Viddy's Views

One Eight Seven (Kevin Reynolds, 1997)



The titles refers to the police code for the crime of homicide. The films centers around a teacher, Trevor Garfield, (Sam Jackson), who is stabbed by one of his students in New York City after a warning written into a textbook. Of course being a teacher, the administration ignores all warnings. Garfield moves to the other coast where he becomes a substitute teacher and where the main story begins.
I have no problem with films about teachers. I must say the whole "teach vs. gangbanger student" thing is becoming very worn. The idea especially runs thin because so much of the plot is contrived and seems caterred to an audience composed of women who open enroll their kids out of the city and into the suburb schools. Things such as drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence don't go on in suburb schools. I'm ranting now, but I'll digress. Even so the story of One Eight Seven is preposterous. Think of Death Wish meets Dangerous Minds and you might be on to something. Clifton Collins Jr. plays the antagonist to Sam Jackson and does a fine job, as well as he could do for the material. Nevermind the fact that at 26 years old he really doesn't give the vibe of an 18 year old.
The direction the film takes roughly an hour in, once the viewer's expectations for our wonderful hero, Garfield are obscured, is a complete wash. The finalle is equally as ridiculous. The film shows promise with some nice close in, clausterphobic shots, introducing the character of Garfield. There's a nice introduction showing Sam Jackson pedal his bike furiously across the Brooklyn bridge. Why doesn't he live in Brooklyn where he teaches? Who knows? Skip this garbage and go watch The Principal if you want some silly entertainment. If you want something more serious watch the brilliant, Half Nelson. Otherwise pop in Death Wish.

Grade: D

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

THX 1138 (1971, George Lucas)



I can't imagine what people would have felt when they first watched this directorial debute by George Lucas in 1971. The set designs and cold sterile environments are right up there with the likes of 2001. Both films features a future vision in which humanity is dissolved into its dependance on computers. In THX 1138, society is chemically subdued via medicine, to repress all emotions and sexuality. Neither human element is productive and Lucas' vision of the futures revolves around human productivity. In this case, a labyrinthine underground city where nuclear tests are done, policemen are metal shells manufactured to act and move like humans, and vehicles travel hundred MPH on a circuit of highways.
Robert Duvall stars as the title character, who begins to question the establishment. He rebels, and stops taking his emotion repressant medicine, along with his "mate" LUX. They make love, which is a no-no within this society and ultimately know that, "It can't go on." In standard utopian sci-fi fare, it's this dissatisfaction with the status quo that creates the drama. George Lucas is clearly inspired by Brave New World, 1984, and the likes. The story, while inspired, is nothing new, but ultimately the theme and message is what's important in films like these.
Lucas demonstrates a craft for directing here. Considering the film is a first of his and had a minor budget, some of the special effects are quite remarkable. Science fiction films like this are all about mood, presence, and aura. The world created in THX 1138 is viable. Amazing sound effects haunt the viewer along with a spectacular low key score by Lalo Schiferin. The film has a very Kubrick-like vibe to it, the way certain frames could be froze and studied as textbook photography. The last scene of the film, while liberating on first inspection, holds dire implications and is very sad. Society's do not topple easily and in many circumstances one man cannot and will not make a difference. This is key when the hunt is given up as it over exceeds its budget.
It's too bad George Lucas went on to make the mediocre nostalgia piece, American Graffetti, and never backed away after touching mainstream success with Star Wars. THX 1138 is his best film, and it would be cool to see him return to this type of fair after dealing with mass spectacle his entire career. Oh well.

Grade: A-

Hopefully you got your hands on the original copy of THX 1138 there Viddy.

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

That's a pretty good review there, viddy, but ultimately anyone who believes that "American Graffetti" [double sic] is a "mediocre nostalgia piece" should "just get himself a wheelchair and roll himself home".

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

I'm glad you took the effort to point out the "double sic" as opposed to just making the corrections in your own reply. This clearly exposes your motives to reply.

I'm glad you thought that on the whole I was coherent with my thoughts on THX-1138. Oh and I believe it was the 88 minute director's cut that I viewed.

As far as American Graffiti goes, I didn't like it for similar reasons as to why I didn't like Dazed and Confused. Some people look fondly upon their high schools years, but I don't see them as all that grand. Maybe this is me lashing out at all the swirlies... maybe I received none and worked through my high school years or maybe I'm just nitpicking.

In any event I have no use for American Graffiti, and would much rather stick to something along the lines of The Virgin Suicides or Rebel Without a Cause. Films that don't glamorize the high school years while sadly looking ahead to the depature that is college.

SNIFF

Starship Troopers (1997, Paul Verhoeven)



A year after this film was released, I found myself constantly battling the bugs with space marines in Blizzard's excellent RTS computer game, "StarCraft." Of course I'd heard of Starship Troopers and there were huge similarities, but I don't think I'd had watched it at that point.
I really enjoy this movie. As lame as it is, there manages to be a certain charm to the naive gung-ho totalitarianism presented when a young high school graduate shouts, "I want to be a citizen!" I've never read the source material the film is based upon, but I understand Paul Verhoeven's film is largely faithful to it. Roger Ebert wrote an interesting review and I agree with his sentiment that this is "the most violent kiddie movie I've seen." At it's heart this thing is very simple. Man battles bugs, or more specifically archanids. Verhoeven has his stamp plastered all over this flick. The sudden bursts of violence are here, but also the lame dialogue, use of commercials, and oddly placed satire that seems out of place with the vibe of the film, but strangely works. No this film is not anywhere near the biting cynicism that Robocop offered to its viewer. Nor does it feature as polished and original vision as that of Total Recall. It's certainly not as fun and doesn't hold the rewatchability of the Arnold film. Even so, I enjoy Starship Troopers for what it is. I enjoy watching an interesting cast chew through the lame lines given to them. Any movie with Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside in the cast has at least one redeeming factor. In this case the viewer gets both actors! My only real complaint is that I would have liked to have seen more of the Dina Meyer character, and I mean that in two meanings, for those who have seen this movie.
I imagine where Starship Troopers fails is in finding an audience. It's too violent for kids. Too lame for most teenagers who won't understand that it is meant to be lame. And adults might enjoy the simplistic novelty of it, but tune out after five minutes. Everything about this movie spells "B-picture," even the CGI effects, while seamless for the most part, are extremely repetitive. Make one bug and then copy a thousand times. This is no Aliens, but it lacks the pretentiousness of the previous year's alien blaster, Independence Day. And thank God there's no semi-serious speech involving uniting all the nations... yada... yada... yada.

Oh Hell fine...

I admit it...

I just like the shower scene.

Grade: C+

Your right, viddy, this is no Aliens... This is much, much better.

Glen, or Glenda (1953, Edward Wood Jr.)



Why does Edward Wood Jr. not go down in history books, alongside his hero Orson Welles, as the greatest director of all time? Maybe that's going to far. This movie is not necessarily good, but it's not really "so bad, that it's good." There is a lot to be admired here. Glen or Glenda is semi-autobiographical of Ed Wood in dealing with transvestites and the conflict a man, Glen, has in revealing his closet habit of dressing in women's clothing before or after the wedding day. Aside from that there is very little along the lines of a coherent story. At its core, Glen or Glenda is a propaganda film that pulls no punches in attacking the closed minded status quo that believes only women should be allowed to wear silk underwear.
If I could summarize this film with one word it would be, incoherent. There are a lot of good ideas floating around here, and I applaud the film's ability to tackle a subject that isn't really discussed "intelligently." Even today cross dressing remains slightly taboo, and I can only imagine it being so ten-fold 50 years ago. Bela Lugosi is the storyteller of the film and then there is a psychologist within the frame story who tells another story. Within this story there's even a surreal dream in which devils and rape is seen. Thinking about it like this, Glen or Glenda has a babuskha doll like structure. Again this is all very cool and surprisingly captivating, but not all of it fits the film's thesis and purpose. A lot of the stock footage works, but the viewer must ask why is this relevant? Also does Lugosi serve any purpose to this at all? Certainly his "star power" only functions to draw in a film more people to watch this amazing monstrosity. I do admire this film and was surprised to find it not nearly as bad as what its reputations paints. Now that I've seen this, I can appreciate Tim Burton's Ed Wood more.

Grade: C+

Avatar (2009, James Cameron)



This movie sucked. It blew. I wanted to get a giant chainsaw and go nuts on Jame's Cameron's foliage and flowers around his estate... assuming he has them. After watching this film, I'd assume he lives in a botanical center. However if I did such a thing I would be a two-dimensional and knee-jerk reactionary as the characters that inhabit this film.
To sum up the plot, it takes place 150 years in the future when mankind is colonizing other worlds because we've destroyed our own and laid waste to our nature plant life or some such thing. Sounds very original. Seems like I saw a much more profound film called Silent Running with a similar tree-friendly concept.
Anywho, mankind wants this planet because of a natural mineral/metal that litters the landscape, but in their way is a race of 15 foot-tall humanoids called the Na'vi. The na'vi don't want humans there and who can blame them. Humans don't run around pray to the blessed spirit of the forest. I digress.
The title comes from the plan to capture a na'vi, and inhabit it with the mind of a human through a pod. Don't ask, but it's a cool concept and I was digging the first half hour of the movie. It goes to complete Hell however once it turns into Dances With Wolves in space, as our protagonist (Sam Worthington) rolls his way into being a secret agent of sorts to infiltrate the Na'vi (tribe) and inform about their secrets, lifestyles, etc. You pretty much know where the film heads from here. He learns the value of the Na'vi culture, falls in love, questions his motives, betrays humanity, saves the Na'vi, and becomes one of them.
How quaint. Not only does this film suck because the message is heavy handed, but it's very sentimental and the villains twirl mustaches and the heros are glorified to the strains of the most generic music of James Horner's career. And to think, this is the man who's music made me cry in the original Land Before Time. Oh well.
A million CGI shots and sweeping landscape views and vistas with our characters engulfed by the massive and lush planet Pandora, cannot save this movie. The story sucks, the characters were boring and lacked any kind of motivation to give their actions and storyline depth.
It just blew.
I will say the visuals were impressive during a couple of the night sequences, but this film was overkill. It's difficult to believe that this movie came from the man who directed the amazing low-budget Terminator and the amazing high budget Terminator 2. Again. Oh well.

Grade: D

The Lonely Guy (1984, Arthur Hiller)



Steve Martin has made quite a few amazing under the radar movies in his career, just check out Pennies From Heaven or Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. The Lonely Guy is one of those movies, not many people have heard of or seen. This film must be one of the peppiest dark-humored films I've seen, and for lack of better phrasing, the morbid subject matter does not jive well at all with the upbeat presentation. Steve Martin plays a "lonely guy" who is not surprised at all when he walks in on his wife in bed with another man. He talks to her as if the house-wrecking Fabio was not even there and even jumps in bed with the two of them. Why not right? This early scene within the first 10 minutes of the film strikes the wrong note entirely and is largely the brand of humor the film is composed of.
I love the subject matter and I found myself chuckling quite a bit through the film, but I did not enjoy the film. The jokes are plentiful and often hilarious. The dubiousness of Steve Martin running along the Manhattan Bridge trying to find his suicidal friend (Charles Grodin), while dodging other people who are jumping, must have looked hysterical on paper and in the idea room. It does not work in the film however, especially not when set to the tone of dated and chipper 80's music and flighty-romantic-comedy-esque camera work.
The Lonely Guy may have worked better as a series of vignettes or Monty Python style comedy sketches, but there's not enough here for a feature film as the film boils down to one long running morbid joke. I enjoyed the joke, but I was bored of being told the same joke in different incarnations for 90-minutes. There simply is not enough material here for a story, or a film. The narrative is shaky at best and monotonous. This is quite a surprise with names like Arthur Hiller and Neil Simon attached to the project. Even cameo roles from Merv Griffin and Joyce Brothers are wasted. It's kind of a wonder this movie got made. I will say that Steve Martin's delivery as well as Charles Grodin's is quite hysterical, but it is something that should be left to a sketch or a standup routine.

Grade: D

Doubt (2008, John Patrick Shanley)



Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the priest who may or may not have molested a child in a private Catholic school. Meryl Streep plays the bitter sister and principal of the school who goes after him. This could be an interesting morality play because ironically the priest who may be guilty likely cares more about the child than the sister who protects him. That neither of the two main leads break into cliche' is refreshing. Hoffman's character, the audience suspects is likely guilty, but as played by the actor we tend to doubt his guilt. Afterall, aren't all child molesters evil gross men who twirl mustaches and bait children with candy? The most likeable, sympathetic, and caring people can also hold the darkest secrets, and it is a credit to the film and the performance that the role of the priest does not become caricature.
With the exception of Amy Adams, who plays the young teacher, all the other roles are minor. The mother, and child are after thoughts. Doubt is appropriately titled as different people will draw different conclusions. In the end I reckon it really doesn't matter, whether he is guilty or not, as he is the same caring person. We all have our sins, and we must all pay for them. We know the lead character has them, we're just not sure what they are. That's part of the mystery.

Grade: B

Save Me (Robert Cary, 2007)



The title of the film refers to an unsaid emotional plea shouted by several possible characters in the film. The plot centers around a young man, Mark (Chad Allen) who is homosexual and after overdosing on drugs is sent to a Christian "gay rehab," but instead of making the residents watch John Wayne movies, they instead help them find the Lord. The story captured my interest, as I thought it would be good for a few laughs, and any attempt at the material would faily miserably. I thought an dramatized presentation of a "straighten you out camp" would be a joke.
Fortunately, the film is mature with the issues and most of all does not stereotype either the gays of the Christian right. No character in the film lisps, prances, or shops at Abercrombie & Fitch, nor do they burn crosses or any such thing. The film has a realistic approach when it comes to the characters, and even though it is a drama, it has a touch of documentary vibe with the underplayed acting. There's no bombastic musical score to tell the viewer what to feel which is a plus, however there are a couple of lame songs scattered throughout.
Stephen Lang is great as the patriarch of the camp, who approaches things through God's word without bastardizing. Judith Light plays the matriarch who tries to correct the gay men, because of a mistake she made with her son. Save Me is a different kind of a movie, and feels a bit made-for-TV, but despite the lack luster presentation and "made for the family" quality, it is worthwhile for a viewing.

Grade: B-

The Life of David Gale (2003, Alan Parker)



The most bizarre thing about this film is that the life of David Gale is the most interesting thing, yet the movie is more worried about his death and a shocking twist at the end. For those of you that have seen other Alan Parker films his style is quite distinct with plenty of low droning saxophone notes over the movie's action. For those of you, like myself, who love a little film called Angel Heart, you'll be pleased at the style of The Life of David Gale. However where Angel Heart goes out with a bang and a huge twist, it seems like icing on a delicious cake. In The Life of David Gale the ending seems a bit wee manipulative and implausible.
Kevin Spacy is good as the title character. He plays an advocate against the death penalty and an expelled college professor, after he's falsely accused of rape. The darndest thing about the film is that it's the moments the film skims over such as his relationship with his family, his career and then lack of a career, and his relationship with his best friend played by Laura Linney that are the most interesting things.
When the film is not in flashback mode, and shows the present day of Gale on death row, while being interviewed by Kate Winslet, ala Silence of the Lambs, the film bores. Kate Winslet is bland in this film. Oh well. Not exactly a great part. How many times have we seen an ambitious young reporter get the great scope and then fall for the man/target of the interview. Sigh. Move along.

Grade: C

The Usual Suspects (1995, Bryan Singer)



The best things about this film are the chemistry of the ensemble rogues gallery of actors, and of course the twist at the end, which is sufficiently cool for what's it's worth. Beyond that, the viewer gets a basic crime caper heist film. Heist films can be great or lame. The Usual Suspects seems built around building viewer expectation and turning it about on its head. This is fine, but I would hardly say it is enough to justify the somewhat modern classic reputation this film has garnered in the past couple of decades.
I don't really need to go much into the plot. The narrative is tight for sure, and non-traditional, out of order story-telling has been a staple of film-noir and its kin for decades. All of this is fine and well, but often times these lesser noirs fall flat in the character department. Sure the characters are interesting, but they purely exist within the realm of film and fail to transcend that fourth wall between the screen and viewer to become something real. I didn't really care about any character in The Usual Suspects because none were well developed outside of their ability to service the plot.
Certainly some noirs are great. You can't help but cry tears for Bogart in In a Lonely Place. The only actor in The Usual Suspects able to pull their character beyond archetype is Gabriel Byrne's former cop turned criminal.
When taking a good look at The Usual Suspects, the ending fits nicely into the puzzle the film creates, but it's an emotionless and ultimately forgettable ride. Sure you can tell me who the real Keyser Soze is, but can you tell me what the usual suspects were meant to rob on the ship after you haven't watched the film in over a year? Not likely. There's another great caper film out there that I haven't watched in sometime and I can still tell you about the horse and the dog. Beyond the twist ending and some finely polished storytelling, The Usual Suspects rings a tad hollow and vanishes... poof... into the thin recesses of my memory. The greatest trick the filmmakers pulled with this film is to convince the viewer of its greatness.

Grade: C+

Carrie (1976, Brian De Palma)



The opening moments of this film strike me as completely wrong. Sissy Spacek plays the dorky and bullied titular character. The first scenes involved her being pushed around by her female classmates after flubbing a volleyball play. The immediate scenes show the girls galavanting like men in the locker room after gym class, while Carrie silently slips off to take a shower. I may be wrong, but do girls behave like this? Maybe they would if they were on a varsity volleyball team and very close, but regular P.E.? To my knowledge the number one reason girls fail P.E. so often is because they hate to dress and undress for gym. Moving on. The camera then zooms to Spacek who is naked and spends a sufficiently awkward amount of time on her flesh before the big finale of the opening moments, which feature Carrie getting her first period. Don't most girls get their period at ages 12-14? Carrie's character is 17 or 18. And of course she has no idea what a period is? Not even the silly plot device of having her being raised by an insane religious zealot of a mother (Piper Laurie) can explain Carrie not knowing what a period is.
The rest of the film is pretty much like this... silliness. Carrie continues to battle with her inner turmoil of being a loser, while succombing to her insane mother's demands and teachings. The mother character here is so far over the top, the viewer would expect it to be written for comedy or at least satire, but no such luck. The part is written to be played straight, which could be a possibility, as I'm sure there are religious lunatics out there. However Piper Laurie's performance is so off kilter and alien to anything I've seen before, I don't know whether to call it atrocious or brilliant. I loved the actress in The Hustler, but here she goes beyond anything the role could have demanded.
The teenagers are basic archetypes. The jock, the guilt-ridden prep, the scheming popular girl, and of course the idiot abusive boyfriend played by John Travolta in one of his most unbearable performances - which says a lot.
Brian De Palma as adds his own flair with some intentional flourishes. Yes he wears Hitchcock on his sleeve with Carrie and even borrows Bernard Herrman's piercing Psycho theme. Some of the slow motion shots seem self-indulgent. The spinning camera scene at the prom, I'm sure great symbolic meaning of Carrie's Cinderella character spinning out of control as she's in a dream she cannot steer.
I like horror films, and teenage dramas, and even crappy and not so crappy Stephen King adaptations, but this thing is just ugh.

Grade: D

The opening moments of your review strike me as completely wrong. viddy, this film was made before you were born. Everybody dressed and everybody took a shower in P.E. You had no choice. Public schools demanded it. Back then, yes, we had sex education, but as it is today, any student's parents can sign a slip to have their child excused from those classes. I can still remember at my school the sex-ed classes were so boring and obscure that I don't think I had a clue what the hell a period was, but the sex ed classes were always separated by sex so maybe I wasn't supposed to know.

Sure, Piper Laurie is supposed to be over-the-top. What would the point of the film be if she wasn't? This is not a docudrama for God's sake, but a revenge fantasy often told from the perspective of one of the cruel participants who feels sorry for her actions. Spacek and Laurie both got Oscar noms, and my friends and I all love the whole Grand Guignol aspect of the thing. If I were to name a fave De Palma film, it's probably Carrie. The film just goes off into realms which most films dare never to tread, especially that telekinesis finale where Carrie skewers her mother in the exact same way that Christian saint in her house was. The use of music and photography in that scene (and others) is brilliant.

I dressed and I took a shower in P.E. too when in high school 10 years ago. Nobody acted like that because we were teenagers and a bit too self conscious to Top Gun it out. Girls are even more so than guys. Again, it doesn't fit regardless of time period.

And I wasn't referring to sex ed. I was referring to the fact that at age 17 a girl not knowing or even having a period, strikes me as well... not a fact at all. And you weren't supposed to know what a period was as you weren't a girl. But I'm sure a girl knew what a period was whether it was called "the curse" or something else. That Carrie goes and freaks out and thinks she dying because she's bleeding out of her vagina is a bit too much to accept.

As for De Palma films, I'll take Carlito's Way any day. And I will say I did enjoy the ending of the film and the revenge she takes on her mom, and thought it a nice end to match with the Jesus figurine. That I'll give ya about the film!

The Octagon (1980, Eric Karson)



This is a quaint and hilarious pre-granite beard Chuck Norris effort. While I have no use for "Walker Texas Ranger" or his infomercials late at night, something about these early Chuck Norris 70's and 80's films comes off as entirely endearing. In this film, largely considered a highlight in his filmography - not saying much I know - Norris plays a man of mysterious past who must confront his evil adoptive brother before an all out Ninja uprising threatens the peaceful status quo!
If the above summary didn't get you, the reader, excited enough to take a drive to your nearest rental store, then perhaps this will. Imagine a film where you hear Chuck Norris' inner thoughts and conflicts in a whispery and echoey voiceover... voiceover... voiceover... Imagine a film where Ninjas wearing black can hide effectively in green leafy trees against a backdrop of blue sky. Imagine a film where Norris effectively dispatches almost a hundred Ninjas and then fights the ultimate ninja with Katanas, Sais, roundhouse kicks, and flying stars! Yes, this is certainly one of the stellar Norris outings and if you have a taste for crap... candy flavored crap... well this might be the film for you! Oh and I almost forgot... Lee Van Cleef!

Grade: C

Roxanne (1987, Fred Schepisi)



I enjoyed this film, even though I shrugged a bit too often and questioned the changing tone of the film. Roxanne is based upon a play, "Cyrano de Bergerac," which I've never read. Maybe someday. Steve Martin plays a smooth talking fire chief in a small Pacific Northwest town. As the fire chief, Martin appears like a wise and straight man Andy Griffith type to the rest of the fire department's Barney Fifes. This attempt at slapstick in the film seems to go awry and doesn't work. This is clearly not a Charlie Chaplin film, and some of the material feels like it belongs in another film.
Roxanne does shine however when Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah share the frame. This is a surprise as the two seem oddly matched, but maybe that's the point as the story shows Martin falling in love with Hannah who is everything, but responsive. Rather Hannah's character treats the lovestruck Martin as more of a close confidant and friend. The man she sets her eyes on is the tall, well built, and handsome - even if generically so, Rich Rossovich. While he's every woman's dream in the looks department, he lacks charm and confidence. Again, this is needed for the material, but it comes off as a bit of a stretch. Why is a guy supposedly this good looking this bad with women? Well he gets nervous... OK.
I do appreciate the film's take on relationships and the view on how much looks do matter. However the film has little bite and the charm can't make up for it. The characters act like they're in junior high, and I'm sure most women would not be offended if a 1980's Rossovich came up to her and complimented her on her assets. Daryl Hannah being offended, just rings false and is not played well. Even though there's quite a bit to nitpick at, I still enjoy the film and recommend giving it a watch for people who enjoy romantic comedies.

Grade: C+

Posse (1975, Kirk Douglas)




It's been several years since I've given this cult western gem a view, and I was surprised at how little the shine has vanished. Posse's uniqueness glares at the audience in story and character, if not in filmmaking technique. The film is beautifully shot by Fred J. Koenekamp, but otherwise is a very straight forward bit of storytelling. Kirk Douglas plays a villain masked as the hero, who is a U.S. Marshall tracking down Bruce Dern's train robber. The reference of the title remains ambiguous at the closing credits. Does it refer to the posse of lawmen helmed by Douglas or the posse of outlaws being led by Dern?
One of the best things about the film is the misanthropic take on the so-called "good guys." Douglas is only interested in doing good so long as it can benefit him. His sworn posse is interested only in dollars and their own personal gains. In fact, during one of the film's most morbid moments, Bo Hopkins along with a couple of others in Douglas' posse elect to bed down a couple of teenage tarts in favor of listening to their boss' campaign speech. This brutal take on how selfish and corrupt human nature can be, fits right in with other 1970's revisionist westerns. I don't hesitate to rank Posse alongside the decade's other classics; The Outlaw Josey Wales, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and The Hired Hand.
The ending is especially brilliant, and is one of my favorite conclusions of any film I've seen. Bruce Dern has perhaps his best role and creates something so singular that only he could pull it off the way he does. As the viewer, we both love and hate Dern's character. Of course by the time the credits roll, there is no victor here as both sides are bankrupt of human generosity. Or is that last term an oxymoron? This film may seem to think so.

Grade: A-