Sorcerer (1977)

Dir: William Friedkin

Starring: Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal

Friedkin’s swan song was released after the tremendous success and acclaim of both “The French Connection” (1971) and “The Exorcist” (1973), which earned him two Golden Globes and one Academy Award. These three movies, as a whole, represent the director’s finest achievement and display his storytelling skills in dealing successfully with a wide range of themes. “Sorcerer” is his homage to the French cinema: his main source of inspiration (the movie is a remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “The Wages of Fear” (1953)) and, perhaps due to that fact, it is also the best movie he believes he ever directed.

Plot: Four men with different backgrounds escaped from the problems they faced in their own lives and are currently living in South America. From an American oil company comes very risky mission that is offered to them, one that would allowed them to regain the honor and former lives but carries a heavy collateral fee: their lives.

“The truth and nothing but the truth”: Before going on about the different aspects of the movie that had a positive impact in me, like in past reviews, I must state the main negative point the affects the movie: Roy Scheider. Yes, yes he’s a two time Academy Award nominee and one of those nominations was on a leading role, but Scheider can’t hold the main billing on an action movie. He played second to Hackman in “The French Connection” and shared the leading task with Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss in “Jaws” (1975). Friedkin’s original choice for the lead was Steve McQueen, an actor who cannot be compared to anyone else of today’s Hollywood elite who can pass by an action hero actor. Sadly, McQueen passed on the movie and we are stuck with Scheider, who cannot live up to the character he’s playing and who fortunately was wise enough to pass on the main role in “The Deer Hunter” (1978) to Robert DeNiro.

That being said, this movie is the perfect example of what the “New Hollywood Era” (1967-1980) produced. A time when the Altman’s, Lucas, Spielberg’s, Scorsese’s, Friedkin’s, Cimino’s etc. etc. etc. indulged their own visions and ideas  at the expense of the studios.

Having not watch the French original, I’m biased on my opinion and therefore I’ll refrain from using the expression “one of the best remakes ever made” on this review (I use it freely whenever I mention “The Thing” (1982), though)

The movie represents a first time a truly international cast is assembled a fact that perhaps wasn’t well received by general audiences back in the US. Also, the fact that one week later a small movie called “ Star Wars” (1977) was released and drove audiences wild, and led Friedkin to utter the following remark (not a direct quote, but along the lines of…): “Star Wars did to Movies what McDonalds did to food: the taste to real food is gone”, slightly hurt this movie’s chances.

Anyway, the storytelling is intense (SPOILER !) with the Israel bombing sequence being filmed actually in Jerusalem and featuring actual footage of an explosion that occurred during the crew’s stay (END SPOILER!) and after the introduction of the four main characters and the allocation of the crew into the two trucks it’s non-stop suspense throughout the whole ride. The interaction among the characters who actually find out that they aren’t so different from one another is quite satisfying. The true scene stealer is Bruno Cremer’s Victor Mazon (a.k.a. Serrano), who perhaps had the most easily situation one could possible identify with.

Of course there’s your certain dose of symbology, starting with the movie’s title, which according to the director aims at reflecting the values of fate, future and uncertainty along with the comprehension of life, freedom, past, uncertainty, and the ultimate price one pays for his own mistakes are very well exemplified in this movie, (to a further extent than in “Runaway Train” (1985), my prior review).

The great soundtrack by the German instrumental group, Tangerine Dream, adds the final flavor to an already tense movie and is one of the highlights of this masterpiece. Moreover, the two year location scouting carried out by the director is visible on the outstanding visuals yielded by the backdrop of the South American jungle (actually it was filmed in the Dominican Republic).

Unfortunately, an underrated movie which “bombed” at the box-office due mostly to timing, as was already said. After this Friedkin made some poor choices with “To Live and Die and LA” (1985) his best effort since “Sorcerer”. The beginning of the end of era which terminated with the studio-wrecking creative fiasco of Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate” (1980).

Currently some disagreements between the director and the studios withhold the released of this classic on DVD, but hopefully in the near future the fans will be treated with a special edition with the extras and commentaries that they deserve.

“Money-Shot”: The sequences involving the trucks and the suspended bridge are exhilarating. An outstanding example of filmmaking without resorting to any excessive special effects and still able to deliver a realistic scene that drives the viewers to the edge of their seats.

Bottom-Line: 8/10. An excellent movie that ranks as Friedkin’s last masterpiece. Recommended to those who can really appreciate an action movie with some real storytelling and can overcome the few slow paced scenes that are contained on this movie. A dark and gritty movie that reflects the directors very own style.

But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…

Runaway Train (1985)

Dir: Andrey Konchalovskiy

Starring: Jon Voight, Eric Roberts, Rebecca De Mornay

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of action movies, but lately (“lately” as in for the last 10 years) overproduction has taken over and very little innovation as occurred. So it’s hard to come by with an action classic that can overcome the benchmark that is “Die Hard” (1988), which would actually be described by a former teacher of mine as “an action movie with panache”.

Anyways, “Runaway Train” carries a concept diametrically opposed to your typical action movie.

Plot: Two escaped convicts from a prison in Alaska attempt make their way into freedom by entering an out-of-control freight train. With the local authorities in pursuit, both convicts find themselves trapped in a vehicle that is both their salvation and also their death.

“The truth and nothing but the truth”: After browsing around the plot, the viewer will think: “Been there, done that, paid $10 to see “Unstoppable” (2010) and felt ripped off”. Having not seen the aforementioned movie (but read a bit about it), I won’t be able to draw comparisons between the two, but I felt it was a similar concept movie to which readers who have failed yet to watch “Runaway Train” can set their expectations upon.

For starters, the movie is based under a script penned by Akira Kurosawa, the master behind “Seven Samurai” (1954) and “Ran” (1985). How many action scripts have actually been created by one of the best directors and storytellers of all the time? Well, “The Fast and Furious Part 6: More Fuel, Sucka!” is still under wraps so we still may be surprised and find Paul Thomas Anderson delievering the script.

While the opening sequences at the prison have de rigeur scenes  played out a million times before , they are extremely effective in introducing Manny (Voight) and pointing out the motivation of a complex character unlike nothing he had played out before or since. Not being a Jon Voight fan (and basing my judgement on “Deliverance” (1972), “Coming Home” (1978) and “Ali” (2001)), I do feel that in this role he deserved his Academy Award nomination and his Golden Globe win.

The two prisioners and the crew member (De Mornay) are locked into a runaway vehicle, and while feeling trapped and powerless inside the train, they realize that what they hoped that would be there waiting for them at the end of the line isn’t the desired redemption but a continuance of what they felt at jail and now within the train. Manny and Buck’s dialogue about what the limited options they have in life is simple groundbreaking.

The police follows in pursuit with the prison’s warden following his very own personal vendetta against Manny. While this pursuit pales in comparison with the one’s witnessed in, say “The Fugitive” (1993), the storyline isn’t hurt by it, as that is not the main focus of the movie, and the existing sequences are very well directed.

Finally, we have the backdrop story of the railway controllers whose main goal is to keep the vehicle going and reaching a final and safe destination. Not much is added from this storyline that hasn’t been seen in a row of movies from “Cassandra’s Crossing ” (1976) to “Speed” (1994).

The action is non-stop, from the prison break early in the movie to the train sequences, all set under the Alaskan wintery backdrop with an outstanding cinematography as well as premium stunt action.  Moreover, Trevor Jones delivers a good soundtrack more synth-sound oriented, an 80’s must, and far from his superior work heard in Sylvester Stallone’s “Cliffhanger” (1993). The ending scene is simply breathtaking and it’s simply sad that the director couldn’t replicate his craft throughout his following movies.

“Money-Shot”: One of the many attempts to stop the train that drives Buck (Roberts) out of the train while attempting to jump from one train wagon to the next under strong adverse weather conditions. Suspense at its best

Bottom-Line: 8/10. Since “Sorcerer” (1977), one of my all time favorite movies, haven’t I seen such combination of action and storytelling. Of course, I do not recommend this movie to everyone, especially all of those action movie aficcionados who felt that “The Killer Elite” (2011) was robbed from the Oscars. Still any fan of “Die Hard” should give this one a try….~

But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…

Prometheus (2012)

Dir: Ridley Scott

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Tom Hardy

Two things the readers must know before going further into this post:

1) I liked “Alien” (1979). For all it’s worth, I think that “Alien” is an excellent movie. But…I like “Aliens” (1986) best.

2) My personal opinion towards the director, Ridley Scott. He is an irregular director with an inconsistent work portfolio. He can easily deliver an outstanding piece of work (“Alien”, “Blade Runner” (1982), “Gladiator” (2000), “Black Hawk Down” (2001)) and also deliver sub-par works that have bombed with the critics and the audiences alike (“1492” (1992), “Kingdom of Heaven”(2005)). He fails to connect with general audiences most of the times and while some of his earlier movies now-called all time classics, such as “Blade Runner”, which initially underperformed at the box office, have manage to evolve into becoming fans and critics favorites, the same cannot be said about most of his recent body of work. That being said we now move to the review itself:

Plot: A trillion dollar worth expedition led by the Weyland Corporation takes a team of scientists across the universe on the spaceship “Prometheus”, on the search for alien life form who is believed to have contact humans throughout the ages.

“The truth and nothing but the truth”: After a tremendous hype, assumptions and connections with the original Alien saga and even a remark from Scott himself, who stated the idea of filming “Prometheus” as a two part movie the expectations were huge.  The movie itself tries to be a stand-alone work and for most of its run it actually achieves it, but throughout the movie several moments recall you of the first time you actually watched “Alien” and that actually hurts the movie, as for example in several shots Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw actually passes by as an Ellen Ripley 2.0 (BTW, pay special attention to the fact that the two aforementioned movies take place in completely different planets, a fact that was wildly ignored by several viewers and critics alike). While the polarized masses state there are plot holes, I can’t help but feel that those were deliberately put there by Ridley Scott as a “food for thought” device, and while this allows viewers to individually experience the movie in different ways it would be nice to actually have a few more hints on how to guideline our thoughts and avoid over-analyzing and seeing things that aren’t actually there. “Prometheus” is a movie about aliens as much as “The Deer Hunter” (1978) is about Vietnam. The movie is about beliefs, creation, faith and God and well…a bit about aliens as well. 

(SPOILERS AHEAD!) The Engineers themselves are pretty much human-like in the same fashion that Bible states WE were created in GOD’s image. The final confrontation between the superior beings and the Nostromo…ermm….Prometheus crew, in which David (Fassbender) actually talks to one of the Engineers is, in my opinion, a remarkable scene, where according to my interpretation the creator sees the creation achieving an equal level breaking the stipulated hierarchy and disrupting the power balance, implying that the creation has actually become too powerful and therefore must destroyed.

A “Deckard is a replicant or not?”-like debate also arises in this movie, this time about Theron’s Meredith Vickers. My opinion: No, she isn’t a robot (and No Deckard isn’t a replicant in “Blade Runner”).

(YOU MAY RETURN TO THE READING!) Regarding performances, kudos to Michael Fassbender, who is able to deliver an excellent performance standing out from the rest of the cast. As this is a plot-driven movie, not much character development occurs within the movie (pretty much like in “Alien”). Still the overall performances aren’t passed on as dull or static with some considerable interaction occurring between some team members.

The atmosphere seen back in 1979 was a dark, claustrophobic and deep down scary, with the Nostromo commercial carrier being the perfect set for the action. The combination of Dan O’Bannon’s screenplay, Scott’s direction and Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtrack were perfect and are the reason behind the movie’s success (See the teaser for “Alien” below)

“Prometheus” doesn’t replicate the same atmosphere and all in all isn’t able to present a hostile environment that leaves you on the edge of your seat, but a more calm and less threatening environment oriented towards exploration and not towards escape. Still the slow-paced development seen in “Alien” is clearly witnessed here.

A proposed sequel would actually be a problem: viewers complain about lack of information and apparent plot holes and lack of sense. A sequel would either:

     a)      Ram down explanations at a fast pace that would stupefy the first movie and audiences (and not necessarily by this order)

      b)      Leave more questions unanswered (recall that the script was written by Damon Lindelof, the guy from the TV Show “LOST” (2004-2010) and we all know how that turned out to end)

Either way, a sequel is a bad idea. The point is: the movie has flaws and one of them is actually leaving the audience to guess much of the movie. But viewers cannot expect the “Meaning of life according to Ridley Scott” in less than 3 hours, so any addition to what has already been done would actually ruin not only one but two movies.

“Money-Shot”: In my opinion, the defining moment of the movie lies in the opening scene, which sets the tone for the whole movie, and leaves you wondering right before the credits have started to play.

“Show me the Money”- Regarding the US box-office performance, with a somewhat strong opening weekend ($ 51.050.101, source: boxofficemojo), at par with your typical summer season opening and benefiting from the overcharged 3D tickets, the movie still didn’t manage to hold the top spot losing it to “Madagascar 3”, a heavy decline of about 45% can be expected on the second weekend and with the openings of the R-rated comedy “Ted”, Pixar’s “Brave”, and the latest “Spider-Man” entry all premiering until the end of the month the following weekends won’t be kind on “Prometheus”, as the summer audiences aren’t looking for a head scratcher unless there’s a Christopher Nolan tag associated to it (See “Inception” (2010)).

My final number guess is: Between $ 95 mil. - $ 120 mil. on US box office (with a long-shot of actually breaking even with its estimated $120 mil.-$130 mil. budget) with an additional $ 120 mil. - $ 150 mil. on Overseas Revenue.

Bottom-Line: 7/10. A movie that will generate discussion for years to come and will polarize audiences on a worldwide scale. While I found it a thrilling experience, a bittersweet taste at the end and the feeling that the movie was 10-15 minutes away from excellence led me to give this movie a solid "7". A clear division between viewers who have actually watched “Alien” before “Prometheus” and those who have watched it after it. My advice is to you consists in watching the original “Alien” while at the same time avoiding (if possible) any trailers or teasers or even clips of associated with this movie. Then, gather all your friends and discuss away the movie (specially with a drink or two on the table).

But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…

Movie Reviewer: A guy with an opinion

Well I finally did it. I created my own blog. The reason behind such action that occupies a small portion in the wide world of the web is simple: because I can. And from that’s as good a reason as any. Another key aspect that led me to this lies in the fact that very often my friends and family come to me and ask what did I think about a given movie, and the answer is a 2 hour analysis of the goddamn movie, it’s box office performance and my very own input about how could I have improved it if I had directed it. 15 minutes after I have started talking, 90% of the “audience” has actually dozed off. So, the creation of a blog poses as an adequate solution, as it would allow anyone to actually select what they really want to know about my opinion regarding a given movie (assuming they actually WANT to hear about it in the first place). 

Regarding the scope of movies reviewed, not only will I analyze the most recent releases but also any recently seen movie I have found relevant to comment on.

I’ll bottom-line my final appreciation of the movie with a quick conclusion at the end of each analysis (allowing you to skip the big text) and grade it with a classic 0-10 scale (with 10 being the highest and 0 the lowest). Comments and feedback will be deeply appreciated.

Thanks,

BT