides a a very harsh and stark setting to challenge them.

I always really appreciate when a film has a strong ending; it can just make such a difference. A decent film can be propelled to something special, while a strong film can just slip into something forgettable all by their conclusions. So it's a real bonus that the film is strong down the finishing straight. A large amount of the credit should go to the ace that the film had been holding up its sleeve until the last 15 minutes – Telly Savalas. He plays a gruff crop dusting pilot, and appears to take on the role with relish. He can't have more than about 15/20 lines of dialogue in his short screen time but he makes a terrific impact as he barks orders at Gould to keep his head down, and bafflingly abuses anyone who annoys him as a 'pervert.' Some people may see it as being out of sync with the rest of the film's tone but I found it to be so much fun that I really didn't care.

Film trivia - Despite the fact that they are quite clearly portrayed as the villain of the piece NASA actually co-operated and provided technical assistance for the film, including real equipment for props and a prototype spacecraft.

And then there's the spectacular dog fight that occurs when two helicopters chase down the biplane piloted by Savalas' character, with Gould's journalist riding shotgun and Brolin's astronaut hanging onto the wing. It's a thrilling set-piece featuring some amazing stunts and some beautiful aerial photography. Hyams also deploys a nice touch by making the black helicopters into sinister characters in their own right. By never letting us see the pilots it turns the helicopters into a real symbol of dread, meaning that anytime they loom into view in pursuit of the astronauts is a moment of menace.

Alongside Savalas the cast is made up of a series of recognisable faces, many of them delivering strong and engaging performances. Holbrook is the star turn here, a combination of his great performance and the fact that his character is by far the one blessed with the most depth. Also impressing are Brenda Vaccaro as Brubaker's wife and Elliott Gould as Caulfield. It's just a shame then that the astronauts themselves are left as rather bland characters. Their main character aspect seems to purely be their profession as astronauts, outside of that they don't get much fleshing out. That aside James Brolin and Sam Waterston still prove likeable presences. Even OJ Simpson is pretty decent, despite the queasiness I feel at watching him on screen.

Conclusion – A flawed, sometimes dated, but terrifically slick bit of entertainment. A riveting bit of nonsense which has a real charm to much of its production. With so many films from the 70s and 80s having been given the remake treatment I'm surprised this one hasn't yet, given the fact it seems ripe for it.

Love Capricorn One.
Nice review...

__________________

Usually it's easy for me to pick the two posters I'll include in my review but there were so many cool and weird ones for Capricorn One that I just had to post some more, including some damn surreal posters from Europe

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Plot – 1991. The cold war is coming to an end, as is the career of veteran CIA operative Nathan Muir (Redford). On his final day before retirement, news breaks that his protege, Tom Bishop (Pitt), has been captured by the Chinese while on a rogue mission. Bishop will be executed unless the United States President claims him; but with the President set to visit China for important trade talks that is not seen as an option. With Bishop about to be hung out to dry Muir realises he is Bishop's only hope. While Muir relays stories of his history with Bishop to the taskforce in charage of the situation he uses the time to gather information and means to try and engineer a rescue by himself.

A decent, but on the whole uninspired film. There just seems to be an air of laziness lingering around it, as if too many people on the production were content just to reach a level of adequate and leave it at that. While with a bit more effort it could have been a cracking political thriller.

As for the directing it's a bit of a mixed bag. Tony Scott may not be a master craftsman of a director but he proves to be a fairly safe pair of hands for this kind of thing. He keeps the film cracking along at a fair pace, so much so that we cross four decades and a few wars in a mere two hours. It really is quite a lot of information he is able to squeeze into a fairly tight running time. And I appreciated the way that he distinguished between the different eras and regions visually. The Vietnam scenes have a grubby and gritty aesthetic to them; the scenes in Berlin have a really cold greyness to them while the scenes set in Beirut have a much warmer and richer appearance.

On the negative side though his flashy flourishes more often than not prove to be more annoying and distracting than anything else. And the breakneak editing of the film means that more often that not the film resembles a commercial, creating a glossy but fairly shallow effort. The film shares a lot of ideals with many of the 70s thrillers I've been watching over the last few months, and I just feel that if another director; perhaps one with experience of 70s thrillers such as Alan J. Pakula (All the President's Men, Parallax View) or Sydney Pollack (Three Days of the Condor), had been given control of this film it could have been a searing political thriller that was quite special, as opposed to the merely watchable film we have here.

Redford and Pitt are both perfectly fine, though again I feel they both have a good deal more to offer. However their characters and the script limits what is required from them. As a result of their profession as spies we never really get to know all that much detail about the characters, they remain an enigma. Although even at half speed Redford's presence does gives the film an air of quality and respectability which would likely be lacking otherwise.

Despite the frantic pace the film just never feels quite as thrilling or exciting as it should be, especially with so many double and triple-crosses, assassinations, espionage missions etc. By jumping around so much in time a lot of story is certainly sacrificed, in particular the relationships between characters. This is none more evident than with the romance between Pitt and Catherine McCormack's aid worker. We see absolutely nothing to show how this relationship develops. Just the fact that Pitt's character is willing to take such a massive risk to rescue her is about the only thing that tells us he must really care for her. Other than that there is nothing beyond a few interested glances.

As for other flaws I wondered how while these guys are apparently on the clock they have time to sit around and listen to Robert Redford spout one story after another for a total of three flashbacks. For such a desperate situation with large political ramifications it doesn't seem right that they have plenty of time for Uncle Bob to gather the kids all round for story time! Oh and then there's the fact that the film shows the characters of Pitt and Redford from 1965 through 1991, and yet they look the exact same. More than 25 years pass and yet they don't seem to change. It's a small complaint but just something that really took me out of the film momentarily.

Conclusion – A solidly entertaining film which is ultimately rather forgettable and seemingly lacking in true ambition to achieve something great. And with the talents of Redford and Pitt, both on fine form, it just feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity. Too much time spent on the surface, not enough on the substance.

^That's one I haven't seen yet^

Might give it a go at some point but won't be running out to get a copy any time soon.

Great review have it in my collection

Thanks nebbit and another film I've reviewed that you own!!! It's quite a growing list

I have about 3,000 DVD's

Capricorn One is great, but the slo-mo jogging finale always makes me cringe. I also own a copy.

[EDIT] Wow Nebs, 3,000 films eh. Only 2 or 3 thousand less than Holden Pike

I counted mine last week at the behest of a friend and have just over 1,000. Was a little disappointed to be honest.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

God yeah I meant to mention that in the review but completely blanked on it. That was the film's worst moment for me.


Is that total DVDs or just films? I know my film number was 1766 but not figured out my absolute total yet

Plot – Deputy Sheriff Walt Coogan (Eastwood) is sent to New York to collect a prisoner, James Ringerman (Stroud). When he arrives however he is informed that the prisoner is not ready for transport; he's laid up recovering from an LSD overdose. To try and speed up the process he decides to cut a few corners. While doing so however the prisoner escapes, leaving Coogan injured. Despite being ordered off the case and back to Arizona his pride won't allow him to return home empty handed, so he heads out into the big city to track down the prisoner.

It's very hard not to see this film's plot as a metaphor for Eastwood's 'coming out' to mainstream Hollywood. The way that his character, Deputy Sheriff Coogan, leaves the Arizona desert for the big city really feels like a statement from Clint that he is ready to move out of the spaghetti western genre which established him into American productions. The former Man With No Name is now ready to make, and have a name (and yes I just went with a line that corny! ) It's also quite a safe vehicle for Eastwood as he is able to retain his western persona of a gruff, monosyllabic outlaw/lawman. The film really is like a stepping stone between the western genre that established him, and the cop thriller genre were he arguably would gain even greater recognition and fame. It's only a small step from here to the disgruntled, brutal cop that is Harry Callahan. There are quite a few moments of foreshadowing Harry Callahan such as his confusion and distaste for the miles of red tape he encounters and the compassionate attitude towards obviously guilty criminals.

I've got to say that while my exposure to his work is still fairly limited I am really liking Don Siegel's style. His films just have so much character and atmosphere to them. It's a mixture of their visual aesthetic, shot choice and their musical score. It's hard for me to define exactly what it is, but the result is that his films have a real raw, and natural earthy quality to them. Here he handles the film very well; presenting a gritty, intense film while delivering the moments of comedy and impeccably handling the moments of action – a motorcycle chase in and around a park, and in particular a terrific bar room brawl are real highlights. And then there is his depiction of a hippie get-together at the Pigeon Toed Orange Peel club (what a name! ). It really is absolutely ridiculous but undeniably entertaining, and certainly gets across the fish out of water element of the story. Oh and just as he did with San Francisco in Dirty Harry, he strongly evokes the feeling and atmosphere of the location, this time New York.

And Siegel needs to be at the top of his game as the story itself isn't the strongest. He's not quite having to polish a turd but he certainly raises the film above were I feel it would otherwise have been. Along with a script that is quite predictable at times the story itself is not the most original. It's a fairly common tale of the straightforward, honest country boy who comes to the big city to test his frontier qualities in a large, modern civilization. I just felt the film could have been even more entertaining if it had chosen one path to head down. What we have would probably be described as a crime drama, however it also includes elements of the thriller and action genres along with moments of humour. I would liked the script to pushed one of those elements above the rest. Either make it a pulse-pounding thriller, a balls to the wall actioner or a real fish out of water comedy instead of including all of those but in a watered down fashion.

Opposite Clint, Lee J. Cobb is just fantastic as McElroy, the lieutenant who butts heads with Coogan at every turn. His growing frustration and sarcastic attitude towards Coogan as the film goes along is highly entertaining. Don Stroud may not give as strong a performance as Andrew Robinson did in Dirty Harry but he grabs your attention nonetheless, and you can definitely see another link between this and Dirty Harry in terms of their characters; both are unhinged, rather manic and unpredictable creations for Eastwood's cool, unruffled cop to go up against.

The rest of the cast is filled out by quite a number of colourful minor characters. Particularly memorable is Ringerman's mother, played by Betty Field and Ringerman's girlfriend of a sort, Lilly Raven (Tisha Sterling). The former is a crude, highly spirited defender of her son, while Lilly Raven is a fairly twisted young girl into the hippie scene and apparently excited and aroused by Ringerman's violent actions.

Probably the biggest flaw for me which was a little off-putting was the whiff of misogyny that pops up throughout the film. Eastwood's Coogan has no problem either sleeping with a married woman or with his constant harrassment and macho attitude he displays towards Susan Clark's probation offficer, Julie Roth. And her character is pretty bad. She is introduced in a bizarre scene were she allows a creepy, perverted guy on probation to grab and fondle her breasts, and then when Coogan decks him she scolds him as the bad guy in this situation. And yet her liberal, feminist stance is apparently all a front; she seemingly likes to have Coogan stalking and harassing her. As if women just need to be told what they really want. And then when they finally are about to get together Coogan uses the opportunity to raid her confidential files for information about the case. And is she angry? Of course not! In fact she appears at the film's conclusion, now dressed in a miniskirt and go-go boots, to bid him farewell as he flies off back to Arizona.

Conclusion – A fairly simple and unoriginal tale which is greatly elevated by Siegel's direction and another trademark tough as nails character from Eastwood. With some memorable scenes and a couple of nice efforts from the supporting cast it's an entertaining little flick.

Soooo are you going through my collection

Mayyyy-be! No to be fair with a collection the size of yours it's not much of a coincidence. Wonder if the next review will also be one you own

Hope so