Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood (2019)

Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino 

Cast: Margot Robbie, Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Michael Madsen, Emil Hirsch, Kurt Russell, Luke Perry 

The god of cinema decided to make another one so of course I had to go see it. Movie buffs like me live for days like this, when a legendary filmmaker releases his new masterpiece upon an unsuspecting universe. As you can see, with every Tarantino film there comes a certain expectation of greatness for me. It goes without saying that I am a full blown Tarantino fan since day one, when I first saw Pulp Fiction back in ‘94 and felt a bucket of cold ice being poured down my cinematic back. But time has passed and as Tarantino himself has said, directors do not make their best movies in their heyday. And Tarantino is close to what he calls his ‘heyday’.  But whatever, I don’t subscribe to that idea, I mean, Scorcese is still amazing and he's close to hitting 80 as I write this. It’s true, that directing a film is a “young person’s game” but Tarantino isn’t that old yet. He still has it in him to hammer out a few good ones. So, was this one of his “good ones”?

 Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is as the title suggest, a huge love letter to Hollywood, filmmaking, actors and life in L.A. during the end of the 60’s. We follow Rick Dalton, an actor who’s afraid of being a has been and his stunt man Cliff Booth. Together they go from gig to gig hoping that it isn’t their last. Somehow, they end up getting entangled with Charles Manson and his gang of zelot followers. The rest is fun times in La La Land, Tarantino style. 

 I’ve noticed this thing Tarantino’s been doing with his films. He takes a moment in history and totally changes it as if saying “this is how I wish it had happened!”. Remember how he burned Hitler and all his cronies in Inglorious Bastards (2009)? Of course we all know that’s not how it happened, but that’s how Tarantino wished it had. Well, Tarantino does the same thing here with Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of Charles Manson’s followers. It was a crime of pure hate and stupidity. Tate was pregnant and two weeks away from giving birth to her new child when these crazy Manson zombies killed her and her guests. Tarantino feels this was a great wrong, Tate was a beloved actress, she was loved for her looks and her talent and was a star on the rise. Tarantino decides to tell us the events that occurred that night, but in a completely different way, using Poetic Justice as his weapon. 

 Along the way, the film muses on the hardships of being an actor and trying to survive in Hollywood. What’s it like to have that pressure of delivering a great performance? What is the actors duty on a film or a television show? Tarantino also takes us on a stroll down Los Angeles 1969, with all the cinema marquees and automobiles from that era that you’d expect. I thought it was awesome how he brought that era to life, no digital effects to be seen I might add. A lot of scenes in the film are of characters just driving around L.A. streets so we can absorb the era. Granted, this film isn’t as profound as Inglorious Basterds (2009), there’s a decidedly lighter tone to the film, like a fun breezy vibe, a feeling enhanced by Brad Pitt’s character Cliff Booth, always smiling, his character serves as a counter part to the darkness of one of the films themes, Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of the Manson Family.

 Tarantino, Di Caprio and Pitt get together once again and I have to say the results are fantastic. Di Caprio delivers another amazing performance to his repertoire. I’ve always thought that Di Caprio is one of the best actors of his generation from day one when he blew me away in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and to be honest he continues to do so to this day. Love his performance on Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. A flawed, imperfect character struggling with his craft, worried about becoming useless in life. Brad Pitt turns in another loopy sort of happy go lucky stoner type, where nothing fades him, always the cool dude. His character reminded me of that stoner guy he played in True Romance (1993), it felt as if that character had grown up and become a stunt man in Hollywood. There are lots of cameos sprinkled all through out the film, we get Al Pacino playing a film producer and Kurt Russell as a stunt coordinator, in a way, it felt like he was perhaps playing the same character he played in Tarantino’s Death Proof (2007)? We also get a lot of Tarantino regulars like Zoe Bell, Bruce Dern and Michael Madsen, sorry, no Samuel Jackson this time around. 

 This is Tarantino’s 9^thfilm and there’s been a lot of talk about Tarantino saying that his next one, his tenth film, will be his last. Quite honestly I think they will milk that angle to death for his next film and make a profit out of it being “Tarantino’s 10^thand final film”, but I can almost guarantee that wont be the case. Tarantino’s love for cinema is too strong, a fact that’s evident by what we see in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. Tarantino has still got it and I don’t think it’s going anywhere, not even after he makes his 10^thfilm. But that’s just me and I could be horribly wrong so don’t quote me on that. As for Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, it’s a fun ride down the trippy 60’s. It’s a fun time at the movies that explores a dark chapter in Hollywood history while also exploring in a very entertaining way what it means to produce, act and direct films. A film buffs dream this movie is. 

Rating: 5 out of 5.  

The Hateful Eight (2015)

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Bruce Derns, James Parks, Zoe Bell,  

Right after I finished watching The Hateful Eight, I immediately tried pinpointing the films that influenced Tarantino while writing this one. I mean, most of his films are a smorgasbord of other films put together and blended into Tarantino’s own brand of storytelling. So anyhow, I swear to god, the two films I mentioned to my friend were John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) and Tarantino’s own Reservoir Dogs (1992). I couldn’t see other influences other than those two. I mean, in general, sure The Hateful Eight is influenced by Sergio Leone’s westerns and also The Magnificent Seven (1960), but the two films that came to mind the most were The Thing and Reservoir Dogs. I haven’t seen enough Western’s to know exactly all of the films he was influenced by, but I’m sure there are a zillion of them. Funny how normally Tarantino borrows from other filmmakers to make up a new film, yet this time, he’s feeding on himself for inspiration! He’s turned into an Ouroboros, eating his own tail! But more on that later. 

While researching The Hateful Eight for this review I discovered that Tarantino himself quoted The Thing and Reservoir Dogs as his main source of inspiration. I think it’s so eclectic and fantastic, that Tarantino is inspired by a science fiction horror film to make his new Western! In fact, John Carpenter’s The Thing was the only film that Tarantino showed the cast and crew to give them an idea of the kind of isolation that he wanted to capture with The Hateful Eight. Tarantino loves The Thing so much that he cast Kurt Russell and had the musical score composed by Ennio Morricone! I love the fact that Tarantino recognizes the awesomeness of Carpenter’s The Thing; it’s always been a favorite of mine. What Tarantino distilled from that picture was that dreadful feeling that you're in the middle of nowhere and no one can save you. You can literally cut the tension in The Thing with a knife. I have to say Tarantino nailed it. During The Hateful Eight, you truly feel like you are in the middle of nowhere with these characters. Shooting the film in the middle of these lonely mountains, and having the story take place in the middle of a raging blizzard was a brilliant idea! It’s a successful setting for the sort of tension filled story Tarantino wanted to tell with this film. 

The Hateful Eight is all about this bounty hunter called John Ruth. He is on his way to a town called Red Wood, accompanied by his prisoner, an evil lady named Daisy Domergue. He’s taking her to town to collect his money and to see her hang. Unfortunately, on his way there, a raging blizzard makes him take refuge in a cottage called ‘Minnies Haberdashery’, a place where you could come in, warm yourself, get a drink and a bite to eat. When he gets there, the place is populated by a group of individuals apparently seeking refuge from the storm as well. Who wants to kill who and why? Will they all survive the blizzard?

Tarantino’s idea for this film was locking up a bunch of mean bastards in a cabin in the middle of a raging blizzard to see what sort of situation develops. This being a Tarantino film, you can bet your ass, whatever is going to happen is going to be some fucked up crazy ass shit. First things first my friends, when you go watch The Hateful Eight you have to be ready for a film that takes its time in setting up characters and situations, this film is in no hurry to end. But trust me, you can be assured all the set up will pay off by the time the film ends. You know how film critics are always bitching and moaning that there’s not enough character development in films today? Well, you don’t have to complain about that here because there’s plenty of it. In fact, every single character has a back story, and every single one gets their chance to tell it, with all the detail and set up in the world. So be ready for that. But trust me, once things get rolling, well there’s no stopping this gravy train. Things get bloody and nasty, quick! In fact, I know Kill Bill (2003) was practically filmed in blood, but damn, The Hateful Eight has to be one of Tarantino’s bloodiest affairs! It certainly is extremely graphic. Kudos to the guys at KNB Effects group for supplying that good old fashion gore! It blew my head clean off!

Tarantino has always made meaningful films with “something to say”, I kept wondering what The Hateful Eight was going to be really about. You know, in the midst of all the blood and guts, was it all going to be worth it in the end? Or was The Hateful Eight just going to be a lot of senseless violence for violence sake? Of course it was all going to mean something! Tarantino isn’t about making empty movies, I don’t think he’s ever been about that. When I go and watch a Tarantino movie I always expect them to be about meaningful subject matter or at the very least fun and entertaining. I mean, even Death Proof (2007), which seems like simple, yet fun homage to car movies from the 70’s said something about female empowerment. His earlier films had more of a fun vibe to them, but from Inglorious Bastards (2009) onward, his films have taken on an even more meaningful tone. On The Hateful Eight, Tarantino revisits his favorite theme, the theme that has reigned supreme throughout his entire career; that old demon humanity can’t seem to exorcise just yet: racism. I have to say that he does so in an indirect manner, it’s subtle. You’ll almost come away from the film thinking it was simply ‘a fucked up tale’, but it’s only after the film mulls inside your skull for a couple of days that you realize that racism is at the very core of the film! While many object to Tarantino’s repeated use of the word ‘nigger’, I think its honest filmmaking. What’s the problem with showing things they way they were? In fact, if it bothers you every time you hear the word or every time they treat a black person unjustly in his films, then I think Tarantino is doing his job right. It shocks you because it’s wrong, but it also shocks because there’s no denying these things happened and continue to happen in our world. So put that in your pipe and smoke it next time you want to criticize Tarantino for using the word nigger.

Technically speaking, this film is beautiful. It gets extra points for going the old fashion way of shooting on location! In fact, it gets bonus points for doing everything old fashion, like using actual film and shooting on 70 millimeter. Hell, it gets extra points for telling an intriguing yarn, filled with characters that seem alive, intense and raw. The drama is there, so much so that the film, much like Tarantino’s own Reservoir Dogs (1992), feels like a theater play. Most of the film takes place in one location, just like Reservoir Dogs, and both are about questioning loyalty and spilling your guts…both literally and metaphorically. This is not to say that The Hateful Eight is a carbon copy of Reservoir Dogs, but the similarities are there. But with the old, there’s something new and the new comes in the form of new actors appearing for their first time in a Tarantino film, for example, Jennifer Jason Leigh who just chews the film up. I loved her intensity, her craziness and her willingness to just go nuts with her character. She really chews up the screen, same as everyone involved. And wow, you'll love Walton Goggins after this movie. Kurt Russell works like magic here, he aint the good guy, in fact, nobody here is the good guy. Everybody is freaking despicable, hence the title.

Final words on the whole thing is that this is very much a Tarantino film, you’ll hear that dialog and you know it’s a Tarantino film, you’ll hear his voice both through his dialog and literally, because at one point Tarantion actually becomes the narrator of the film! Ha! Brilliant! I loved that! I love it when Tarantino breaks the rules! He’s like “I’m telling this story!” I’m glad that Samuel L. Jackson convinced Tarantino to make this film even though the script leaked before the film was made. You see, once upon a time Tarantino was furious that his script was out there for all to see before he had even shot the thing, so he swore he wouldn’t shoot the film. But his cast convinced him otherwise and voila! We got another masterpiece from good old QT. The thing about Tarantino is that he wants you to remember that cinema is a place to hear stories, to talk about ourselves, to get lost in the reflections of humanity. There’s no rush here. You came to the cinema? You dragged your ass out to the movies? Then here’s a film to make it worth your while. I will always love Tarantino for making films that you don’t immediately forget the minute you walk out of the theater, please, Mr. Tarantino, keep it going kind sir! Keep reminding us why films matter!  

Rating: 5 out of 5         

   

Furious 7 (2015)

Furious 7 (2015)

Director: James Wan

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jason Statham, Kurt Russell, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Gal Gadot,  Elsa Pataki

If you’ve been following the Fast and Furious franchise, then you know the big expectation surrounding this seventh installment. If not then you should know that one of the main actors of the series, Paul Walker, died right smack in the middle of the production. Tragedy and irony joined forces, and he passed away while driving a fast car, just like the ones depicted in the movies. For a moment there the production floated in uncertainty. Would they scrap the project or pull on through and finish the film? Considering all the millions that had already been invested, of course they pulled through and finished the film, Hollywood has never been known to back down, even when death shows its ugly face. The interesting thing about this series of films is that each film has been more successful than the last with Furious 6 (2013) pulling in more than 700 million worldwide. So of course, a lot was expected of Furious 7. I mean, Fast 5 (2011) and Furious 6 (2013) were ultra explosive action films, bombastic in every way imaginable. It’s expected, in true Hollywood fashion that this seventh film would surpass anything seen before. Is Furious 7 more exciting and explosive then previous installments? How did they finish the film without Paul Walker?

So this time, everything revolves around something called “The God Chip” which is basically this chip that when installed can let you tap any camera, computer or phone anywhere, anytime. In this way making it an easy task to locate anybody in the world. Toretto and crew being the best at stealing things are contacted by a secret organization to take the chip from the bad guys and save the free world from evil. In the middle of all that, we have Jason Statham and Dominic Toretto, each on their private vendettas. Will Toretto and crew get the God Chip from the bad guys and save the world? Will Toretto and Statham ever kick each other’s asses?  

I grew up watching action movies from the 80’s so I’m always wondering where this generations Arnold Schwarzenegger is at. Where’s this generations Sylvester Stallone? Well, Furious 7 has answered me these questions. Furious 7 has gathered all the relevant action stars of today. I speak of Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham and Vin Diesel. These guys are the corner stone of any nutritious nitroglycerine extravaganza and it was cool to see them all together in a gargantuan action film like this one. Furious 7 is as if back in the 80’s Arnold, Stallone and Van Damme all made an action film together when they were in their prime. And it’s awesome to see all these modern action stars kicking each other’s asses  and walking away in slow motion from the explosions behind them. Did the movie make the best of this unification of testosterone?

Yes, Furious 7 has a lot of action in it, jumping from thrilling action scene to action scene, unfortunately, they blew their wad and the ending isn’t as exciting as I’d expected when compared to the previous films which ended with a bang. I’m sure this had a lot to do with the death of Paul Walker, because the death of a major cast member will bring the momentum of any production down a couple of notches. Still, it’s amazing that they pulled through and finished the film and delivered an entertaining fun ride. Just don’t expect the film to end with anything as awesome as cars jumping out of exploding air planes in a gigantic ball of flame. Still, Furious 7 has enough awesome action scenes to please any fan of this series of films. Check this out, we get a fight scene between Tony Jaa and Paul Walker! There’s a particularly thrilling scene in which the whole crew parachutes out of a plane while still inside of their respective cars! We get cars jumping from sky scraper to sky scraper, pretty cool stuff. Totally unrealistic, but who the hell cares cause its fun and we have fun characters to pull us through the cheesier stuff. And that’s really what holds this cheesefest together, the characters and the camaraderie between them.

It’s not easy to make a movie with so many characters in it, so you can expect some characters to get the cold shoulder in order to make way for others to take the center stage. Mainly, it’s the girls who get the shaft on this one. We don’t get much of Elsa Pataki, Jordana Brewster or Gal Gadot. But don’t worry, Michelle Rodriguez steps in for them with an awesome fight sequence with Ronda Rousey. Rodriguez also gets a chance to stretch her acting chops due to the resurrection of her characters romance with Vin Diesel. Vin Diesel gets to say a gazillion cheesy lines, every one of them as cringe worthy as the last. Every time Toretto talks I laugh because he’s always talking like his a wise man or a guru, spewing little golden nuggets of stupidity. He can never talk like a normal person, it’s always some cheesy over sentimental one liner like “I don’t have friends, I have family”, but call me crazy, I've grown to accept these terrible one-liners as part of what these films are. They went a little too far by turning Toretto into The Hulk at one point, but what the hell, again, I went with it. I can’t really complaint about that when I've already accepted so much.  So anyhow, you should have a blast with Furious 7. Of course, the film does end on a somber note because of Walker’s death. But they did edit a decent homage to his presence throughout the whole series and they do send him off to speedster heaven in fashion and style. I heard a couple of sniffles in the audience. No doubt this movie will make obscene amounts of money, and no doubt we’ll get another one. Honestly? I half way expect the team to be sent off into space for the next film.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

  

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Title: Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Kim Cattrall, Dennis Dun, James Wong, Victor Wong

Review:

You guys ever seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai (1984)? That’s the one in which Peter Weller discovers a way to go to other dimensions by traveling through solid matter? Well, anyways, at the ending of that film, a sequel entitled: Buckaroo Banzai vs. The World Crime League was promised. Unfortunately, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai didn’t make much money at the box office, so that sequel never came to be. But there’s this myth amongst hard core Buckaroo fans that says that Big Trouble in Little China is actually the unofficial sequel to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai. How did this rumor come about? Well, I didn’t know this until the other day when I reviewed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai and one of my readers pointed this fact out to me, but W.D. Richter, the guy who wrote The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai also wrote Big Trouble in Little China. That’s right my friends, these two nutty, misunderstood films come from the same brilliant mind. Kind of makes sense don’t it?

 For those not in the know, Big Trouble in Little China is a ghost story about Lo Pan, an ancient Chinese emperor who died centuries ago but is now looking for a way to become flesh again. Problem is he has to marry a girl with green eyes in order to do so. Enter Wang Chi and Jack Burton, two buddies who are on their way to the airport to pick up Wang’s girlfriend ‘Miao Yin’, a Chinese girl who’s coming from China to reunite with Wang, her fiancé. Unfortunately, before Wang and Miao Yin can reunite she is kidnapped by a group of thugs who work for Lo Pan, the ghost who wants to be a man. Apparently Miao Yin is the girl who can fit his bill. She does have green eyes after all! Will Wang and Jack have what it takes to infiltrate Lo Pan’s temple and rescue Miao Yin before she marries Lo Pan? Will Jack ever get his truck back?  

All he wants is his truck back

I started my review for Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai by comparing both of these films, and I didn’t even know they were related in this way! My brain somehow connected both of these films in the same review, which I think is really weird. So anyhow, in my review for Buckaroo I compared the two because both of these films are so offbeat and bizarre that the studios that produced them just didn’t know how to market them to the masses. These movies are what are known in the film industry as a “tough sell” something that Hollywood doesn’t like at all, they like their films to be easily marketable, with an easily identifiable target audience. Who do you sell a movie like Big Trouble in Little China to? If you ask me I would’ve just sold it as a modern day Kung Fu flick, which it essentially is, but apparently the marketing department at 20^th Century Fox didn’t know what the hell to do with this movie, so they invested very little into promoting it. Another film lost millions because studios couldn’t make heads or tails of the film. Strange how easily a studio can get cold feet with a production because they think it’s too weird and it won’t make any money. But time always proves all these silly producers wrong, and so Big Trouble in Little China has become a solid cult favorite. The people who love this movie, really love this movie. This proves once again that studio heads know jack, they’ll market the hell out of Transformers 2, a terrible film in my opinion, but won’t market Big Trouble in Little China, which was very obviously a good movie.

Truth is, Big Trouble in Little China is an easy movie to love. I’m a huge fan so excuse me if I gush about it for the next few paragraphs.  It has so many fun characters, they can’t seem to ever stop yapping, and the stuff they talk about is just hilarious. I mean, seriously, how many of you folks out there agree that Big Trouble in Little China is one of the most quotable films ever? I know right? In the dvd commentary for this film Carpenter and Russell call Jack Burton’s dialog ‘Burtonisms’ which are basically little golden nuggets of wisdom that the character of Jack Burton spews throughout the whole movie. I’m talking about thought provoking stuff like:  “It’s all in the reflexes” and “You’d have to be some kind of a fool to think we’re all alone in this universe!” Trust me, there’s more where those came from, and if I’m not back in ten minutes “call the president!”  So yeah folks, what we have here is one of those extremely quotable films. I haven’t been quoting this movie all my life for nothing!

Going back to the whole thing about Big Trouble in Little China being an unofficial sequel to Buckaroo Banzai, the real dirt on the story is this:  the film had originally been written as a western by two guys: Gary Goldman (this is one of the guys who wrote the script for Total Recall (1989)) and David Z. Weinstein.  Apparently this version of the film was going to prove to be too expensive! In that script they didn’t steal Jacks truck, they stole his horse! So anyhow, thing is the studio thought it was going to be a tough movie to produce so they brought in W. D. Richter to rewrite the thing, they wanted him to set the story in a contemporary setting, so that audiences could identify better with it; funny how they still managed to produce a film that didn’t connect with audiences! But anyways, W. D. Richter took the opportunity to inject elements into the Big Trouble in Little China script that were meant for the unproduced Buckaroo Banzai sequel! Knowing  this takes my enjoyment of the film to a whole different level! Now I’m always going to see Burton as the truck driving version of Buckaroo Banzai! 

Aside from all these Buckaroo Banzai connections, Big Trouble in Little China is an extremely entertaining movie on its own. What I personally enjoy about it is how crazy it gets. We’re talking about a Chinese ghost that wants to be flesh again so he can rule the universe from beyond the grave, or check into a psycho ward, whichever comes first! We’re talking about a movie where characters can have sword battles in mid air and ancient sorcerers have huge magic battles! This is a film in which we can see flying eye monsters that have telepathic abilities! A film with characters that can manipulate lightning and air! I mean, here’s a film with a ten foot tall ghost who shoots light out his eyes for crying out loud! This my friends, was John Carpenter’s version of a Shaw Bros. Fantasy/ Kung Fu movie and I loved every second of it. There’s no denying it’s an offbeat film, but that’s what I love about it. Even Russell himself was afraid of making it because he was afraid it’d be too weird. You see, Kurt Russell had done a series of box office bombs before Big Trouble in Little China (for example Carpenter’s own The Thing (1982)) and he didn’t want to make another one. Yet, he committed to the film anyways because Carpenter and Russell are not just co-workers, these guys are friends, they’ve been making films since Escape from New York (1981)! Russell and Carpenter understand each other, it’s something that’s quite obvious when you hear the dvd commentary for Big Trouble In Little China. According to both Russell and Carpenter’s commentary, the film was getting great results with tests audiences, so much so that they both thought it was going to be a hit! Unfortunately, thanks to 20^th Century Fox’s botched marketing techniques, no one knew about the film when it was released and so kaput, it died.

But a movie flopping in theaters does not equal a bad film, in rare occasions it’s quite the opposite, the film simply slipped by the public’s consciousness. It’s not our fault that the studio didn’t sell it to us properly, something that’s supposed to be their forte. So anyways, even though Big Trouble in Little China was a huge money looser for the studio, I The Film Connoisseur, guarantee you’ll have a good time with it. Think about this: in what other film are you going to see a underground Chinese temple with glowing neon nights? Or people who become Kung Fu Masters by drinking out of a seven demon bag? Nowhere but in Big Trouble in Little China that’s where! This is a film that openly embraces its fantasy roots and asks no questions about it. We have monsters, magic, and Kung Fu in this movie, what’s not to like? James Wong is great as Lo Pan; a brilliant performance in what in my opinion is the best role of his life. Russell, Cattrall, both of the Wongs and Dunn, they all make for a Motley Crue of crazy, funny, people who all act like they are high on coke, they reminded me of Buckaroo’s group of sidekicks, “ The Hong Kong Cavaliers”, aha! If you ask me, this is one of Carpenter’s best films; production values, visual effects and script wise, this movie is top notch every step of the way. At the very least it’s on my list of top five John Carpenter films.  It shouldn’t have bombed the way it did. But it’s all cool; we now have it on dvd and Blue Ray and it’s legions of fans grow every day. Oh and there’s a possible remake on the horizon! If it doesn’t work, just remember what Jack Burton always says at a time like this. Old Jack always says: “What the hell!”  

Rating:  5 out of 5  

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Title: Escape from L.A. (1996)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Steve Buscemi, Peter Fonda, Valeria Golino, Pamela Grier, Bruce Campbell, A.J. Langer

Review:

Escape from L.A. is a strange kind of film. When I first heard the news that a sequel to John Carpenter's  Escape from New York (1981) was being made I was excited to see the resulting film because not only was John Carpenter back behind the directors chair, but Kurt Russell was still going to play Snake Plissken! That’s really all I needed to know. Sadly, when I went to the theater to see it, I came out being disappointed. Where was all the darkness? Where was that terrifying post- apocalyptic world that I loved from the first film? Why were characters trying to be funny? Why was everything so silly? Why? Why? Why? Well, many years have passed since my initial disappointment with Escape from L.A. I’ve grown some, matured some. I had a chance to recently re-watch Escape from L.A. How do I see this film now?

Carpenter and Russell on the set of Escape from L.A.

Well, I honestly can’t bring myself to hate it. I see why I didn’t like it when it was first released, but I’ve grown to accept this film for what it is. It’s pure unadulterated campy fun. Funny thing is that a script was written for this film way back in 1985, by a guy called Coleman Luck, but Carpenter thought the script was too light and campy. What? X-squeeze me? Baking Powder? That’s exactly what Escape from L.A. turned out to be anyways! Ultra campy and ultra light; at least when compared to the first film which was so dark and brooding. Escape from New York was a film that took itself very seriously. Yeah it’s a science fiction film, but it was a decidedly serious one. Not many laughs or  jokes in sight. In contrast Escape from L.A. is colorful, filled with one joke after the another, and very, very campy. This movie is obviously making fun of itself. And to tell you the truth, I like that about it because it’s obviously what Carpenter and Russell were going for. So you’ll be better of just erasing your expectations for this film. If you haven’t seen this one yet, you have to go in expecting a different film than Escape from New York.

What makes Escape from L.A. so different? It’s all about the tone of the film, the look of it. While Escape from New York felt like a horror movie at times with it’s darkness and freaky looking characters, Escape from L.A. is actually well lit and colorful,  filled with comic book heroes, villains and one liners galore. Take for example the character called ‘The Surgeon General of Beverly Hills’ the one played by Bruce Campbell. This character feels like a comic book villain, like something out of an episode of the old Batman television show. He’s a surgeon general who has performed so much surgery on himself and on his patients, that they have disfigured their faces! He likes chopping up good looking people to use for his surgeries. This is a prime example of the kind of totally over the top characters you will find on this film. They aren’t particularly scary or intimidating like the villains on the first film, but they are entertaining none the less. And the comic book characters don't stop there my friends! Pamela Grier plays a transvestite who used to be Snake Plissken’s partner in crime! Steve Buscemi plays a double crossing tourist guide! Peter Fonda plays a surfer who likes to ride Tsunami tidal waves! And so on. But even though this film is filled with funny, entertaining characters such as the ones I’ve mentioned, this doesn’t make Escape from L.A. a bad film in book, just a different kind of film than its predecessor. 

Bruce Campbell's 'Surgeon General of Beverly Hills'

Both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. are decidedly anti-establishment films. They both have this cynical view of the government; in these films, the government is not to be trusted. There are terrorist attacks aimed at the government on both films. On the first one they hijack and crash Air Force One; forcing The President of the United States to fall into the hands of the freaks inside Manhattan. On this second one, the president’s own daughter is the one that rebels against the government and decides to live with the leader of the criminals; a guy called ‘Cuervo Jones’. And here’s what I liked about this movie. While it does criticize fascist forms of government, it also criticizes rebellious leaders who instigate their followers towards committing violent acts. So it doesn’t side with anyone. On this film, both sides are wrong. The film pleads for a new beginning, it’s asking governments to forget their old grudges and start from scratch. Snake himself says it in one scene: “I shut down the third world, you win, they loose. I shut down America, they win, you loose. The more things change, the more they stay the same” This is one of the ideas presented in the film that I truly liked. The idea that both sides should just call it quits and bring on the peace, bring on the freedom. Again, this last bit demonstrates how much of Kurt Russell’s Libertarian views are on this film. After all, he wrote a lot of it himself along with John Carpenter and Debra Hill. These are three life long buddies writing a movie they would find amusing, which makes this film a labor of love. This is probably why the film has a more laid back, ‘were having fun here’ vibe to it.

That being said, the film does have some faults going for it. The visual effects for example are freaking horrendous, I mean this was a 50 million dollar movie, one would think that better effects could have been afforded. There’s this painfully bad effects sequence in which Snake drives this mini-submarine through the underwater ruins of L.A….wow, there’s some bad CGI for you. I mean, granted this was early CGI, but even for 1996, these effects where half assed in my book. The scene where Snake Plissken rides a tsunami wave on a surfboard with Peter Fonda, while campy and kind of cool in a way (it’s all about that Hippy attitude!) the scene just comes off as one bad special effect. The scenes with Snake and crew flying these gliders, wow, you could just tell those things weren’t really flying; the list just goes on and on. So expect lots of cheesy effects on this show.

But don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate this movie. I quite enjoyed it actually. I mean yeah, I loved the first one a whole lot more. It’s just darker and scarier; it’s got more of an edge to it. This second one is tongue in cheek every step of the way. Watching Escape from L.A. feels like watching a cheap Italian Rip Off like 2019: After the Fall of New York (1983), but with a bigger budget. Actually, Escape from L.A. has a lot of similarities with 2019: After the Fall of New York, so in a way, this is Carpenter's pay back for all those cheap Escape from New York rip offs that the Italians made. Ultimately, I love both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. for different reasons. And for all the tonal differences between both films, they still have many similarities. No matter where, Snake Plissken will always be Snake Plissken, you can tell Russell has lots of love for this character. Plissken is what kept me watching. The opening and closing segments of the films are extremely similar as well. And here’s where we get to the best part of the film, the ending. Not gonna spoil it don’t worry, but I will tell you that it is the best thing about the movie. Russell himself came up with it and I applaud him for it, it encapsulates everything Snake Plissken is in terms of attitude. That idea that maybe the world would be better off if we simply started again,  from scratch, screw the way things are, let’s try something new! Welcome to the human race my friends, welcome to the human race.

Rating 3 ½ out of 5  

Escape from New York (1981)

Title: Escape from New York (1981)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence, Isaac Hayes, Harry Dean Stanton, Adrienne Barbeau

Review:

The first thing you notice about Escape from New York is how very dark it is. Everything is black on this one, the characters are dressed in black, the cars are black, the helicopters are black, the entire landscape of this movie is black! The whole film takes place during the course of one night in which famous criminal/ex-soldier Snake Plissken is forced to go to Manhattan Island (which has been turned into a prison island) to rescue the President of the United States. You see, Air Force One was hijacked by a group of terrorists called ‘The National Liberation Front of America’. The terrorist say they’ve struck a fatal blow in the name of all of the oppressed by sending the President of the United States to the inhuman prison he created himself. They mean to let him rot and die down there, in the hands of some of the worst criminals on the planet. and teach him a lesson or two about humility. But of course, the United States government isn’t just gonna sit back and let this happen. They have brought in Snake Plissken, the only man capable of getting the job done. Like Hauk tells Snake while trying to convince him to do the job: “You flew the ‘Gulfire’ over Leningrad; you know how to go in quiet; you’re all I’ve got!”

Escape from New York is an interesting film because whenever you talk about post apocalyptic movies, you really can’t leave this one out even though technically speaking; it isn’t a post apocalyptic film. There has been no nuclear holocaust, no deadly virus; the apocalypse in this future exists solely behind the walls of the island of Manhattan, which has been transformed into a penitentiary. So the apocalypse in Escape from New York is actually a social one. Within the walls of this huge jail cell, there’s no rules, no regulations, no cops, only “the prisoners and the worlds they’ve created”. So it’s not really a post apocalyptic film, but at the same time, its the best post apocalyptic film. Carpenter’s Manhattan is one evil looking place. I think this is what makes this film so fascinating; this prison world populated by the lowest of the low. It’s the most evil scum bags that walk through this prison worlds pitch black alleys and streets. When I was a kid and first saw this movie I was frightened by it, the characters that lived with in Manhattan seemed truly evil to me, especially this guy:

Snake Plissken’s the ultimate rebel; he hates “the man” or doing anything for him, in fact if there’s anything that he can take from “the man”, he will. Case in point: when the film opens up, Plissken is handcuffed and being taken to the Manhattan penitentiary. What we don’t know is that he is being taken their because he was holding up the Federal Reserve Depository, a scene that was later cut out of the film because Carpenter didn’t consider it necessary; I agree, it’s more intense just to meet Snake, not knowing where he is coming from. Kurt Russell describes Plissken as a mercenary, a mix between Bruce Lee, The Executioner, Darth Vader and Clint Eastwood. He’s a guy who only cares about the next 60 seconds of his life. This rebellious character goes in accordance with some of Carpenter’s films, which have always had a rebellious streak to them. For example, They Live (1988) which is about how the powers that be control our minds through marketing and subliminal messages; Escape from New York is about an imperialistic fascist America. Escape from L.A. (1996) is also anti-establishment, but in a whole other way that I will get into when I review it soon. So what we got here is a film made by two rebellious, freedom loving  individuals, Carpenter and Russell.

Kurt Russell and John Carpenter have worked together on various films, here they are together on the set of Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Plissken is Kurt Russell’s favorite character. To Russell, the character represents America, the idealistic free America all true Americans want; that idealistic version of America where people can be truly free to do as they choose. Through it’s science fiction story, Escape from New York commented on the status quo of the country during the late 70’s, a time when liberty and freedom of expression were constantly under attack. Some might label Escape from New York as an anti-government film, and I would have to say that it is. Escape from New York is the kind of film that warns us of what could come should governments get more oppressive or fascist. Rule, after rule after rule until you can’t barely move. This film and it’s sequel is ruled by a government that tells its citizens that they can’t smoke, can’t  drink, can’t have premarital sex, can’t try drugs, can’t speak foul language, can’t, can’t, can’t. Now I ain’t saying doing all these things equals liberty, but a person should be able to choose what they want to do, no matter what it is. It’s all about true freedom of the self. There is a distinct amount of cynicism towards the figure of the President of the United States  on this film. He is portrayed as a selfish, self absorbed individual. A cold man who doesn’t give a damn about the people who die for him, he has this fakeness to him. He says one thing to your face but means another. But we have to understand that Carpenter wrote this film coming out of the whole Nixon era, a time when no American trusted their president, where human rights were constantly being violated in the country. Escape from New York is a reflection of that time when most Americans agreed they had a madman in power.

But Plissken’s all about freeing ourselves from all of that; about living the ideal American dream of freedom and doing whatever the hell you want with your life, which is probably why this film is such a cult favorite; people just love Plisskens ‘take no shit from nobody’ attitude. This freedom theme goes in accordance to Russell’s own personal Libertarian point of view. Yes my friends, Kurt Russell’s neither Democrat nor Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and Libertarians are all about maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state in our lives. They believe in free will and freedom of expression and thought. Just like Plissken, Russell’s an outcast because of his beliefs, not everyone agrees with the Libertarians point of view, especially not Hollywood. Still, this hasn’t stopped Russell and Carpenter from making a distinctively rebellious film. It’s obvious that Russell’s put a lot of his own rebellious persona into Snake Plissken. But I felt that he put more of himself into the way the character was portrayed in the sequel, but more on that in my future review for Escape from L.A. Final words on Escape from New York is that it’s a real cult classic, an extremely influential film and simply put, it's a film that just won’t die. New generations keep discovering it and liking it. I believe that the publics long lasting affection with the film stems from Snake Plissken and what he represents; our perennial search for personal freedom in this world; in the end that’s what we all want and need; and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Italian Poster 

John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) vs. The Thing (2011)

Okay, so how many people out there still haven’t seen John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)? Well, if you are one of those unlucky few, trust me when I say that you’re missing out on one of the finest examples of a good horror/science fiction film in cinematic history and arguably, John Carpenter’s best film ever. Period. Carpenter’s film is great for many reasons, all of which I will get into in the coming paragraphs. My question is: why mess around with perfection? Was this new film necessary? Was an effort made to make a film worthy of its legendary predecessor?

Poster for John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)

 When Universal announced that they’d be making a new film that would connect with Carpenter’s The Thing, I was screaming “sacrilege!” Yup, I'm one of those guys. You see, to me the first film is so damn perfect that I just couldn’t even fathom the idea of a remake or a prequel or anything. I mean unless these guys were really serious about making a worthy film, more likely than not we would end up with another bad remake on our hands. But the question remained: would this new film be good enough to stand proudly next to John Carpenter’s film and say “I am just as good!”? My doubts were always there. In my mind, nothing could come close to what Carpenter and crew achieved with their film.

Rob Bottin (left) One of the many creatures in The Thing (middle) John Carpenter (Right)

 It is my opinion (and this is something that all sci-fi/horror fans and film buffs agree with) that Rob Bottin’s and Stan Winston’s make up effect work on Carpenter’s film remains undefeated to this very day. I mean, have you ever seen anything as remotely outlandish and monstrous as the creatures on Carpenter’s film? Nothing! The make up effects work on that film is indisputable! So my first fear with this new film popped up: would they put as much of an effort in making the make up effects work on this new film truly special? I mean, it’s been almost 30 years since Carpenter’s film, surely make up effects have improved by leaps and bounds? Surely they were aiming at making something that would surpass Carpenters film? I mean knowing how much everyone reveres the work done on that film?

Make up effects master: Rob Bottin!

 Here’s where we reach this new films first stumbling block. The make up effects work was nowhere to be seen. I don’t believe one single creature was practical. Nothing was tangible or real, everything, and I mean everything was done on a computer. It didn’t have that tangibility that Rob Bottin’s creations had. That glimmer, that sweat, the shine, that squishy looking yellow stuff pouring out of the creatures pulsating veins. I mean, there was nothing remotely like that on this new film. And that was my first real disappointment with this new film. But I will say this: the computer generated images where not bad, not bad at all. What the filmmakers attempted to do (and curiously enough it fits the theme of the film) was imitate Winston and Bottin’s make effects work and creations, but with computer effects. Damn knuckleheads!

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is this films 'Ripley' in The Thing (2011)

 I mean seriously, how hard could it have been to get a make up effects genius to come up with the creatures for this film? I mean what about the KNB guys? Surely they are still around? My point is they could have gotten someone to do something real, tangible and ultimately more convincing. It’s not that the computer effects were bad (they weren’t) it’s just that while watching the film we know they are computer images; we know that this image wasn’t even on the set with the actors, therefore, a lot of credibility simply goes out the window.

 But, to this new films credit I will say that they did manage to pull off a lot of gory looking images. And the stuff they did with the computers was fun to watch. There is one scene in which this guy rips open, we see his face and whole body splitting in half, I thought that was a pretty cool sequence. I mean, for things like that, sure, computer effects work wonders. But they didn’t have to go and do everything with CGI. They could have done what Guillermo del Toro does in his films, mix practical with CGI. Use CGI to enhance or fix certain things, but not do every single creature in the computer. But enough bitchin’ about the effects, when it all comes down to it, I didn’t think the computer effects were bad at all. It’s just that when compared to the work put into the original, and the legendary results, well, this new Thing pales in comparison.

 So what else? Was the suspense as nail biting as in Carpenter’s?  That’s one of the things that distinguished the original; you can cut the suspense with a knife. Carpenter set his film in such a dreadful place; you could literally feel the isolation and paranoia taking over these guys. The characters in Carpenter’s film felt like they were angry, on the edge. The actors conveyed that angst ridden feeling you get when you’ve been locked up in a place for so long.  You could tell that the harsh environment they were living in, the loneliness and xenophobia was really starting to get to them. Did this new film achieve that same level of intensity? Hell no it didn’t! And why not? I think it had something to do with the pacing of the movie which was pretty fast, and the choice to fill the film with an orchestral score. In Carpenter’s film, you never got the feeling that the music is telling you how to feel. The score on Carpenter’s film was very subtle and used sparingly. Some of the most dramatic moments in Carpenter’s film had no music whatsoever. What we did hear was the storm blowing outside making all sorts of spooky sounds. What we heard was the alarm blaring away; we heard these men screaming and fighting. We heard  the creatures alien screams. These were the sounds that inhabited Carpenter’s film. There was no place in it for a musical score because the setting and situations were spooky enough. And I think that this absence of music in Carpenter’s original was a key element that enhanced the isolation/fear factor. On this new film we have this music all the time reminding us we are watching a movie. It took away from the dread.

Kurt Russell wannabe

 Question remains: did this new film get anything right? At all? To tell you the truth, I didn’t think this new film was a bad one, I found myself walking out a satisfied fan. This new film isn’t a remake, but at the same time it is? Let me make myself clear here: this new film takes place before the events on Carpenter’s film, so we get to see what happened to those crazy Norwegians who first found the alien space craft. And to be honest, I enjoyed that whole aspect of the film, seeing what happened before. If you are a huge fan of the original and know it by heart, then you will get all the connections to Carpenter’s film. It feels as if these characters are once again walking in the world that Carpenter and crew created, so kudos to these new filmmakers for achieving that. It also goes places that Carpenter’s film never went, and that was awesome as well, trust me, there are a few surprises in store for fans of Carpenter’s film. Also, the creatures are pretty cool looking. Even though they were all computer generated images, I think they still managed to be quite impressive. It’s like, okay this isn’t a film that will impress you with it’s top of the line make up effects work (because there was practically no practical effects work) but it might impress you with its computer generated creatures none the less. So rest easy: you will be seeing some wonderfully grotesque creatures on this new film. And at least conceptually, they do go into the grotesque and monstrous territories that Bottin’s and Winston’s creations went to.

 You can see this new film and see Carpenter’s film right afterwards in a double feature and you will feel like you are watching characters inhabiting the same universe. I thought that was this new films major achievement; that cohesiveness. The only problem is that the film says it isn’t a remake, yet it feels like the same film. It goes through the same motions and situations, only slightly altered. There are a couple of entirely new situations, but for the most part this new film feels a heck of a lot like Carpenter’s film. Bottom line is that this new film wasn’t the disaster we all thought it was going to be. It’s a film that could stand proudly next to Carpenter’s film; only its not a better film. Carpenter’s classic is so awesome; such a perfect horror film, that there was no way it was going to be beat. The bar had been set to high by Carpenters film. But still, this new The Thing was an enjoyable monster movie, and one that a fan of Carpenter’s film can enjoy. Just don’t expect a better film.

Rating for The Thing (1982): 5 out of 5

Rating for The Thing (2011): 3 1/2 out of 5