60/60 Extra: The French Connection.

Man, this was a tough one. I'm gonna get Hell for this one... so let's just get this over with. The film follows two cops in the narcotics unit, the foul-mouthed 'Popeye' Doyle (Gene Hackman) and his partner, Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider). They start getting wind of a big drug deal about to go down, so they spend a couple months following its suspects and staking everything out before they make their move. But there's a French connection--a French man who has come to the States in order to make the deal.

This might sound confusing to those who read the Heat review, but my issues with this film are almost the exact opposite reasons of my issues with that film... but at the same time, almost the exact same reasons. Let me explain. As I mentioned, Heat had too many unnecessary subplots that tried to deepen the characters but ended up just staying at a shallow level and never amounted to much. Despite this, I could follow that film easily and always knew--and even, at times, cared--what was going on. This film had no subplots. It didn't try to make its characters very three-dimensional whatsoever, with the exception of the last minute of the film (which I'll get to later). And even watching with my fullest attention, I had a hard time following or caring much about anything.

First and foremost, I didn't give a damn about any of the characters. And it wasn't because I disagreed with their personalities or anything like that. They just felt so foreign (no pun intended). Almost nothing about their personal lives was explored. All we saw of them, for the most part, was them following people for the entire movie. I just... felt nothing for these characters. And if I can't get invested in the characters, then... you're gonna have a hard time grabbing me for the movie.

Of all the kinds of "cops" films out there, the narcotics/drugs ones always tend to be my least favorite (Training Day notwithstanding). They just don't really catch my interest. So, as with Training Day, they tend to need to catch me with great characters and some fine acting. They've already lost me on the characters. Can they at least make up for it in the acting?

Gene Hackman does the best with what he's given. And as he's the main character, I'm happy for that. He's at least interesting as the "bad cop," the one with the attitude. I suppose maybe because of the time the movie was made, but I would have liked to have seen more with the character. Besides that, he has a moment in the last minute of the film where you notice he's really lost it due to his obsession. And then you get the ending--which I think might have worked better had they stopped there and left it ambiguous. But whatever.

There are two scenes that I feel should be mentioned, both involving trains. First is my favorite scene in the film: Gene Hackman is following the French dude into a subway station, but the Frenchman knows he's being followed. So he keeps getting on and off the trains at that station to throw off Hackman, and Hackman keeps having to come up with excuses to follow him on and off the trains. It's almost a comedy routine, but I found it pretty clever. The other scene is the famous "still holds up today/most epic scene ever" car vs. train chase scene. Going in, I heard nothing but excellent things about this, and I was waiting just to see this bucket of awesomeness. And then it happened and... I was so sorely let down. Not only is about half the car part done in first person so you're rarely even seeing the car as it speeds on, but the car and train are almost never shown in the same shot. It gives a feeling that it's not really a race as much as two separate scenes juxtaposed against each other. And on top of that, almost literally the entire thing has Gene Hackman honking that damn horn, and it got really annoying pretty fast.

I'm just gonna end this review there. On the whole, I can say that director William Friedkin made a solid film. "WHAT?" you say, after I just finished ripping it apart. No, I think that on a technical level, this movie isn't bad. I mean, Hell, it won 5 Oscars, after all (nominated for 8). And you know the guy is a talented director. Right after making this, he went on to direct The Exorcist, nominated for 10 Oscars (winning 2). (Coincidentally, co-star Roy Scheider was only 4 years away from starring in a little known horror film of his own.) Anyway, all of my issues with this movie are--for the most part--purely personal. The story and the characters and the filmmaking, etc., weren't bad by any means. They just weren't what I want and like in a film. Hence, that's why I feel this was a tough one.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: The Quick And The Dead.

Note: 60/60 Extras will be reviews of other well-known films that I check out for whatever particular genre or theme of the month that I'm focusing on at the time.

------------------------------

A while back, I heard the ladies of Reel Insight Podcast talk about this film... rather unfavorably. But how can that be? Between the director, cast, and premise, it sounded awesome. Ellen (Sharon Stone) is a mysterious woman who rides into the town of Redemption looking to take vengeance on John Herod (Gene Hackman), the town's tyrannical gunslinger who makes sure things go his own way. He hosts a gunslinging tournament where opponents challenge each other every day, knocking the bracket down until there is only one left. Also pulled into the fray is Cort (Russell Crowe), a preacher who used to be a bad gunslinger himself; Cantrell (Keith David), an assassin; Ace Hanlon (Lance Henriksen), a self-proclaimed badass; Scars (Mark Boone Jr.), an escaped convict; Dog Kelly (Tobin Bell), a stupid outlaw; and the Kid (Leonardo DiCaprio), who has a special tie to Herod himself. The film also stars Gary Sinise as Ellen's father.

The story is basically like if you took Mortal Kombat, removed the mystical elements, and put it in the old west. And the characters are colorful. But the story and the characters--despite being interesting in theory--share the same flaw: they're cliche to the point of boring. From the western angle, the movie takes just about every cliche in the book and slaps it across your face. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't watch a lot of westerns. Hell, I knew Leo's character was gonna refer to himself as the Kid before it even came out of his mouth. The idea of a "game" or "tournament" is fun--Battle Royale is one of my favorite books--but all the fights here are almost exactly the same. There's nothing interesting to differentiate between them. And the characters are just cardboard cutouts. The best relationship is actually the one between DiCaprio and Hackman.

I don't entirely think the movie was casted wrong, though. For the most part, the actors did well. I think they could have explored the duality of Sharon Stone's Ellen a little more, giving us more on how conflicted she is on the inside in comparison to how stoic she tries to be on the outside. And I normally don't care for Russell Crowe, but he was good enough in this (maybe because he doesn't say all that much). Leo also does well. But it was most interesting seeing (very little of) Tobin Bell, especially at the beginning when he's threatening to kill Sharon Stone. I was waiting for the scene to change and show her in a Jigsaw trap... or that there was gonna be a big twist at the end.

Honestly, I think the movie's biggest fault lies in its director. Don't get me wrong, I love Sam Raimi. Between the Evil Dead films, the Spider-Man films, and Drag Me To Hell, he's done some great stuff. And you can definitely see his eye in this film. But it was totally the wrong eye needed. Between the constant zoom-ins of the camera and some wacky, over-the-top and out-of-place moments (the big hole in the head, the hole in the shadow, the one-shot-flips-man-over-and-back bit, etc.), there were just some strange directorial decisions. And the tone would shift because of this from semi-serious drama to wacky action flick. It just felt strange. And it probably could have been 15 minutes shorter than it was--not sure how, but it could have been.

Overall, despite the action, the movie seemed to drag, most likely due to monotony. The acting was good and the story was good, but I think it was all just executed wrong. I know I haven't said all that much, but this movie wasn't really all that deep to begin with. It certainly wasn't bad, but I think in different hands, it could have been better (which it saddens me to say). I was actually going to rate it a little higher, but the more I reflect on it as I write this, the lower the score sinks. So I think I'm just gonna go ahead and leave it at that.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Review #5: Unforgiven.

Warning: Mild spoilers ahoy.

--------------------

I've said it before, but I'm not a huge fan of westerns. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with them, but being a bit of a Texas rebel, I have an aversion to most things "country." I do, however, enjoy the idea of westerns (outlaws, shootouts, etc.). So I do enjoy some. The point I'm trying to make is that this month wasn't the most exciting one for me on this list. This film, though, has won Oscars and is supposedly the western that even non-western fans enjoy. Maybe that was slightly too much hype for me.

When a couple guys cut up a prostitute's face, the town sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) refuses to do much about it. This causes the other prostitutes to round up a thousand dollars and hire an assassin to knock off the attackers. This attracts the attention of a young man named Schofield (Jaimz Woolvett) to seek out retired outlaw Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood) in order to bring him along and take care of the men. Bill refuses at first, but decides he needs the money. Before heading off, he picks up his old partner, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), who goes along with him. Unfortunately, as is shown by another outlaw by the name of English Bob (Richard Harris), Little Bill's town is a no-gun zone, and anybody they even suspect as an outlaw or assassin will be beaten into submission.

I'm just gonna come straight out with my negative thoughts and get those out of the way. I'm not sure if it was the acting or the script or a mix of both, but the first 30 minutes of this movie (in my opinion) were so bad. I was watching like "Really? This is an Oscar-winning film?" And something that didn't really change throughout the film was its mostly flat characters. If I had to hear Eastwood mention how he used to be a bad person, how he doesn't drink anymore, and how his dead wife rehabilitated him, I was gonna scream. If I had to hear one more time how Morgan Freeman could shoot an eagle high up in the sky... or really any of the other dozen things that were constantly repeated throughout the film ad nauseum. It just got old pretty fast. It's like "OK, I get it already."

Of course, there are some obvious changes within the characters. For instance, you find out the over-the-top boasting young man who clearly hasn't killed a man in his life--gasp--has never killed a man in his life. You also find out that the sharpshooting partner can't shoot so sharp these days. And, of course, the bad-man-turned-good-who-doesn't-drink ends up drinking and become a good gunslinger again. It also bugged me with the running gag about how Eastwood couldn't get on his horse. I mean, the dude lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere and even admits having to go into town from time to time. How is it possible that he became so rusty in horse riding that it would take him 5 minutes just to climb on to the horse?

All that being said, I did end up really enjoying the movie overall. Once Richard Harris (almost unrecognizable to me without his Dumbledore beard) showed up as English Bob, the movie skyrocketed in quality. It's too bad his character wasn't explored more (or even served much of a purpose in the overall plot), because his was my favorite of the whole film. Gene Hackman's Little Bill was an interesting character, too. His was pretty much the only one whose qualities weren't shoved down your throat. In literary terms, he was given much more of an "indirect characterization" as opposed to everybody else's "direct characterization." I don't want to be told you used to be a cold-hearted bastard. Show me. And with Little Bill, we were given a conflicted character--one that wanted to keep peace in his little town, but at what cost? He has all the qualities of a hero, but he uses them in all the wrong ways, making him sometimes more of a villain than those who cut up the prostitute.

Of all the westerns I've watched--and there aren't many--this one falls somewhere in the middle. It wasn't horribly dull despite its gorgeous cinematography (Assassination of Jesse James...). It had some dull moments near the beginning, but they weren't long and drawn out. It also didn't have the most interesting cinematography, but it was good. On the flip side, its characters weren't totally introspective or all that complex within relatively constant action (3:10 to Yuma). They always spoke what they were thinking and they pretty much shoved it down our throats how we were supposed to perceive them.

So overall, the film was pretty good despite feeling repetitive. I actually fell asleep near the end for roughly 10 minutes--but unlike the other films on this list when that happened, I actually skipped back and finished watching it right then and there. That's how invested I was in it. Sure, it had its problems, and I'm probably going to get a lot of backlash from this review with comments like "Well, you just don't understand and/or appreciate the art of the western!" But whatever. I think "No Country For Old Men" would have been a good title for this movie--and more suiting than it was with the actual film--not to mention this had an infinitely better and more satisfying ending. Yup.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I wish I had a score between this one and the "McLovin." I would have scored this film with that one. But let's just say this is a pretty weak "Whoa." If I gave it a scoring out of 5, I'd say about a 3.7 or 3.8. I know, that's weird... whatever.)