High Plains Drifter (1973)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Written by: Ernest Tidyman

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Billy Curtis, Verna Bloom, Marianna Hill, Billy Curtis

As I began my cinematic symbiosis with this 1973 Western (Eastwood's second film behind the camera), I was expecting something moderately decent, oddly convinced it was a mid 80's effort in a declining genre (mixed it up with Pale Rider).  However I became utterly befuddled upon the discovery that it was actually made a whole decade earlier, when Eastwood was arguably at the top of his game with classics like Dirty Harry and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly under his belt.  Upon this revelation 5 minutes into the film, I realized I might be in for an impressive surprise.  105 minutes into the film (meaning the credits were over), it was impressive, albeit nowhere near the greatness of Spaghetti Westerns and Eastwood's final Cowboy opus, Unforgiven

The eponymous drifter (again, Eastwood playing a “man with no name”) arrives in a surreal and serene coastal town.  With no clear evidence of interest, save for some arguably defensive killing and unapologetic sexual assault, the drifter (how he'll be known from here on out) becomes the town's salvation as they await the return of three murderers just released from prison.  To keep their hero, the townsfolk give away the key to the city, but in the process may also be giving away their souls as the drifter takes and does anything he may without any clear evidence it's for the town's own good.

Worthy of being known as a revisionist western, High Plains Drifter succeeds as an oddball standout in the genre.  Right from the beginning, Eastwood strives to show a difference in his character from previous "revisionist" westerns by Sergio Leone: the protagonist is slightly dislikable.  As we continue through the film however, none of these characters reveal a very positive or likable nature (save for the dwarf Malacki, played by Billy Curtis).  One can't help but wonder at what the drifter intents with the changes he make throughout the town; possibly revenge, boredom, or a combination of the two.  Even as we receive clues in the form of flashbacks and morality discussions, we never completely know, keeping a fresh sense of ambiguity and complication to the film making it all the more fascinating. 

For sure, while beautiful yet stark symbolism populates the picture in an effort to guide and showcase possible answers, morality is clearly shown to be a gray matter.  Are the townspeople really that different from the homecoming murderers?  Who was truly responsible for the heinous act at the center of the story?  As the film suffers from a dated soundtrack and feel, and even though it pales in comparison to other genre picks he's been involved with, Eastwood shows his skill as a storyteller not completely content with just being in front of the camera.  Even with moderately dull moments containing some poor acting from a few supporting players,  we are shown a fairly original piece of cinema, one that could be argued as more existentialist dark comedy than the western genre piece as touted.

Tidbit: While the studio wanted to use their back lot for the set, Eastwood opted for a real location where the town you see on screen was completely built from scratch. 

Drink of Choice:  I hate to do this again after High Noon, but it's gotta be whiskey.  Granted, you could go with something like Buffalo Trace instead of Pendleton’s like before, but as it's showcased here, whisky must win out. 

Really, a TRUE revisionist film would change the drink up; how bout giving the hero a Mojito?!

Evidence of Love (1990)

This flick qualifies as a “Streaming Roulette”, a segment whereby I take a movie from my consistently maxed out Neflix Queue, check it, and bring it back to you.  As such, even though there is no random movie generator here, I regard it as a fairly random process since the original reasoning behind my adding the film is no longer completely apparent.

This here be the first film I’ve ever seen by independent auteur Stephen Gyllenhaal (father of my doppleganger, Jake).  Starring Brian Dennehy (excited any time I see his name, despite the automatic association with the B movie bin) and Barbara Hershey (excited any time I see her period), I expected based on the title, the date (1990) and the cover art, that I would be watching a wannabe erotic murder mystery.  But you know what they say: book covers are for chumps.  

Note: (I might be slightly off on the quote, though I definitely know it came from Tolstoy) 

Based on a true story, seemingly innocent Candy Morrison (Barbara Hershey) is accused of the murder of the wife of equally boring Stan Blankenship (John Terry), with whom she previously had an affair.  Regardless, local attorney Ed Reivers (Brian Dennehy) represents Candy, disregarding any possible notion that she could be guilty of such a heinous act.   Right from the beginning with Candy’s slightly suspicious behavior, we know we’re in for a psychological bent of the mundane kind.

With all major story points seemingly expected and presented on a platter, there is no place to look for much entertainment or mystery here.  Candy obviously killed this woman; she’s acting odd, she was involved with the deceased's husband, and she’s got a frightening head of curly hair (come ON people; Barbara Hershey is supposed to have long, straight, flowing, and beautiful hair).  Even though the writers don’t take long to reveal this clear fact, the “twist” they head for at the end doesn’t help matters.  The true story aspect of the film could asist if the happenings in the story really did occur as portrayed, but disbelief plagues it heavily.

This “made-for-tv” movie or teleplay (surprising at first; not surprising at the end) is also called A Killing in a Small Town; a title more representative of the simple and straightforward story.  It also avoids preconceptions given by the current title of a “made-for-tv” Basic Instinct ripoff  (again, Chekov was right about book covers).  However, viewing it as such may help to lift one's opinion.  Just as well, the film is not without deserved praise: Hershey is mostly effective, disappearing into her role and providing histrionics without too much melodrama.  Dennehy shows up and phones it in, but Dennehy in any fashion is always a welcome addition, as is Hal Holbrook making an appearance in the second half (his voice is active in the first).  Performances aside though, as well as respectable restraint by Gyllenhaal and crew in avoiding overdramatic music and camera work, along with a note-worthy nonlinear story presentation, this “true story” found me struggling to find purpose throughout.  Had I immediately known it was going to go this route, I would’ve turned on F/X (a Brian Dennehy classic!).

Tid bit: Barbara Hershey won an Emmy AND a Golden Globe for this.

Extra tid bit: I’ve haven’t won an Emmy OR a Golden Globe… but I’ve never sunk so low as to have curly hair neither! 

Drink of choice: Texas Tea.  Besides hailing from the same state as Evidence of Love, this concoction shares a thematic element.  With equal parts tequila, rum, vodka, gin, whiskey, triple sec, sweet and sour mix, and Coca-Cola, it may sound and look like a good idea at the time, but upon consumption and reflection, you should’ve had Busch Light (or watched F/X).

Femme Fatale (2002)

Plot:  crazy sexy woman robs some stuff and falls into strange situation where she's French (Laure) but not (Lily), and can travel to alternate universes like Quinn Mallory in Sliders... could be cool...

Review: But it's not!  Man oh man has Brian De Palma fallen off his steed over the past decade (maybe 2...).  I believe he had some interesting notion behind the writing and directing of this film, maybe quite a gem in his head, but his poor execution (everyone else included) led to what really appeared to be a meandering and shallow thriller with a dash of eroticism.

First major problem: is De Palma suffering from dementia?  This story moves around without any cohesive nature, first appearing as provocative heist movie but quickly leading into an improbable time travel film, or characters suffering from multiple personality disorder.  This random nature is not exciting, intriguing, or welcome; it is mostly bothersome and annoying, causing the viewer to scoff more than an 18th English lord watching Problem Child 2.

Rebecca Romijn (Stamos or no Stamos); looks very really cute, but cannot act.  Maybe the former was the only reason she was hired, maybe they thought she could rise to the occasion; either way, she is slightly fun in all the wrong ways.  Antonio Banderas and Peter Coyote (a senator who ignorantly marries Laure/Lily) perform fine with their characters, while everyone else seems to fall flat.

De Palma, behind such works as Scarface, Carrie, and Casualties of War, obviously has talent (The Untouchables is truly amazing; check it now if you haven't seen it).  The question is whether or not he cares to use it anymore, with recent drivel like The Black Dahlia, Snake Eyes, and Mission to Mars (liked part of it). 

After watching this, I was shocked to see other actually appreciated it to an EXTREME extent, arguing that it held special and ridiculous meaning and symbolism related to film noir and cinema in general.  Part of this was clear in the beginning with Double Indemnity on a television, but I must admit I felt as though I had missed the true meaning and needed to view the movie once again.... until I realized that if the director meant to get that across, he should've actually done it instead of making a sub par attempt at entertainment involving priceless golden underwear (don't worry, this is in the beginning of the film, so you won't have to suffer the whole way through it).  

 

Flyboys (2006)

Plot:  Young naïve Americans join the Lafayette Escadrille to become the first fighter pilots of World War I… no more is necessary (or deserved). 

Review:  I can’t say I have an inkling as to why this film showed up on my doorstep.  I know I put it in my queue for some reason, but it took so long to reach the top, I had all but forgotten why.  Regardless, I thought it would be alright if I turned it on and simply let it waft over me if it turned out totally mindless…well, I now believe there are reasons why movies won’t play right away, as this one proceeded with error, and yet I still tried to get it working; why would I do such a thing when obviously God was trying to save my soul.

This film can be summed up as “Wannabe World War One Top Gun Sans Beach Fun”, except not even that good.  We proceed through the “story” (wayyyy to long at approximately 140 minutes) watching every cliché character walk around, look up, learn to fly, fly, awkwardly fall in love, awkwardly talk, make goofy gestures while flying, and battle in putrid CGI-scapes, all the while making me moan and grown so loud Jean Reno heard me and called to apologize for my inconvenience (Reno plays the French Commander, the “almost” saving grace of the film).

Academy Award Winning Director Tony Bill (?!?!) gives off the impression of infallible respect for the people and events this story revolves around, just not for the story itself.  Maybe the script was poisonous from the beginning, but surely Mr. Bill could’ve used his Oscar skills and detected imbecilic acting coming from every actor on set, including our star James Franco (just recently nominated for 127 Hours…saying he made great strides in his acting ability is an understatement) and the John Belushi look-alike (maybe my favorite character?).  At least the lion was alright…

Terrible video game graphics, utterly horrid acting, stale and suicide-inducing dialogue…being overly dramatic here, but seriously, this is all wrong.  If it had premiered on TBS, I might appreciate it more (psh, at all) as it definitely had that quality going with it.  Everything supports it, what with ridiculous decisions made by characters, or ludicrous subplot tangents leading to jokes that fall flat, just like the Black Falcon (STUPID MOVIE SPOILER ALERT: SMSA) the villain who finally gets his comeuppance after being mentioned throughout the movie in scenes where we already knew who the characters were talking about, but they mention his name anyway…sigh. 

In fact, this movie will get a slightly passing grade from me; everything I’ve mentioned can lead to depression, but can also lead to moments of unintentional laughter throughout; either way, please consult a doctor before viewing.