JayDee's Movie Musings

Plot – In 1963 Texas, Robert “Butch” Haynes (Costner) and fellow inmate Terry Pugh escape from a Huntsville prison. Before long they find themselves in a situation which necessitates the taking of hostage. Taking a young boy, Phillip, hostage they hit the road; but it's not long before this trio loses a member. After attempting to molest Phillip, Pugh is killed by Butch, leaving Butch and Phillip to go on alone. As the miles pass a relationship between captive and captor begins to grow, a friendship which becomes deeper and more touching as the film nears its conclusion. All the while they are being pursued by Texas Ranger 'Red' Garrett (Eastwood) and criminologist Sally Gerner (Dern)

As I recently posted I have actually seen this film before. Sort of. A few years back it was on TV and even though I was taping it I did catch a decent bit of it in the background, and what I saw of it I really liked the look of. Now most people (normal, rational people!) would then want to go ahead and watch it in full very shortly after that. I however didn't, for fear it wouldn't live up to those initial impressions I had built up. Yes I'm weird! Let's move on. Anyway it perhaps didn't quite live up to the high promise I had heaped upon it, but I still greatly enjoyed it. And it's a film I can see my appreciation growing for on repeated viewings.

Going by the film's plot summary of “a convict takes a young boy hostage and drives across the country with the law hot on his heels“ this film really doesn't go down the path you might expect. Despite the fact that there's a fair bit of action (a jail break, a hostage situation, the chase, the final shootout) the film is actually a rather quiet, understated effort. It's a film not so much concerned with the crimes committed, as the men who commit them and the reasons for this. And the characters aren't exactly the norm either. You certainly can't argue that Costner's Butch Haynes is a good guy, and yet there is undeniably something likeable about him; a warmth and a degree of well intentioned principles which builds the man. I think the character would also make for a terrific con man as he terrifically sells his immense charm to all those he meets. And Eastwood's Texas Ranger isn't your normal tough ass lawman. Indeed a lot of the time he doesn't seem all that desperate to catch his man, a growing empathy perhaps holding him back. And lastly young Phillip is not your standard sweet and precocious movie kid.

What really makes this film stand out is the relationship between Butch and Phillip. What starts out as a hostage taker/hostage relationship very quickly becomes something else as both men find something that has been missing in their life; more than merely a case of Stockholm syndrome. Phillip quite clearly finds the father figure that has been absent from his life, and finds one in Butch who protects, guides and mentors him. The other side of the relationship is more difficult to discern. As the film goes along it becomes obvious that Butch had a tough childhood which involved physical abuse at the hands of his father. I think it's safe to assume that he didn't have the childhood that he wanted, the childhood that all kids should have. And it's as if he is trying to see himself in Phillip and gave him the life he didn't have as a kid; give him the father figure that Butch never had. Perhaps by doing that he will heal some of his own wounds

There are two great performances on show here, and neither of them is delivered by Clint Eastwood. It's not that there is anything wrong with him, it's just that the role does not really give him the chance to match the performances of Costner and young Phillip. He is however still very good. But it's Costner who walks away with the real plaudits. While I know he has quite a few haters out there he is someone I've always been a big fan of, and here I think he is excellent in a role which actually feels very much like a role Eastwood himself would usually play – a bit of a rogue outlaw character who nevertheless has his own code of honour. He himself may be a criminal but places himself well above his fellow escapee, Terry Pugh in terms of morals and decency. He keeps Terry on a short leash and will not allow him to harm either the young boy or his mother, eventually resulting in Terry's death. Costner delivers a very strong, silent showing which garners our sympathies through his well-meaning intentions and treatment of Phillip, while maintaining a simmering and combustible streak of anger under the surface which could boil over at any moment. And then there's T.J. Lowther playing Phillip (aka Buzz). It's a terrific performance from such a young actor, sidestepping many of the pitfalls that often befall youngsters to give an extremely natural showing which is really rather touching. A lot of credit should also go to Hancock's script and Eastwood's direction for eliciting such an effective and naturalistic performance.

As I said Eastwood gives a very good performance in his own right, as does Laura Dern as criminologist Sally Gerber. Together, along with Bradley Whitford's trigger happy FBI agent, the group has a lot of potential which I just don't think it really fulfilled. I felt that they were rather squandered, not given the importance or growth needed to really work. As such, those scenes were the film breaks away from Butch and Phillip to the group following them lack the vibrancy of the moments where Costner and Lowther are together and often come across as unnecessary. And while it makes perfect sense for the story it's just a shame that Eastwood and Costner have so little shared screen time. Whatever people may think of them they were two of the biggest film icons of their generation. And at the time they were just about the biggest things in Hollywood. In 1991 Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves was a huge box office hit, won the best picture Oscar and gave Costner an Oscar nomination for acting and a win for directing. The following year it was the exact same story except with Unforgiven and Clint Eastwood.

The pace of the film certainly isn't what you would call lightning. It's quite slow and ponderous for a great degree of the time, and indeed I think the film is a touch overlong, especially guilty of drawing out the ending. Though the film is peppered with the occasional moments of quirky humour to give the film a lightness and breeziness. As a result of this light-hearted, almost melancholic nature when the film does break from this it makes it all the more effective. In particular the moment were Butch snaps and turns a touch psycho makes for an extremely chilling scene. With his underlying anger sparked into life when a man who takes them in for the night hits his son he suddenly becomes monstrous, subduing them and threatening their lives.

It's a film which seems very concerned with understanding violence. It shows how violence breeds violence, how the father passes it on to the son. If Butch's father had been a decent man would Butch be in the position he now finds himself? Indeed how many men in jail would not be there if they had a decent father in their life? And surely the film's setting; Texas in 1963, is no accident. Taking place shortly before the assassination of JFK it just plays into this feeling of needless violence and encroaching tragedy.

Conclusion – A moving and complex film, finely crafted by Eastwood and led by a pair of touching and captivating performances from Costner and young T.J. Lowther. Highly recommended stuff

__________________

I'd completely forgetten about this movie. Been that long since I saw it.
Cheers for the review JayDee!

__________________

You're very welcome.

Believe it buddy!

Maybe you should watch and review the film in question and weigh in on the debate.

Glad you enjoyed A Perfect World. I'm a Costner fan as well, and I feel he delivers the best of his career in this film.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Plot – Mississippi, the 1960s. Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Stone) is an aspiring writer looking for a story. When she returns home after graduating college she finds that her childhood maid, Constantine, is no longer employed by the family. As the woman who raised her Skeeter is devastated at Constantine's absence. It does however give her the seed of her story; she wants to tell the story of the black maids who populate this suburb from their point of view. With help from maids Aibileen (Davis) and Minny (Spencer), she begins to commit all of their experiences with the white families they work for onto paper. They realise however just how dangerous this book could be if its existence is learned about, so they must do it in as discreet a manner as possible.

I found this to be a rather manipulative little film. It's a film which knows which buttons to press, and when, to have maximum impact upon the viewer. I also struggled to get past the rather safe and simplistic manner in which it tackles the story. I just felt like the film was guilty of pandering to middle America, to the critics and to the Academy. However once the film has chosen the path its going down, and after I was able to accept and move past it, what emerges is quite a good film.

Despite me finding this to be merely a good film as opposed to a great one, I am not at all surprised by the huge dent it made at the US box office, the numerous awards and nominations it garnered or the high praise from many US critics which heralded the film's arrival on UK shores. I put a lot of it down to the 'Driving Miss Daisy effect' (though it's not quite as twee as Daisy was). It's a film which tackles the serious subject of racism but does it in quite a glossy, gentle manner. It tackles a dark subject but does it in a manner that allows Americans to feel pleased with themselves. I'd hope there aren't many people who have no real knowledge of the context but it perhaps lets them feel as if things weren't all that bad. And even for people who do know of the history, for me it just came off too often like the cinematic equivalent of the argument against being racist - “But I've got a black friend.” And this just seems to be heightened by Emma Stone's Skeeter; it gives people a heroic white person they can identify with, someone who allows viewers to think “yeah if I was there at the time I'd have been brave and noble like her and helped the black people.”

Film trivia – The author of the original novel, Kathryn Stockett, had her book rejected 60 times before it was eventually published. Stockett and the film's director, Tate Taylor, were actually childhood friends while growing up in Jackson, Mississippi.

And I also found it rather troubling that it's down to Stone's white character of the piece to instigate change. It's her pushing that finally gets the black women to stand up to their employers . And how much gratitude and praise the maids later heap on her for her part in the movement just seemed a little off. In addition, for me the use of humour often feels out of place as well. I could understand it coming from the black characters of the piece as a coping mechanism; an attempt at keeping their outlook positive, but many of the laughs come from Sissy Spacek's doddering Mrs Walters and Jessica Chastain's floozy depiction of Celia. And as a result the tone just feels uneven at times, in a 'why is this serious subject matter side by side with laughs?' kind of way.

Even the film's villain, Bryce Dallas Howard's Hilly, doesn't really deliver what I felt was needed in the role of main antagonist. Yes she may be a horrible human being, but in a rather Desperate Housewives kind of way. Yes she does and says some horrible things but more in a way that makes you turn to whoever you're watching the film with and go “Oh what a bitch!”, rather than someone who truly represents the troubles and hatred of the time.

I'd place this in the same kind of league as My Week With Marilyn. I wouldn't have classed that as a vital must-see film on its own merits. However the incredible performance delivered by Michelle Williams made that film more than worthwhile. And it's the same case here. The efforts of the whole ensemble are just terrific, spearheaded by Emma Stone, Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Stone is just delightful as Skeeter, revelling in the character's initial naivety and wide-eyed sweetness, before growing in strength as the film progresses and her eyes are truly opened. It just cements her place as perhaps my favourite actress of the moment. As Aibileen, Viola Davis is absolutely terrific. She delivers a performance of great strength and a quiet dignity. And there are a couple of moments were she just breaks your heart. In the role that would nab her an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress Octavia Spencer is a treat as the sassy and spunky Minny, displaying wonderful comic timing and with a terrifically expressive face. I could actually write for paragraph after paragraph about the acting just as a result of the size of the cast and the quality on show. Indeed with Stone, Chastain and Howard it almost feels like an ad campaign for the future of Hollywood in terms of actresses. In an anything with a strong female character worth seeing will have one of these ladies in it kind of way. Chastain in particular is highly entertaining and endearing as Celia, though again the humour her character generates was something I felt was perhaps a little out of place.

Outside of the terrific acting on show the film's other great triumph in my eyes was its realisation of the period. Everyone responsible for creating it deserves the utmost of credit. The fashion, hairstyles, sets, furnishings and automobiles all just transport us back in time to this other world. And with all of bathed in bursting, eternal sunshine it is rarely less than lovely to look at. Though at over 140 minutes it just feels too long. There seem to be a large number of character arcs, some of which don't really have much of a connection to the main thread. Perhaps had one or two of them been dropped it might have made for a sharper end product.

Conclusion – While I struggled with its glossy, even corny approach to the story, the incredible acting performances are able to keep the film afloat and make it through some rough patches. It really is an immense ensemble effort; Viola Davis and Octavis Spencer surrounded by both Hollywood's hottest young talent (Stone, Chastain, Howard) and some classy veterans (Spacek, Mary Steenburgen, Allison Janey). All in all it's a very nice film; I'm just not sure if 'very nice' is what it really should be.

PS - Forgot to say that in the first couple of paragraphs I'm not attempting to be critical of every single person who really likes/loves the film. I can see why some people do like/love it on other terms but for some people I do think the gentle glossing over is a large part of it

Meh, I've not seen the movie myself but liked your review... I didn't think you were being critical of the lovers and haters etc... anyway, it's your review mate, say what you need.

Glad you enjoyed it. And I certainly was trying to make it my review, but just wanted to make sure no-one thought I was insulting them for falling for the film's tricks or anything. Always tough with online stuff where people put their own spin on something they're reading.

Great review I must watch this

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

Plot – Based partly on the adventures of real-life trapper John 'Liver-Eating' Johnston, this film tells the tale of Jeremiah Johnson, a man frustrated with life amongst humanity and the wars they rage, who heads west into the mountains. After his initial struggles at adapting to this harsh life he is taken under the wing of an old, experienced trapper who teaches him how to survive. When he has sufficiently learned enough he heads out on his own, experiencing numerous adventures along the way

In a number of ways this Pollack/Redford effort feels very much like a prototype Dances With Wolves, both in terms of structure (a lone man learning to survive in a great frontier while developing a respect and a relationship with the Native American indians who populate the area) and style (deliberate, ponderous and poetic). It's a film that shows both the mythological nature of the mountain man, as well as showing some of its realities. It's a harsh and brutal depiction of the life Jeremiah has chosen and what it takes to survive in such an unforgiving environment. It opens in quite a documentary-style fashion as it shows the realities of this life, before moving down a more picturesque adventure route. It's also a film that I found to be surprisingly humorous, certainly early on, in large part thanks to the eccentric characters Jeremiah meets along the way, and the colourful dialogue and wisdom that they spout.

If I was to give just one reason as to why I would recommend this to someone it would definitely have to be the stunning cinematography. Filmed entirely on location in Utah and covering the wilderness across the four seasons it is a thing of pure beauty; the scenes where the land is covered in snow are particularly arresting. It captures both the sheer majesty and the incredible harshness of the desolate landscape. The cinematography of Duke Callaghan is a pure marvel. Pretty much every second of the film I could have paused the film and the image on screen would have been worthy of being up on the wall or as the wallpaper on my laptop.

Film trivia – The film was based on a real-life trapped named John Johnston. His body was buried in the Veteran's Cemetery in Los Angeles. After the release of the movie, his body was reburied at Old Trail Town in Cody, Wyoming. The reburial ceremony was attended by 2000 people and Robert Redford was actually a pallbearer.

Redford, sporting a fantastically wild beard, gives a strong, unshowy performance as the titular Johnson. It was actually quite reminiscent of Tom Hanks in Cast Away, and not just because they share the epic beards! Both men pretty much carry the film and are more than capable of doing so. Though with it being quite a quiet restrained showing (apparently he says less than 100 words) the performances that stand out and are most memorable probably come from some of the entertaining supporting cast – Will Geer and Stefan Gierasch in particular.

While on his travels Jeremiah comes into 'possession' of a wife and son of sorts. He comes across a family who have been slaughtered by Blackfoot indians, leaving only a mother and her apparently mute son alive. At the behest of the mother, Jeremiah agrees to take her son with him. And then later he is gifted a wife by the leader of the Flathead tribe in return for horses and scalps. Despite being unable to communicate with either of them (a wife who doesn't speak English and a son who doesn't speak at all) a bond slowly develops between this unlikely trio. And watching this most unconventional of families coming together is really quite touching; so when tragedy strikes later on it does have quite a sobering effect on the viewer.

Film trivia – Two little snippets for you. In Italy the film was released with the fantastic alternative title, "Red Crow You Will Not Have My Scalp". // Originally the film was to star Clint Eastwood in the role of Jeremiah Johnson, and be directed by Sam Peckinpah.

I noted earlier how the film switches from a documentary-style depiction of this life to a more common adventure film. Well the film takes another turn and for its final stretch becomes a bit of a revenge flick. At war with the Crow nation he hunts down and kills a group of them. After that they send one warrior after another to take him out. This however is given an interesting wrinkle in that the Crow Indians measure their strength and greatness by who their enemies are, so while they may hate Johnson they also revere and in a way worship them. Though none of the violence is of the sensationalised variety; instead being quite down and dirty, and brutal.

There are perhaps a couple of minor flaws I could level at the film. It does have a tendency to feel quite episodic as it details piece by piece all the little details and minutiae it takes to survive. It actually brought to mind the kind of stories I used to write as a young kid in my first years at school - “This happened. And this happened. And then the guy did this. And then he did something else.” and on and on in that manner. And the pacing may also be an issue for some; it even has an introduction and a intermission where the film pauses for a few minutes with music playing over a still image. Throughout the film we see characters, and in particular their horses, trudging and stumbling slowly through the snow and it could easily be seen as a metaphor for the film's pace at times.

Conclusion – A terrific Western from the prolific partnership of Redford and Pollack (they made a total of seven films together). Their may not be a great deal of plot, playing more like a collection of incidents, but led by Redford it's a wonderful, poetic experience that revels in the beauty of nature.

Wow I'm stunned and delighted by the response to Jeremiah Johnson. After not getting much rep or feedback for the last few films to have 5 people rep in just 24 hours is great.


Out of interest can people see the second poster for Jeremiah Johnson, or is it just me it's not being displayed for for some reason?

The poster on the left isn't showing for me matey.

Edit: Now it is...

Thanks for the feedback vermin. For me it was the poster on the right that wasn't showing but both seem to be ok now.

Plot – Tom Farrell (Costner) is a navy officer courted to work for Secretary of Defence David Brice (Hackman) at the Pentagon. At a party, Tom meets and falls in love with Susan Atwell (Young), a woman he later finds out is also the mistress of Brice. When Susan dies at the hands of Brice, a full-on cover-up goes into effect, orchestrated by Brice's advisor Scott Pritchard (Patton). With the blame being placed on the man who was involved with Susan (who just happens to be Tom), they instead insist it is the work of a Russian mole by the name of Yuri. Tom himself is placed in charge of the investigation to find the supposed guilty party, leaving him to desperately try and find the evidence to prove Brice's guilt while sabotaging the efforts which will prove he was the man involved with Susan.

After watching A Perfect World I felt in the mood for some more Costner action, and decided to go with this film which has been on my radar for a long while but until now hadn't watched. Now I'm not sure how well known, or indeed well liked, this film is but I absolutely loved it!

The film's plot has more than a hint of classic Hitchcock about it. You've got the innocent man accused of a crime he did not commit, and unfortunately every shred of evidence seems to point back to him. The interesting little twist this film has is that it's the supposed guilty party himself who is leading the investigation. And along the way we are treated to a series of twists and turns, bluffs and double bluffs. It's a film which trusts us to take on a great deal of information and credits us with enough intelligence to keep up. It's also a tremendously tense and suspenseful affair in terms of racing against the clock. Indeed there are quite a few scenarios all running at the same time; so while Tom is trying to find proof of Brice's guilt there are two search parties going around the Pentagon with two witnesses who could identify him. And at the same time there's a damaged polaroid photograph of him being reconstructed slowly by computer which will eventually reveal him. As he goes round trying to delay and sabotage the clues that will lead to his downfall it all creates a fantastically nightmarish situation.

There isn't a great deal of action on show, it's more about the political machinations and intrigue of espionage going on in the corridors of the Pentagon. However the few action scenes that do occur are very well handled and emerge as thrilling set pieces. In particular there are a couple of strong chase sequences through a Washington metro station and through the corridors of the Pentagon (actually filmed on location). The film also has a rather downbeat ending, feeling more like something you'd find from a 70s movie. And then it includes one final twist which I did not see coming whatsoever.

Film trivia – Kevin Costner was not exactly Mr. Popular with the insurance company associated with the film. He performed many of his own stunts during filming, including driving without his prescription glasses much to the dismay of the insurance company. And he actually did roll over the hood of a moving car during a chase sequence. That move in particular prompted an insurance executive to approach the film's director, Roger Donaldson with the words “Don't you ever...ever...EVER...do that again!”

While I'm sure some will see him as bland as they apparently always do, I found that Kevin Costner displayed a great deal of charm and charisma in the lead role of Tom Farrell, along with the growing desperation as he struggles to stay one step ahead of everyone else. It's really quite a classic 'big' movie star role which allows Costner to show off his leading man credentials; his character both gets the girl and is the heroic figure of the piece. Sharing excellent chemistry with Costner is Sean Young, the alluring and sexy as hell Susan Atwell. While it's actually a fairly minor role Hackman is his usual solid self as you'd expect, however I felt his character sabotaged his efforts a touch. He switches too easily and frequently from being a real a**hole to feeling guilt for his crime, and as such never really fulfils the role of a real villain. More than making up for this villainous vacuum however is Will Patton as the detestable, grade A a**hole Scott Pritchard. Willing to do absolutely anything to defend Brice's political career his level of conviction is terrifying; and watching his sanity slowly unravel as the mystery continues to rumble on is a great treat. And lastly George Dzundza gives a very likeable showing as the wheelchair-bound Pentagon computer expert, Sam Hesselman, an old friend of Tom's who is trying to be a decent friend to him while also being concerned about the situation that he find himself in which he doesn't really understand.

Oh and a last little bit that I found a real hoot was the spectacularly dated technology on show which is given prominence. With computers the size of a medium-sized hotel room, they have great importance to the story, though they are fairly hopeless. It takes hours and hours to render the damaged photograph of Tom, when in a modern film it would take less than a second. Oh and the computer technicians don't even seem to know how to pronounce 'pixel', instead going with 'pixal.' It's all so adorably quaint.

I will add one caveat to my review however. While I had a tremendous blast watching the film in this initial viewing (and have represented that with my rating), I'm curious to see how repeat viewings will hold up. With the tantalising mystery element removed I'm not sure if the film has enough at its disposal to maintain the great deal of enjoyment I had here. With a film like Jeremiah Johnson for example, I can see that sustaining and perhaps even building on my level of appreciation with repeat viewings; this one I'm not so sure. But as I said this first viewing was excellent stuff.

Conclusion – A thrillingly labyrinthe tale chock full of twists and turns which (to use a classic review cliché) had me on the edge of my seat. So if you're a fan of either Kevin Costner, or purely just a good thriller yarn then I'd certainly recommend you give this a watch.

I still like the original film, The Big Clock, better, but they did do a good job with this one. It's probably the film most representative of Costner being a sex symbol. At first, I was dumbfounded by the twist ending, but I eventually came to appreciate it as an extra "goodie" for those who can handle it.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Will need to try and give The Big Clock a watch sometime. And like you I was just flabbergasted by the twist, and I'll be interested to see how the film plays next time I watch it with the knowledge of it coming. And like you I can see it just a bonus. You can ignore it and you have a very enjoyable film on its own terms, or you can get allow it in to just blow your mind.

I liked This movie saw it at the movies when it came out great review as always

Just want to say that I think I might be taking a break from my reviews for a while, just feeling a bit burnt out by them. And just a bit low and rundown in general at the moment. A lot of being burnt out is probably down to the feedback situation, but that's on me and not you guys reading. I'm pretty f**ked up in a number of ways, including having low self esteem and obsessing over what others think of me. So I obsess over some of my reviews that get little attention, and a result it's damaging the amount of enjoyment I was getting from actually writing them. So will take a break and try to recharge.

I do have a couple of reviews kicking around that I've made a start on though. Might finish them first before going on hiatus, I'll see

Thanks nebbit.

I think you should watch a few movies for pure enjoyment without actually considering writing them up. There's no reason for having low self-esteem around here. This site is huge and probably has many places you've never even explored. Just relax and share yourself elsewhere here and you'll probably get some positive feedback from your comments.