THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) - Review

The Phantom of the Opera

Horror
1 hour and 33 minutes
Rated: Not Rated

Written by: Frank M. McCormack
Directed by: Rupert Julian
Produced by: Carl Laemmle

Cast:
Lon Chaney
Mary Philbin
Norman Kerry
Arthur Edmond Carewe
Gibson Gowland

A Million Thrills to Thrill Millions

Following the enormous success of their 1923 hit The Hunchback of Notre Dame, producer Carl Laemmle and Universal Studios decided to keep the ball rolling with the audience interest in gothic horror by adapting another French horror classic, Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera. Keeping another main part of their successful formula, Lon Chaney was cast as the titular villain, a wise move given Chaney's capabilities to deliver outstanding performances while covered in enormous amounts of makeup and prosthetics. Not surprisingly, The Phantom of the Opera also was an enormous success, which solidified, along with The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the foundation for what would become the iconic Universal Monsters canon.

For a lot of the same reasons that made The Hunchback of Notre Dame such a great film, one can see why The Phantom of the Opera has too become such an iconic motion-picture in the annals of cinematic history. For starters, the film essentially does not stray very far from its source material. Like with Hunchback, producer Carl Laemmle likely knew that Leroux's story was thrilling enough for it to translate well from the medium of literary fiction to that of film with virtually nothing needing to be tweaked. Because the film remains nearly identical to Leroux's book and was not subjected to the tendency to change the source storylines that the Universal Monster films would later be in the habit of doing, The Phantom of the Opera does feel quite literary at times, largely in its first and second acts. While this may feel exhausting and slow - probably even more so for modern audiences given that it is a silent film - this slow burn of a pace allows for the fast moving tension of the climax and conclusion of the film to really be built up to the point that the last twenty minutes of the movie are really quite breathtaking to behold. This pacing must be attributed to director Rupert Julian, as well as Carl Laemmle who no doubt had creative control over the movie just as he did with Hunchback.

Again, like its predecessor, the set pieces within The Phantom of the Opera are incredible and their enormous size and ancient appearance really do give the impression that the film was shot in and under the Palais Garnier. Production designer Ben Carré did a terrific job in turning Hollywood sets into reality, so much so that one has to be impressed at the pure skill of it all. Rare is it within a modern Hollywood film that a set does not look inauthentic in some way. Perhaps designers ought to take pages out of these early Hollywood playbooks.

The film's music, the most important ingredient to any silent film, is absolutely remarkable. Composer Gustav Hinrichs creates an atmosphere that moves the audience along throughout the piece, playing with our emotions in such an effective manner. While The Phantom of the Opera relies more heavily on cutaway dialogue than most other silent films, it is Hinrichs's score that pulls at the emotions of the audience, not the read speeches and perceived actions. One always feels at ease, terrified, on edge, or contented purely by the orchestral sounds created by the film's brilliant music.

From a technical perspective, the film's makeup effects are beyond remarkable. Chaney's appearance as the disfigured Erik has become so iconic that it is in fact how most perceive of the Phantom character whenever they first think of him. Like with The Hunchback of Notre Dame and many of his other films, Chaney did much of the makeup effects work himself. His bulging eyes seem all the more menacing in their black, lidless sockets. His fangs appear ghostly white against his black, decaying lips. And the bulbous nose and nearly bald head give the overall skull-like appearance its final, perfect touches. All other Phantoms that followed couldn't hold a candle in comparison to how downright creepy, inspiring, and iconic Chaney's Phantom appears.

And while the music may be the driving force behind all silent films, the performances remain equally important, since they cannot rely on the subtleties of speech, the physicality of the performers within silent films becomes essential in either selling the film as a success or as a laughable failure. The supporting cast within The Phantom of the Opera does do a convincing job delivering their parts, however, they are so overshadowed by the pure, physical talent of Chaney that they all become completely forgettable by the film's end. Chaney could do and say more just by moving his eyes, or gesturing with his hands than most performers could do by giving a performance all that they've got. Indeed, the finest moment of Chaney's career comes at the very end of Phantom, when Erik is cornered along the Seine. Doomed, he pulls something from his pocket, keeping the angry mob at bay. Upon opening his fist, the Phantom reveals he holds nothing and laughs as the mob beats him to death and tosses his corpse to the bottom of the river. In this one moment of gestures and actions, Chaney captures the essence of the Phantom and the essence of fear. Both are empty threats, and both are powerless to the mob mentality of humans. It is an incredibly powerful moment that rightfully has placed this film as one of the most iconic motion-pictures ever made.

With beautifully constructed sets that look and feel authentic, a slow pace that builds effectively to a riveting and suspenseful climax, a powerful soundtrack, horrifying makeup effects, and a performance by the eternally iconic Lon Chaney that may in fact be his best, The Phantom of the Opera remains not just one of the greatest horror or monster movies ever filmed, but one of the greatest movies overall ever to be photographed. It is, and always will be, an absolute masterpiece.

10/10

THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER (1990) - Review

The Hunt for Red October

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours and 15 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Larry Ferguson & Donald E. Stewart
Directed by: John McTiernan
Produced by: Mace Neufeld

Cast:
Sean Connery
Alec Baldwin
Scott Glenn
James Earl Jones
Sam Neill

The hunt is on.

The 1990 release of Paramount Pictures' big-budget adaptation of author Tom Clancy's bestseller The Hunt for Red October caused a lot of people in Hollywood to nearly soil themselves out of pure fear of failure. Looking back upon it now with the knowledge of the film's enormous success, it may seem bizarre to think anyone was worried about the film at all. It was handled by a capable filmmaker, John McTiernan, who had had previous success with his films Predator and Die Hard. The film's two leading men, Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin, were by this point heavy hitters in the industry - one a legend and the other a rising star. And the film was based on a source material that had a large fanbase. So why all the tension? For starters, there was the content. There was no guarantee that a Soviet/US tension-filled thriller about a nuclear submarine would spark interest with audiences in the glasnost era that was 1990. The budget took on an enormous hike once Connery was signed on to play the film's leading role (the part was originally going to be portrayed by Klaus Maria Brandauer). And, speaking of Connery, the actor had experienced two major box-office failures - The Presidio and Family Business - following his Academy Award win in 1988 (although, he did have success with the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). Nothing was guaranteed when it came to the success of The Hunt for Red October, and yet the film did succeed and it's easy to see why.

The film's story is an extremely slow-burn that, perhaps had it been handled by a less-than-capable filmmaker, would have endangered the entire film and alienated its audience by boring them to sleep. It speaks enormously to the talent of director John McTiernan that he was able to pace the film in such a fashion that its never-ending dialogue concerning sonar, submarine tactics, latitude and longitude, nuclear missiles, Cold War politics, and military/naval slang never at all feel boring or, worse yet, outside the comprehension of a layman audience member. Even more remarkably, McTiernan peppers in throughout various conversations and actions that allow for The Hunt for Red October to never lose sight of its human elements. Yes, Connery's character talks about East versus West and wanting to defect in order to prevent war - but McTiernan dives in further to these issues through the eyes of the characters, allowing for us as audiences to really sympathize with their actions and their intentions. This is largely what kept The Hunt for Red October from being a failure of a Cold War espionage thriller released during the glasnost era.

While its pacing is its best asset, not to be ignored are the film's technical elements. Attributing to the slow-burn that builds to an explosive climax is the film's editing. Editors Dennis Virkler and John Wright keep the sequences trimmed and neat in a fashion that allows for this dialogue-heavy thriller to really settle in with its audience. The film's music is just as remarkable, composed by Basil Poledouris. Poledouris utilizes Soviet-themes and refrains throughout much of the score, but dives into more synth-heavy, stripped down, qualities when it comes time for the film's tension to escalate to its fullest degree. But the film's best technical achievement is its cinematography. Cinematographer Jan de Bont captures the horrifyingly claustrophobic and abysmally dark atmosphere of the inside of submarines, which allows for the film's tension to be bottled up and broil in the minds of its audience all the more. The film's exteriors feel cold, dark, and gray - equally portraying a level of claustrophobia and allowing for the film's slow-building tension to percolate as well with its viewers.

Of course, no one can ignore the performances within The Hunt for Red October, either. Sean Connery shows why he was always one of Hollywood's greatest performers to ever grace the silver screen. As the Russian submarine captain Marko Ramius, Connery is a haunting presence. His sense of authority is believable and felt, as is his character's drive for justice. Ramius remains one of Connery's greatest performances out of a career full of incredible and iconic performances. Alec Baldwin is equally impressive. As the CIA analyst Jack Ryan, Baldwin portrays a reluctant hero to the best of his abilities. It is believable that Ryan has no desire to involve himself in the fight, but nevertheless is willing to do so if it means preventing a nuclear war and saving an adversary he admires. The supporting cast of Scott Glenn, James Earl Jones, Sam Neill, and even Tim Curry - who may seem miscast at first as the Soviet doctor Petrov, but nonetheless handles himself with a tremendous amount of capable talent in scenes with Connery and Neill - all provide equally riveting performances that are perhaps some of the best of their careers as well.

The film's special effects too remain impressive, especially when considering the miniatures of the submarines were not actually photographed underwater. Instead, smoke and various digital effects were utilized. While this has dated the film to some degree - since when working with digital effects, one must always understand they will look dated within a few years time - not enough of these effects were utilized to seriously jeopardize the overall quality and look of the film.

While it may be dated in some degree, and its slow-burn story and technical/dialogue-heavy script seem like more than enough to sink the film as a failure, The Hunt for Red October remains an incredibly engaging motion-picture that overcomes all of these aspects that should have harmed it. Its pacing is remarkable and director John McTiernan never allows for the film's human elements to fall to the wayside. Its technical achievements are brilliant and help to keep the overall sense of tension that the film needed in order to succeed. And lastly, and not surprisingly given the men involved in these roles, the film is full of incredible actors giving some of the best performances of their entire careers. In short, The Hunt for Red October succeeds as being a quintessential example for how to make an engaging thriller out of elements most Hollywood thrillers shy away from - especially these days.

9.5/10

ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976) - Review

Assault on Precinct 13

Action/Crime/Thriller
1 hour and 31 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: John Carpenter
Directed by: John Carpenter
Produced by: J. Stein Kaplan

Cast:
Austin Stoker
Darwin Joston
Laurie Zimmer

L.A.'s deadliest street gang just declared war on the cops.

After the release of his first motion-picture, the extremely low-budget sci-fi/comedy film Dark Star, John Carpenter began writing more scripts with the intention of directing his second feature film with the money made from the sales of others. After bringing producer J. Stein Kaplan on board, it was decided that Carpenter's script for Assault on Precinct 13 would be his second movie, and with the sale of his screenplay Eyes, which would go on to become Eyes of Laura Mars, to Barbara Streisand and Jon Peters, Carpenter and Kaplan had secured enough funding (a measly $100,000) to begin making the film that most consider to be one of Carpenter's finest.

In interviews, John Carpenter has expressed that at the beginning of his career he had absolutely no intention of becoming a master of horror. Instead, Carpenter really wanted to make westerns, often citing the work of legendary filmmaker Howard Hawks as being the most influential upon him. This is perhaps nowhere more apparent than it is in Assault on Precinct 13. The film's plot, in its most basic synopsis, mirrors in an almost identical manner Howard Hawks's 1959 western Rio Bravo. However, the major difference between the two, and it may seem like a simple one but it is absolutely crucial to understanding Carpenter's genius even this early into his career, was that by transposing the Rio Bravo plot to a then-modern day Los Angeles, Carpenter had essentially made a film that was incorruptible to the process of time. When examining Rio Bravo and Assault on Precinct 13, Hawks's film, like so many American-made westerns before the 1960s, suffers from being a product of its time. While it is understandably still a great film, there are moments within Rio Bravo that must have been extremely charming and/or entertaining to audiences of 1959, but by today's standards these same sequences date the film considerably, and drag down the overall viewing experience one has with it. With Assault on Precinct 13's more modern and urban setting, Carpenter has effectively written out all these hokey qualities that were present in Hawks's film. While the film is undeniably a product of the 1970s, it still very much functions today just as effectively as it did in 1976. This speaks to enormous levels regarding Carpenter's genius as a filmmaker. Assault on Precinct 13 remains an exciting, fun little thriller that seems much bigger and grander than it really is.

Another showcasing of Carpenter's genius is the film's score, composed by Carpenter himself. While Carpenter would go on to compose most of the scores for his movies, and all would be as impressive, with his music for Assault on Precinct 13 Carpenter set the tone of what to expect for his movies. The synth-rock soundtrack is big, it's bold, and it packs a punch that is incredibly effective, especially during the wonderfully choreographed and exciting shootouts that occur throughout the film. The film equally set the precedent for what one could expect for the technical qualities of Carpenter's films to follow. Shot in Panavision, the wide shots give the film an eerie quality, allowing for an overall tone of dread that fits in just as well with this action/thriller as it would with later horror films by Carpenter.

The performances within Assault on Precinct 13 are terrific, even more so when one understands that none of these actors had much in the way of experience. The film's three leads function well together, and each feels unique enough that their different energies coming together along with the supporting cast feels authentic to the film's plot. Austin Stoker provides a sense of calmness, even in moments where he feels lost and unaware of what to do. By casting an African American man, as well as two women, in the leading roles of this film, Carpenter, like with what his friend George A. Romero did with his 1968 movie Night of the Living Dead, showed that genre filmmakers were ahead of the curve in a major way when it came to casting minority characters in leading roles. 

Perhaps the only flaw with Assault on Precinct 13 is its script. Overall, the majority of the dialogue is fine. It allows for us to get to know these characters both before and in-between the intense and exciting moments of action. However, there are moments where Carpenter's greenness shines through. Certain lines feel hokey or cheesy, and others just seem completely inauthentic to the character that delivers them. Perhaps a few more rewrites would have made Assault on Precinct 13 into an essentially perfect motion-picture. These dialogue mishaps are easily forgiven though, especially when the mind-blowing action sequences make one forget about them completely.

Assault on Precinct 13 remains to this day a powerful motion-picture. The closest thing John Carpenter made to a true western, perhaps only rivaled by his more recent movie Vampires, Assault on Precinct 13 improves upon its Rio Bravo-esque storyline by transposing it to an urban and modern setting, thus allowing for it to become ageless. It set the precedent for many of the brilliant qualities that would permeate Carpenter's later films and set him apart from other filmmakers as being a real genius. Its performances, incredible sequences of action, cinematography, and synth-rock score are sure to appease all movie lovers who have the pleasure of sitting down and watching the film from start to finish.

9/10

AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER (2002) - Review

Austin Powers in Goldmember

Action/Adventure/Comedy
1 hour and 34 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: Mike Myers & Michael McCullers
Directed by: Jay Roach
Produced by: John S. Lyons, Eric McLeod, Demi Moore, Mike Myers, Jennifer Todd, and Suzanne Todd

Cast:
Mike Myers
Beyoncé Knowles
Seth Green
Michael York
Robert Wagner
Mindy Sterling
Verne Troyer
Michael Caine

The grooviest movie of the summer has a secret, baby!

Following the enormous successes of both Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery and Austin Powers: They Spy Who Shagged Me, it seemed only logical that actor and creative mastermind behind the films Mike Myers would continue to ride the gravy train for as long as economically possible. After all, the James Bond franchise, which the Austin Powers films directly spoof, had been going strong for twenty movies up until the time of Austin Powers in Goldmember was released. Who was to say the success of Austin Powers ever had to stop? Goldmember, like its two predecessors, did prove to be a success, likely performing as well as it did on the established fanbase of the franchise alone. That being said, Goldmember was a genuinely funny movie, however it did not measure up when it comes to the quality of the other two films in the series.

To begin with, there's much to like about Goldmember. Many of the jokes and avenues explored within its story are fresh and new. Like its predecessors, not a moment is wasted in Goldmember in referencing and poking fun at the James Bond movies - as well as other spy and action films of the past. The Japan setting offers some humorous jabs toward the Bond films of the 1960s, arguably the bread and butter behind the entire Austin Powers franchise, by spoofing the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice. A sumo wrestling stakeout as well as some corporate espionage are all direct nods to this film. Similarly, the sequence involving a fist fight between Powers and series staple Fat Bastard leads to a hilarious take on the famous sequence from Live and Let Die where James Bond escapes danger by running across the backs of crocodiles. Powers must, instead, run across the stomachs of bathing sumo wrestlers in order to avoid Fat Bastard.

The character of Foxy Cleopatra, played terrifically by Beyoncé Knowles, is another direct reference to the action films of yesteryear. Foxy Cleopatra is clearly a riff on Foxy Brown and other blaxploitation heroines of the 1970s, particularly those played by genre legend Pam Grier. Knowles confirmed this in interviews for the film, stating she watched Grier's movies in order to prepare for the role. Knowles's Cleopatra is a hilarious edition to the Austin Powers universe.

Similarly, other knew characters are introduced and fit right in with the returning ones that fans have come to love. Best of all is Mike Myers playing Freaky Deaky Dutch villain Goldmember. Goldmember's bizarre foreign and stereotypical qualities as well as his .... well, namesake, nod directly to Bond villains of the past, in particular Auric Goldfinger. Another brilliant edition is Michael Caine as Nigel Powers, Austin's faja ... or father. Caine showcases his terrific abilities as a comedic performer, and the scenes where he and Myers riff off of one another are truly comedic gold, and were undoubtedly improvised given the level of talent the two men hold.

All of these additions, as well as the familiar characters that the fanbase has come to love, make Goldmember feel fresh in many ways, and lend to it being a funnier movie than any sequel has any credit in being. However, Goldmember remains what is probably the weakest entry within the Austin Powers franchise for a number of reasons.

For starters, many of the previous jokes that were made in the first two Austin Powers movies are recycled into this one. While it's easy to understand why - if it ain't broke, don't fix it - one would much rather have seen Myers and director Jay Roach take the time to come up with more new material. After all, what made The Spy Who Shagged Me a sequel that was on par with the first film in the series was that it hardly utilized recycled jokes, and mainly focused on new material. This is not how Goldmember turned out. So many recycled jokes are present, that at one point the movie even pokes fun at itself for doing so. Which leads into the next problem with Goldmember, its persistent breaking of the fourth wall. In some cases, this too is humorous. But the truth is none of the meta jokes in Goldmember receive the kind of laughs as the original ones delivered within. 

Equally problematic is the film's third act. By this point it just feels as if Myers and Roach were looking for some way in which they could wrap up the film (and possibly even the franchise) and panicked because they realized they were entirely out of ideas, and did not want to recycle the endings of the first two (despite their recycling of literally everything else). One wishes they would have taken a little more time to flesh out the story and maybe watch some more James Bond movies for inspiration. Instead, what we're given is an uninspired deus ex machina of a conclusion, that undoubtedly left more fans saying, "really?" than it did laughing.

While it is still a movie packed full of hilarious moments, and one whose newest characters add enough levels of fresh humor to make it an entertaining watch, Austin Powers in Goldmember ultimately fails to live up to the comedic precedent set by its two predecessors in the franchise. Its recycling of jokes from those movies, its meta references, and its completely uninspired conclusion would likely leave even the most ardent Austin Powers or Mike Myers fans feeling in more ways than one let down.

5.5/10

CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) - Review

Carnival of Souls

Horror/Mystery
1 hour and 18 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: John Clifford
Directed by: Herk Harvey
Produced by: Herk Harvey

Cast:
Candace Hilligoss
Frances Feist
Sidney Berger
Art Ellison

She Escaped Death. Now It Wants Her Back!

With the booming of drive-in culture really reaching its peak in the late-1950s, the time frame of the 1950s until around the mid to late 1960s saw a plethora of B-genre movies being produced, most with the intention of filling out double or triple feature billings, simply because there was a market for them. In the cities, grind houses churned these movies out just as rapidly as the rural drive-ins could, and teenagers and youngsters everywhere were hardly ever deprived from a vast array of choices when it came to B-genre cinema. Most of these films lacked much in the way of quality, even though most remain to this day quite fun and amusing. However, every once in a while a B-movie would come along that would genuinely surprise its audience with its overall content pegging it as being much more brilliant than the labeling of B-cinema could merit it.

Such is the case for Herk Harvey's 1962 supernatural horror film Carnival of Souls. The motion-picture stems entirely around a simple but brilliant concept that Harvey masterfully never loses sight of. In essence, the main premise of Carnival of Souls never fades to the sidelines, and Harvey magnificently weaves the suspense and terror around it at all times. He was a filmmaker who clearly understood the importance of story over all other elements.

And yet Carnival of Souls has been ripped apart over the years as being a sexist allegory - or at the very least a sexist product of its times - commenting on the now debunked theory of female hysteria. While there are certainly arguments to be made that are credible if one chooses to view the film in this light, it seems as if Harvey was much more interested in paranoia and the inescapability of death - i.e. mortality - than he was with commenting on female pseudo-psychology. Carnival of Souls would not function any differently as a film if its protagonist were male, and this is again because Harvey's point seems to be an examination of paranoia surrounding one's own mortality. While the female figure, played by Candace Hilligoss, on surface levels does come across as a helpless damsel in distress, Carnival of Souls doesn't fall into the trappings of other 1960s B-horror movies riddled with sexism by having a male hero save her, or attempt to save her. Hilligoss's character, Mary Henry, must find her own answers - something she at first seems incapable of doing due to her fear and paranoia. But by the film's end, Mary answers the call. She finds it within herself to face down what's been haunting her all along to find her conclusions - as dangerous as they may be.

Also undermining the sexism claims are Mary's abilities to fend off the advances of her brutish and overtly rape-y neighbor John Linden, played by Sidney Berger. If Mary were really the helpless damsel in distress one of two things would have come about from her interactions with John: 1) she would have succumbed to his grim intentions, or 2) some other alfa-male figure would have stepped in and saved her from John. Instead, Mary is capable of keeping John at bay all on her own, until finally her sweeping paranoia drives him completely away from her. 

Within the story, Harvey manages to create some truly terrifying and sinister moments of atmospheric  horror genius. These begin with Mary's stumbling out of a river - still alive after a fatal car crash. They continue to moments involving the ghostly figure of a man's white, lifeless visage haunting her throughout her new life in Utah. These all lead up to the climax of Carnival of Souls, a brilliant descent into paranoia and madness that is masterfully orchestrated and without a doubt one of the scariest, one of the most beautiful, and one of the most memorable conclusions to any supernatural horror film, B-movie or mainstream, from this era.

Just as brilliant as the film's story are its technical aspects. Carnival of Souls is beautifully photographed by cinematographer Maurice Prather. Prather managed to capture the two worlds of both day and night, as well as Mary's paranoia versus her functioning state in a gorgeous manner. Certain set pieces never seemed to be photographed the same way twice, mirroring this duality of worlds. Prather brilliantly shows us a Utah church, an abandoned carnival, and even a room in a boarding house in two different lights. First as something grand, but seemingly normal, then as something dark and sinister, filled with shadows and unknown spaces. Editors Bill de Jarnette and Dan Palmquist utilize seamless transitions in certain moments to create the illusion that all these spaces are somehow sinisterly connected. Perhaps their weird wash-transition to indicate Mary's slipping out of reality is the only moment of editing that comes across as a bit hokey, but even this is easily forgiven. 

But the most brilliant technical aspect of the film is its score. Composer Gene Moore, like director Herk Harvey, seemed to understand the brilliance surrounding the idea of keeping things simplistic. Moore's score for Carnival of Souls, entirely performed via the pipe organ, flutters between the church-like and angelic and the sinister and bizarre notes of a carnival calliope. This, like the cinematography and editing, helps to create the worlds of the living and the dead while simultaneously blending the two together in a connecting and seamless fashion.

The performances in Carnival of Souls are effective enough for its being a B-movie, and Candace Hilligoss does manage to appear genuinely frightened in sequences that merit her character as being so. Moments of extended dialogue, however, seem to reveal the casts' shortcomings as actors. Still, this does not ruin the viewing experience of the film, since, again, director Herk Harvey was most interested on focusing upon the story of Carnival of Souls, keeping that as the main focal point - not the characters.

Featuring brilliant direction, an intriguing concept, and incredible technical qualities including gorgeous cinematography, effective editing, some truly creepy makeup effects, and an outstanding score, Carnival of Souls manages to triumph over its few shortcomings as well as its B-movie label by being a much more brilliant motion-picture than that particular marking would otherwise suggest its being.

8.5/10

A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964) - Review

A Fistful of Dollars

Western
1 hour and 39 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Victor Andrés Catena, Jaime Comas Gil, and Sergio Leone
Directed by: Sergio Leone
Produced by: Arrigo Colombo & Giorgio Papi

Cast:
Clint Eastwood
Marianne Koch
Josef Edger
Wolfgang Lukschy
Gian Maria Volontè

This is the man with no name. Danger fits him like a glove.

While European filmmakers had dabbled in the western genre for as long as their American counterparts, the general European-filmgoing public didn't pay much attention to this particular genre up until the mid-1960s. Prior to its success, it was the peplum, or genre of gladiator movies, that Italian filmmakers and audiences set their interests on. Much like the spaghetti western craze that followed it, peplum films even utilized waning American actors to their benefit (Christopher Reeves was a popular name within the genre). But, of course, genre fads die off and are replaced with new interests. With the release of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, the spaghetti, or Italowestern, had finally managed to grab a foothold with audiences not just in Europe, but across the globe.

But what set A Fistful of Dollars apart from the Eurowesterns that came before it? How did Leone manage to find success with his visionary film that so many other Italian filmmakers missed out on? The biggest and most obvious answer to these questions is that Leone managed to create something completely different within an already familiar genre. Whereas the Eurowesterns that came before it attempted to copy the much more popular American-made westerns in both stylization and characterization, Leone threw all of these genre hangups entirely out the window. Gone is the likable hero riding in on a white horse to save the day. Gone is the damsel in distress that serves as a romantic driving force for the film's hero. Gone is the man in black antagonist whose motivations seem to be purely evil, and completely polar opposite to the driving forces of the morally incorruptible protagonist. Gone are the Native Americans, grossly misrepresented. No, Leone's film may not be the first Eurowestern to physically exist, but as far as the precedents it established, A Fistful of Dollars is unquestionably the first ever true spaghetti western.

The film's hero, an antihero known only as the Man with No Name (yes, the coffin maker refers to him as, "Joe" throughout, but one gets the impression this character might refer to all yankee men with this namesake) replaces the typical morally pure western hero archetype. The Man with No Name is only interested in one thing and one thing only, his own self preservation and enrichment. While there are indeed moments of good that shine through from this character - his rescuing of Marisol and reuniting her with her family, as well as his saving Silvanito in the film's climax (this is perhaps mainly because the Man with No Name is fiscally indebted to Silvanito) - one gets the impression that these slight motivations of good and morality driven actions are not as important to the characterization of the Man with No Name. The point is made clear from the start. This is a man who enjoys profiting from toying with and killing other outlaws. He is not really a man who can be trusted. And yet we as an audience are endeared to him. Leone understood the irony behind taking an otherwise unlikable character and placing him at the center of the story as the "hero.". It allows for this fantasy world of the Wild West to be built around him. If he's the most likable or trustworthy figure, then surely the rest of this world is going to be gritty, brutal, nasty, and nihilistic in nature - all of which Leone creates here and would become staples of every spaghetti western that would follow A Fistful of Dollars.

Helping to further convey this gritty and hardedge vision of the west are the film's technical aspects. Cinematographer Massimo Dallamano gave the film an overall bright and sun-scorched image, so much so that even sequences filmed at night feel impossibly bright, as if there is no where to run and hide from the hard gazes of outlaws. While the film lacks the overall grand imagery that would become prominent in Leone's follow up westerns, as well as some of the westerns helmed by other Italian filmmakers, A Fistful of Dollars uses its ultra-low budget to its advantage. The single location of an out-of-sight, lawless bordertown feels genuine, and matches the rundown, gritty tone that permeates the story of the film. Similarly, the town's open and empty feeling also mirror the inescapability and hopelessness that Leone wished to create with his vision of the west.

The film's performances are remarkable, especially when considering the cast was comprised of either actors who were relatively green in experience and at the time were nobodies. Clint Eastwood obviously embodies the Man with No Name with all the conviction and believability of a seasoned character actor. There is a clear reason why this has remained his most iconic character that he has portrayed, maybe only rivaled by Dirty Harry. The supporting cast is equally impressive, with José Calvo as the irritable Silvanito constantly reminding the man with no name of the ugliness and realities of the world he occupies. These sequences serve as a sickly comedic reminder of the rather grim undertones of the movie. Most astonishing is spaghetti western icon Gian Maria Volontè as the film's villain Ramon Rojo. As Ramon, Gian creates a deeply ugly and twisted villain - a sadistic killer - but one who serves to mirror qualities present inside the film's hero. The two are opposite sides of the same coin, or maybe even just the same side of the same coin, one half of which is just a little more gritty. The exchanges between Volontè and Eastwood throughout the film are unquestionably the most enjoyable moments within A Fistful of Dollars and the final showdown between the two - while maybe not as epic in terms of scale in comparison to the conclusions of Leone's other westerns - is truly remarkable to behold, and the tension therein is both palpable and powerful.

The glaring problem with A Fistful of Dollars, despite all its amazing innovations to the genre of the western, is of course that it is a blatant ripoff of the Akira Kurosawa samurai film Yojimbo. This is unfortunate since Leone would later prove himself an ingenious storyteller - one arguably on the same level as Kurosawa - with his later films: For a Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck, You Sucker, and Once Upon a Time in America are all brilliantly original and well-crafted stories. Why Leone chose to follow Kurosawa's story so closely - merely transposing its setting to the American west - is bizarre. Perhaps his confidence in himself as a filmmaker and storyteller had not yet reached the levels that it would once he achieved fame and respect with the release of A Fistful of Dollars.

Despite its unoriginal story, A Fistful of Dollars remains an incredibly innovative and important motion-picture that set the precedents and rules regarding all Italian-made, and really even American made, westerns that would follow in the wake of its enormous success. By throwing away the genre conventions and operating on his own intuition, Leone created a masterful film that can genuinely be called the first ever true spaghetti western.

9/10

ROBOCOP 2 (1990) - Review

RoboCop 2

Action/Crime/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 57 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Frank Miller & Walon Green
Directed by: Irvin Kershner
Produced by: Jon Davison

Cast:
Peter Weller
Nancy Allen
Daniel O'Herlihy
Tom Noonan
Belinda Bauer
Gabriel Damon

Even in the future of law enforcement there is room for improvement.

In 1987, audiences across the world were graced with the science-fiction/action film RoboCop, an intelligent and enormously entertaining motion-picture that served as an allegory regarding the dangers of consumerism, commercialism, conservatism, and Reaganomics. In essence, it was a commentary on the very nation it existed within - 1980s America - as well as a warning regarding that nation's future (much like the equally intelligent and entertaining sci-fi/horror film They Live, directed by John Carpenter). With RoboCop, director Paul Verhoeven hit audiences with all the sledgehammer subtlety of TV advertisements with a message to wake up and understand the world that was happening all around them. It's no surprise that this message resonated (kind of) to the point where the film was a commercial success. And where there's commercial success, as capitalism in the entertainment business has taught us, there's almost assuredly going to be a franchise, or at the very least a sequel.

For RoboCop's first sequel, the studio made an inspired, but perhaps safe choice, regarding who the man to replace Verhoeven in the director's chair ought to be. Irvin Kershner was most notorious for having directed Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back in 1980. With the enormous success and fan following for the Star Wars franchise that stemmed out of Empire, the studio was hopeful Kershner would be able to inspire the same sort of mega-fandom by directing RoboCop 2. So, how does RoboCop 2 manage as a piece of cinema, sequel or not?

Screenwriters Frank Miller and Walon Green recognized what worked in the first RoboCop and utilized these elements that made that movie both a box-office success and a piece of social commentary for their sequel. While there are fewer, randomly placed fake advertisements in RoboCop 2, the film does try to make some claims about consumerism, however, it is clear that these claims aren't the main focus of the overall point of the movie and that they in no way differ from what was already said in Verhoeven's first film. OCP is still an evil corporation that wants to privatize the municipal elements of Detroit simply for profitable gains. Nothing's changed at all.

The main focus of RoboCop 2 is the conundrum of a mass drug addiction epidemic - one that was mirrored by an occurring drug problem in the United States for years up to this point, and had really reached a boiling point around this time due to the government's declared War on Drugs initiative. With their script, and with Kershner's more than capable direction, Miller and Green attempted to create a commentary on a city (or a nation) plagued with a drug problem, and how said problem interacted with the corrupt business dealings and hostile corporate takeovers of governmental legislation that were simultaneously occurring.

If this sounds like it's too big of a quandary for an action/science-fiction film that is also trying to sell tickets and be entertaining enough to pull in theater patrons to try to make a logical point on, it's because it is. RoboCop 2 manages to fail in regards to making any kind of point on all of these societal evils that it exploits to craft its own story - other than, of course, what had already been said in the first movie. There is one moment within the film that must be commended for coming the closest to some sort of tangible societal commentary on these issues. In an exchange between the city's mayor and several council members, a drug lord offers to bail out the city's financial debt to the evil corporations. In exchange, the mayor would decriminalize the narcotic being sold, allowing for it to essentially be a legal and marketable product and for him to become a hero for "ridding the streets of crime." In this moment, Kershner, Miller, and Green seem to be making a commentary on the legalization of illegal substances in order to create a direct revenue stream for the government outside of corporate donations and influence. To top this off, the scene is interrupted by a literal killing machine that massacres all of them, a machine designed and sent by the corporations to do so, so that business can continue as usual with them at the top and in power. This scene, as remarkably brilliant as it is, unfortunately doesn't last long enough for its point to fully resonate. In the first RoboCop, the commentary was tangible throughout. Here, its clarity is only present in this all too brief scene.

Despite failing to live up to its predecessor's intelligent commentary, RoboCop 2 proves to be an entertaining enough action film on its own. Kershner, as evidenced by his handling of films like Empire and the James Bond movie Never Say Never Again, clearly knew how to orchestrate engaging sequences of violence and action, and RoboCop 2 delivers on both. A chop-shop sequence, where the hero is literally torn to pieces is intense to watch unfold - mainly for its lack of on screen violence (oil spraying instead of blood is a nice touch). An all out raid upon a warehouse toward the end of the film's second act proves to be the major highlight, and its great to see the clunky hero chasing after criminals in edge of your seat action that reminds viewers why they love these types of films in the first place. The climax battle does fall a little flat, but this again is because it is a retread of the confrontation in the first RoboCop. We've seen the hero battle a larger, more powerful cyborg before. Here it becomes redundant and boring.

The performances are decent enough in RoboCop 2. Peter Weller is great as Murphy yet again, but much is missing in regards to his human elements. What made Murphy great in the first RoboCop was his internal struggle between his past human life and his mechanical duties in the present to his corporate superiors. Murphy's memories are quickly fed to the audience in the first moments of RoboCop 2 but they're unfortunately just as quickly pushed aside and never brought back up. Nancy Allen, unfortunately, is underutilized in this film and her presence feels obligatory at best. In the first film she helped Murphy to remember who he was. Here, she's just sort of taking up space. Daniel O'Herlihy is wonderful as the OCP CEO hellbent on taking over Detroit for profit, and likewise Tom Noonan does an amazing job as the pseudo-religious drug kingpin, equally driven by profit and capital.

While it's nowhere near as intelligent as its predecessor and therefore hardly merits discussion regarding motion-pictures with any sort of societal worth or commentary, RoboCop 2 does prove to be an entertaining action movie that was constructed by a more than capable group of writers and a competent, and arguably under-appreciated, filmmaker with the pieces they were dealt. It's not a complete waste of time, and anyone who wishes to watch the film, again, keeping in mind that it won't live up to the same standards as its predecessor ahead of screening it, won't find it to be a painful viewing experience.

5/10