Lonely Are the Brave (1962)

Hello everyone. Once again, I am back after a long period of absence. As you may guess, I do not know how often I will be able to post here on Cinema Freaks, but I am hoping that this month will be a time where I am a little more frequent than usual. Either way, I have this review right here, which I actually started back in May but never got around to finishing until now. I also have another one from that time that needs polishing up, but will be available very shortly. So, let us get started:

Starring: Kirk Douglas, Gena Rowlands, Walter Matthau

Director: David Miller

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056195/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonely_Are_the_Brave

Kirk Douglas. Still alive at the age of 94, he is best know today as the father of Michael Douglas and the crazy old guy who held up the most recent Academy Award ceremony (hey, at least you can say he still has a sense of humor). But in his prime, he was considered one of the best actors in the movie industry, so it seems right that he should be honored by this site with a review of what he has said is one of his favorite films, "Lonely Are the Brave".

A contemporary Western, Douglas plays named John W. "Jack" Burns, a cowboy who feels like he is living in the wrong time period. The opening shot looks like an old Wild West film, with Burns lying on the ground, his new horse Whiskey by his side. This illusion is quickly shattered when a jet flies overhead, with the protagonist looking on with displeasure.

Learning from his sister-in-law and implied former flame, Jerry Bondi (Gena Rowlands) that his estranged brother Paul (Michael Kane...no, a different one) is in jail, Burns makes a plan to free him by sending himself to jail on purpose and then breaking out. That...is an interesting strategy to say the least...He finds his opportunity when he gets into a bar fight with a one-armed man (real-life amputee Bill Raisch, who would later go on to play the infamous one-armed man in "The Fugitive" TV series). Yeah, that does sound kind of despicable, but to be fair, it was the amputee who started it! The fight scene between them is actually pretty intense, with a great soundtrack by the film's composer Jerry Goldsmith, just at the beginning of his celebrated career.

While he eventually finds his way into jail, Burns soon runs into some problems. He must contend with a sadistic cop named Gutierrez, played by George Kennedy, who bears a vicious smile and frequently repeats Burn's full name in a mock-sophisticated accent that I can only compare to the mannerisms of a Ron White stand-up routine. Gutierrez clearly demonstrates that he does not respect Burns and has no qualms with giving him a beating. However, his biggest challenge comes when he finds out that Paul has changed his ways and does not wish to break free for fear of ruining the his or his family lives. Burns leaves without him and briefly meets up again with Jerry. It is at this point that Burns reveals who he really is: a terminal loner, a man who refuses to be constrained by any person or laws and will continue to live the way he wants live even though he realizes that it will probably be the end of him. He then proceeds to go on a wild goose chase to get away from the cops as he plans to escape to Mexico.

My favorite person in the film besides Burns is his chief pursuer, Sheriff Morey Johnson, played by Walter Matthau. While a little more serious than his colleagues, he is very nonchalant, making only mild attempts to discipline his deputies and seems more concerned with having a piece of gum to chew and the territorial habits of a local dog. Nonetheless, he makes an effort toward capturing Burns, even sending a military helicopter after him. However, he never comes off as being ruthless; he even appears to be sympathetic toward Burns at one point. He is just a guy trying to do his job, who also happens to have a lot of time and resources on his hands.

Film buffs may notice that this movie has a lot of similarities to "Cool Hand Luke" and "Rambo: First Blood". Other than some shared situations and people (Kennedy starred in the former and Goldsmith did the score for the latter), they have similar themes: loners who feel that society is working against them not because of what they did but because of who they are and will do anything to escape its rapture. The one creature that Burns can seem to depend on is his horse Whiskey. There is a lot of good interaction between the two of them and Burns goes out of his way to take the horse on his escape even though he has to drag him up a rocky mountain range, threatening his own chances of getting away. It may seem a little reckless...ok, very reckless...but it is a good demonstration of how even loners will latch on to a companion because it gives them an opportunity to care about something other than themselves and a reason to keep pushing forward in life.

One of my few, very minor, complaints with the film is that it focuses a little too much on the plight of a truck driver (played by Carrol O'Connor in a pre-Archie Bunker role). Granted, he does have one good line early on, but they did not really need to show him driving around all over the place; it seems more like filler than anything else. However, this does not really matter since it eventually lead to something in the end, though I will not say what. The final act is, and I know I use this phrase a lot in my reviews but it is true, poignant and very well done.

This film is a classic. It is a story about a man trying to find his place in the world and it has as much relevance today as it did when it debuted in theatres nearly a half century ago. While it has gotten a decent amount of attention over the years, both when it was released and since, it has a tendency to get overlooked by movie buffs. In some ways this is a good thing; it allows people to see it for what it is as opposed to it being over-hyped. Still, it should be "discovered" more often so people can enjoy this great piece of work from a great actor. I definitely recommend it.

I do not own the copyright to the images or links above. They are for entertainment purposes only. Please do not sue me.

Review: Cowboys & Aliens (2011) TH

Truth in the title

A memory impaired man (Daniel Craig) awakes with a strange metal shackle on his wrist and a wound on his side. After showcasing hidden skills like a 19th century Jason Bourne on some rough and tough dudes, he heads to the nearest town of Absolution only to find more hassles. He deals with a spoiled, troublemaker named Percy Dolarhyde (Paul Dano), who's father is a not-to-be-messed-with head honcho of sorts. Percy lands in jail and soon enough the man with no memory ends up in the cell next door, as he turns out to be the infamous Jake Lonergan who has a rap sheet longer than the Oregon Trail. When Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) gets word of his incarcerated son, he storms the streets with his cowboys. Right before a tense showdown, the alien part of the equation shows to make things go boom and people disappear. Jake's bracelet suddenly turns into Mega Man status and he blasts one of the ships down with an energy beam. The creature that operated the vessel flees and they round up a posse to track it back to where their kidnapped loved ones are.

"Cowboys & Aliens" is more about the journey to the final showdown involving various characters that it never fully scratches below the introductory surface on, which at times makes them more plot devices than natural. Along tags a bartender who's more business than brawn; a mysterious woman who eyes Jake; a practical preacher who knows how to pray and shoot; a young boy who's not yet a man; a loyal Indian who looks at his boss as a father figure; and the former colonel Dolarhyde who's got a thing or two to teach the youngins about battle. Now, where westerns in the past had everybody out for their ruthless selves, this uses the enslaving extraterrestrials as a means to get along for the greater good of humanity, including fierce outlaws and warrior Indians who are in the same dire straits. In the meantime, no one ever claimed the abominable aliens didn't have punctuality as they make a few well-timed appearances to the point of predictably just before a human vs human conflict is about to get all gun crazy. Though like throwing a rock at a tank, these basic, booze-drinkin', boot-wearin' westerners look to be completely overrun and overwhelmed. That is until they have to get sneaky and use strength in numbers to put a stop to the aliens, which at this point are so one-dimensional the movie plays out like an easily sold good vs evil template with nothing left over to put in the bank to accumulate interest.

This is more the former than the latter of the title. The western portion on its own isn't groundbreaking to the genre, and the sci-fi side isn't inventive enough to blow the lid off a long time fan, even if the combination is definitely original. Other aspects to fall back on like the pacing can feel like it revs the engine, then levels at a lower gear. This wouldn't be such an issue but it's not that contemplative of a film to hit the locker room in between for a break, and as a result creates a building list of questions from the viewer that never end up answered about certain plays. It's a film that treads more on mystery when it comes to its antagonists, by at first seeing a shadow, a claw and then a quick full frontal, as well as it only gives little snippets of information for the viewer. Problem is, it doesn't create that intriguing enough of creatures to pull the enigma off--no communication, no interaction with each other, very few distinguishing elements with behavior or appearance--or even go further into why they're on Earth other than laying out a questionable reason at face-value.

Daniel Craig played a simple but commanding presence, as he said little but when it came time for action delivered with full force as if he meant it, and then some. It causes you to focus in on him to not miss his next move, despite getting knocked about with a lesser blow or two. Clancy Brown plays a memorable role as a tough holy man that adds humor to the situations, but Chris Browning includes cartoon flavor with his crusty chompers and oafish demeanor. Paul Dano, as much as he tried and has the most range, his performance felt misplaced as if he's a tortured man rather than just a fearful kid with no perspective from growing up safe and spoiled. Harrison Ford's character is built up and built up, with other people making not only a legend of him but a power not to be reckoned with, though by the time it comes for him to show his stuff, he falls somewhat short on punch. It's a shame that some of his gruff lines come off as unflattering imitations rather than truly compelling. On an entertainment level, you get massive explosions, O.K. Corral-thumping gun fights, built up thrills, mystery, situational humor, potential love, tragedy, resolution and you get to see two separate genres at the same time. It sounds like a lot, but it didn't always come one after the other or always in a smooth, edge-of-your-seat transition together. The mentioned certainly made this enjoyable and an interesting concept to see but unfortunately it wasn't capable of thoroughly traveling beyond expectations for such a cool premise.

Director: John Favreau (Made, Iron Man 1 & 2)
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Keith Carradine, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, Olivia Wilde, Noah Ringer, Clancy Brown
Website: IMDB

True Grit (2010)

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Grit_(2010_film)

They got it right this time. Remakes are usually frowned upon by critics and the general public, and for good reason: they have a tendency to either fall short of the standards set by the original films or are just seen as a waste of a film altogether. However, there are occasions when they turn out well, especially when the said original film needed to improvements in the first place (http://docuniverse.blogspot.com/2010/12/true-grit-1969.html). So how did the Coen Brothers manage to take on a western made famous by John Wayne himself? Like this:

Once again based upon the book of the same name by Charles Portis, the story starts out with a young girl named Mattie, who's father is murdered and she goes on a quest to find his killer. The character of Mattie as played by Kim Darby was the part of the original movie that I really hated above anything else, but the Coen brothers thankfully helped change that around. First of all, she actually looks like a real girl from the 1870s, as opposed to a weird Justin Bieber clone. Secondly, the actress who plays her, Hailee Steinfeld, can actually, well, act. She comes across as a girl who is tough and certainly able to hold her own. While she has a bit of a self-righteous streak and a prim-and-proper manner that can turn people off, Steinfield is still able to reveal Mattie's warmth and personal conviction, making her very likable character. This is in stark contrast to Darby, who acted more like a monotone robot trying to give the illusion that she was tough but ends up looking like a deer in headlights.

Anyway, Mattie eventually comes across a one-eyed U.S. Marshall named Rooster Cogburn, played by Jeff Bridges, whom she asks to help her capture her father's killer. Bridges does a great job as Cogburn; he is gruff and is not afraid to take on the bad guys when necessary, even if some complain that he over does it. At the same time, he is shown to have some flaws due to his age and alcoholism. Fans of "The Big Lebowski" may notice some hints of The Dude when Cogburn is a little...disoriented, but as much as I love that character, I think Bridges and the Coens were smart not to try and force their creation into this particular film; it would not have be right. My complaint is that his accent is so thick that I could not understand about half of the stuff he said, but I am willing to give that a pass because I get the idea of what he is saying and I guess that it makes Cogburn more memorable.

The rest of the story is pretty straight forward: the two of them, along with a Texas Ranger named La Boeuf (Matt Damon), begin their journey as they come across a pair of outlaws, a hanged body, and a man dressed as a bear. Okay, it is not entirely straight forward, but come on, its the Coen brothers, you got to expect a little weirdness! Anyway, generally speaking, the film moves at a productive paste and keeps you intrigued to until the end, using both action, humor, and good dialogue.

I did not have to much to complain about, but if I have to nit-pick...There is a part at the beginning when Mattie is arguing with the man her father had sold horses to before his murder. I disliked this part in the original movie because I thought that it was a pointless scene that did not need to be done on-camera, and while the Coen brothers make it a tad better, it still seems like a time waster. The film also has a tendency to marginalize its supporting characters. Damon does well with his role, but he is mostly absent from the picture; he just has his little bouts with Bridges (which are pretty amusing), but then gets annoyed and leaves not once but twice. James Brolin is good as the murderer Tom Chaney, someone who is somewhat stupid but can be intimidating when he needs to be. However, he is on screen for barely five minutes and his impact is lacking. A nearly unrecognizable Barry Pepper also does a decent job as the outlaw Ned Pepper, but is also underused. To be fair, these characters were not on-screen that much more in the 1969 version, but I guess they were so unimpressive in that version that it kind of did not matter. By making them interesting, the Coen's have been hurt by their own success. Another part of this may have to do with the 110 running time, about 18 minutes shorter than the original. Overall, I am glad this was shorter because it made the movie more concise, but it was not without its draw backs.

Despite that admittedly bloated paragraph I just wrote, it is still a very enjoyable film that shows that not all remakes turn out bad, and I recommend it.

True Grit (1969)

Starring: John Wayne, Glen Campbell, Kim Darby

Directed by Henry Hathaway

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Grit_(1969_film)

The Coen brothers' remake of "True Grit" will be coming out in theaters shortly and I hope to be able to see it (and possibly review it for this site). In the meantime, since I try to make it a habit to see the original films first, I decided to check out 1969's "True Grit", starring the legendary John Wayne. So how does this classic hold up? Well, let's just say that the Coens should feel free to make improvements on it, because that is what this film badly needs.

Based upon the novel of the same name by Charles Portis (no, I am not reading the book as well; there is all some much I can do to judge one story), the movie starts off at the home of a young girl named Mattie Ross, played by Kim Darby. Mattie is the main reason why I ultimately did not like this film. First of all, take a look at her:

[Insert lesbian/Justin Bieber haircut joke here]

Okay, looks aside, her character is awful! All she does is complain and boss people around, not so much in a bitchy way, but in a way that comes across as really uptight and overly precocious, like a little kid who thinks that she is always in the right and that anyone who disagrees with her is somehow not thinking properly and is uncivilized. To make matters worse, Darby simply cannot act; she reads her lines (keyword being "reads") in a monotone voice that has no conviction in it at all. Well, at least she got better as her career progressed and she did not end up playing a put-upon mother in a crappy "Halloween" squeal, right?.....right? (http://docuniverse.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-halloween-curse-of-michael-myers.html)

Anyway, she soon learns that her father has been killed by a man named Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey) whom the family was looking out for (no, he is not related to Dick Cheney, though that would be fun, wouldn't it?). She travels into town, acting overly precocious to everyone she meets, before she eventually converses with the Duke himself. And guess what?! He plays a cowboy in this movie! But this is not like the other cowboys that Wayne has played in the past. This one has an eyepatch. Don't you love diversity?! Okay, to be technical about it, he actually plays a deputy U.S. Marshall named Reuben "Rooster" J. Cogburn, an abrasive alcoholic who has a tendency to kill the fugitives he hunts. Hey, I am starting to like this movie now! Mattie decides that he is the right man for the job to track down Chaney. Cogburn is uninterested at first, but after getting some compensation and the promise to settle an old score with another outlaw, he agrees. They are joined by a Texas Ranger named Le Boeuf (singer Glen Campbell), and no, he has no connection to Shia LaBeouf...thank god. Granted, Le Boeuf is mildly annoying at the beginning, but he ends up getting really pissed off with Mattie, so I found a soft spot for him, even though that is a little unfair given that every character gets rightfully pissed off with Mattie at some point or another.

Besides Mattie, my other problem with this movie is that nothing really happens in it. There are these scenes of Mattie arguing with a guy (Strother Martin) in order to get him to pay her money which could have been done off-screen. Along with this, the first half of the film mostly consists of the three main characters negotiating prices with one another, Mattie acting annoying, and Cogburn and La Boeuf butting heads with one another, though Cogburn seems to dismiss his younger traveling companion for the most part. I can't really blame him; it's not really a contest when you have the official "Man" of cinema going against a country music singer who looks and talks less like Chuck Norris and more like Jon Voight's Joe Buck character from "Midnight Cowboy" (strangely, both this movie and "Grit" were released in the same year; coincidence?). My point being is that there is little action and the dialogue between the characters is for the most part disengaging.

The second half of the film improves a little bit, but not much. They finally find Chaney (shock, he is annoying as well), along with the posse that he was seeking refuge with, lead by the outlaw that Cogburn was looking for named Ned Pepper, played by a young Robert Duvall. I...don't get Duvall's character in this movie. He is built up as this really dangerous outlaw, but when we see him, he seems more like a negotiator than a deadly enemy. God damn, why does everyone keep negotiating in this film! It's a John Wayne movie, somebody shoot someone! Eventually, there actually is a big shootout between Cogburn and Pepper's posse. I admit that it is pretty fun...it also comes across as illogical and recklessly dangerous, but still fun. The rest of the film deals with plot holes and a rattlesnake and some other stuff that I will not bother going into.

There were some parts of the film I liked. The visuals are nice-looking and Elmer Bernstein's main theme is reminiscent of his earlier work in The Magnificent Seven, which if you have ever heard will know that it is awesome. And despite everything I have already mentioned, I also liked John Wayne. True, Cogburn is not that much different from some of the other characters he has played in the past, but this one somehow appears to be more charming and upbeat. It might be perhaps that Wayne was at the point in his career where he knew what the audience had come to expect from him, and he had learned enough to know how to do it. I also like his last scene in the movie...mmm I will keep quite about it in case you still want to see it for some reason. It is therefore unfortunate that this good performance has to be pigeonholed into this disappointment of a movie.

So is this a bad movie? I wouldn't go that far. I would just say that it is a mediocre one. There are some elements that work, but the lame supporting characters and a slow plot combine to make it so that even the Duke cannot save the picture. Obviously, this is a supposed to be a classic and a lot of people have a great deal of respect for it or are interested in seeing it, which is fine, but if you are only a causal film fan, I do not recommend it. Coen Brothers, your turn. You already disappointed me with your own "classic" (I recently watched the overrated "Miller's Crossing"), so you better make this new version of "Grit" a more enjoyable experience than the original was able to offer.

P.S. By the way, for those of you who are frequent visitors of this site, you will be horrified to know that Dennis Hopper is in this film as well. Wow, he really did used to show up everywhere! That being said, he is only on screen for about five minutes or so, during which he complains about being shot in the leg and rats out Ned and his posse before he gets his fingers chopped off and stabbed, dying from his wounds not long afterward. Was he the real reason the picture failed? Sure, why not? Better than having to complain about Mattie all the freakin' time!

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Starring: Henry Fonda, Claudia Cardinale, Jason Robards, Charles Bronson, Gabriele Ferzeti

Directed by Sergio Leone

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064116/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_the_West

"Once Upon a Time in the West" is the kind of movie you fall in love with. It shows all the aspects that people have come to enjoy about the western genre, and through the eyes of complex characters as they struggle, fail, and prosper in a live-or-die environment.

It starts off with a group of robbers standing around at a train track. And that is it; they just stand there, drinking water and investigating the actions of a fly for about 5-10 minutes. And yet it is fascinating to watch. They are then confronted by Charles Bronson, who plays a role similar to the one played by Clint Eastwood in Sergio Leone's other "Spaghetti westerns": he does not have a real name, is generally a loner, and does not talk very much. Unlike Eastwood's character, however, his is motivated by personal reasons rather than money. He is also different in the fact that he frequently plays what has to be one of the creepiest harmonica ever (and he is consequently refereed to as "Harmonica" as the film progresses). Its haunting sound does not always spell doom...but sometimes it does.

In the following scene, a family by the surname of McBain is about to welcome their matriarch, who is arriving from New Orleans at a nearby train station. However, they are brutally murdered on their farm by a gang of outlaws lead by Frank, portrayed by the legendary Henry Fonda in a role where he plays against type. His calm demeanor and soft blue eyes that brought a sense of humility to his other characters make this role even more sinister. Although his action show that he posses a certain level of intelligence, he is too cold-blooded to be anything more than a killer.

When Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale) first arrives, she observes the town around her in what is one of the best shots of the whole film. It shows everyone just going about their daily lives before entering the outskirts, revealing the beautiful mountains of Monument Valley in Utah where it was filmed. It is set to the brilliant score by Ennio Morricone, who is basically to Leone what John Williams is to Spielberg. On a side note, the whole soundtrack to this film is brilliant, from the aforementioned harmonica tune, the main theme which I just mentioned and even the humorous "trotting" music that is played later on. It just really sets the tone for the movie and this scene is the perfect example of it.

Before arriving home, she goes into a shop where she meets Harmonica, as well as Cheyenne (Jason Robards), a crude outlaw who nonetheless has a heart and ends up. When she finds that her family is dead, her mourning is brief and her tough personality makes her decide to remain where she is in order to make a new life for herself, becoming a symbol of self-reliance and individualism that helped propel the West into a established part of American culture.

It turns out that her family was killed because her husband had refused to hand over his land to a railroad baron named Morton (Gabriele Ferzeti) who is in collaboration with Frank. Morton is a surprisingly sympathetic villain because, although he does posses a sense of monetary greed, his real goal is to have is railroad reach the Pacific Ocean before he succumbs to tuberculosis, which is slowly crippling him. It is interesting to see him and Frank interact with each other because even though they are technically partners, they have different goals and ways of getting things accomplished...and they do not get along very well. Frank thinks that he is physically and emotionally weak, while he believes that Frank is a wild man who is too dangerous to be associated with. As a result, the uneasy relationship slowly but surely deteriorates.

On the other side of the conflict, Jill, Cheyenne, and Harmonica, despite not always being on the best of terms themselves, manage to form an alliance in order to defend the farm. Meanwhile, Jill discovers her late husband's (Frank Wolff) plans and decides to pursue them. I will not say what they are, but they continue the whole theme of a new beginning for the people who live in the West.

In short, this film is a masterpiece. The great acting, fantastic music, and wonderful story all come together into this wonderful work of art. Almost needless to say, It is one of my personal favorite movies of all time. I definitely recommend it.