The Friends Of Eddie Coyle

TheFriends of Eddie Coyle (1973)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Peter Yates

Starring: Robert Mitchum, Peter Boyle, Richard Jordan, Steven Keats, Alex Rocco

From: Paramount

Here's a classic movie I have had on disc for a long while and yet foolishly I did not check it out until last night. I say that it is worthy of being watched by everyone, and I give the details in my Letterboxd review below, which I have formatted differently and I may do it that way from now on:

Sometimes I have the bad habit of purchasing a movie on disc then waiting years before actually watching it. This movie falls into that category, even though it was a Criterion release and I had heard strong recommendations for it from other people. Well, last night was finally the night where I pulled the trigger, and I should have my hand in a drawer than have it slammed shut for not seeing this much sooner when I had the opportunity to.

It is a downbeat yet still interesting movie about various low-level criminals in Boston. The titular Eddie Coyle (what an outstanding performance by Robert Mitchum as someone who is the opposite of a stylish badass and instead is a gruff old man who is a lowlife) is a gun-runner and is about to go to prison for getting busted w/ a truck of booze. There is a Federal Agent who could help him if he “turns rat” and gives information which would lead to those friends (they are only pals in the loosest sense) being arrested. These reprobates include bank robbers and another gun-runner... named Jackie Brown. It's obvious who is a big fan of this motion picture. There are no real “good guys” here as even the member of law enforcement is rather shady in how he acts... yet it's all very compelling.

This is not a glamorous movie at all. There's understated direction from the great Peter Yates as Mitchum's house is modest at best, he living with a wife and three young children. The characters hang out in blue-collar settings from a grocery store parking lot to outside a bowling alley, a diner, restaurants, bars... yet it's great to watch as the characters are interesting and you are wondering what will happen next and if Coyle will save his own skin by ratting out his compatriots. The rest of the cast acts admirably (including the likes of Peter Boyle, Richard Jordan, Steven Keats as Jackie Brown and Alex Rocco) but it's Old Bob who delivered the best performance. All of it is spellbinding to watch, especially several very tense sequences where things could go very wrong.

What a great crime drama this was. It's unsentimental and straight to the point while we follow these petty characters who perform petty crimes and wonder who will screw over who, and if Eddie can come out a winner. There's the bonus of a quality jazzy-funky score from Dave Grusin. Don't make the same mistake I made and delay watching this if you have the opportunity to.

Rich and Strange/Juno and the Paycock

Rich and Strange (1931)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by: Hitchcock

Starring: Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Betty Amann, Elsie Randolph

From: British International Pictures

Juno and the Paycock (1930)

Runtime: 95 long minutes

Directed by: Hitchcock

Starring: Sara Allgood, Edward Chapman, Barry Fitzgerald, Maire O'Neill, Sidney Morgan

From: British International Pictures

I saw two real old Hitchcock movies that I had never checked out before. Neither compare to all his classics, but at least the former was alright. The latter, you really don't need to see. I write about both below via Letterboxd:

This is an early Hitchcock film which for some reason is difficult to find online. Thus, borrowing a cheap DVD set from the library was required to check this out. I heard that it lived up to the “strange” part of the title and well, the people who said this were not lying.

The plot revolves around a middle class couple who get some cash from a rich uncle ahead of an expected inheritance, so they travel by ship around the world and end up in “The Orient”. The husband gets sea-sick, they see the Folies Bergere and are shocked by it, their relationship becomes frosty, and a bunch of odd random things happen... from the wife getting her ass grabbed by a weird bearded man, to a random birth on the ship that is pointless when it comes to advancing the plot. Someone drowns and again it's pointless. There are Asian junks (that's a ship; get your mind out of the gutter), exotic costumes, some of the locations in the movie they actually filmed at (Marseilles and Egypt)... to say that things are scattershot is putting it mildly.

The movie doesn't have a lot of dialogue and there are actually intertitles which explain various thoughts and ideas. It's odd but I was fine with it. I wasn't fine with the uneven pacing-it starts and stops often, and there are some dull stretches-although I was at least entertained by the weirdness. The general plot and its resolution is cliché by now; maybe back then it wasn't so obvious. At least the movie is decently shot and edited... but the husband tosses his wife angrily on the bed while arguing-he also threatens to “strangle” her and well, that does not come across as good in these modern times. Then again, the husband usually comes across as a real heel... hell, he even says something racist. For shame.

At least I can say that this oddity is average and nothing more.

Now, onto Juno:

Luckily I had heard beforehand that this is probably Hitch's worst movie, so I was not surprised by this dull and boring slog of a motion picture. Yet it is still one that I don't recommend seeing unless you must see everything that Sir Alfred did.

It was based on an old Irish play and probably is best seen on stage. Here, it is a film with no score, a whole lot of talking (and everyone has Irish accents; some may have trouble with that but most of it was intelligible to me) and only the most basic of camera moves and edits. A poor family receives an inheritance and this corrupts them. The endgame is likely what you'd expect.

An obvious issue was that Hitchcock was given this movie as a studio assignment and he couldn't do much to make it cinematic. He told Truffant that he thought the play was “excellent” but as a movie he did not know how he could make it cinematic and well, with the limitations he wasn't able to. A lot of the movie is indoors in a single room, and that was as exciting as it sounds. Honestly, I was fighting to stay awake while watching this.

It does get 1 ½ stars from me as from what I do understand the play is pretty famous in Ireland and still performed there, so I am sure it is fine... as long as you are in a theatre watching it on stage. Plus, Sara Allgood is fine as the titular Juno, the matriarch of the family. The rest of the cast, they are a mixed bag. At least as I go through more of his early catalogue in the future, I know that.

Five Fingers Of Death

Five Fingers of Death (Tian Xia Di Yi Quan) (1972)

Runtime: 104 minutes

Directed by: Walter Chung Chang-Hwa

Starring: Lo Lieh, Wang Ping, Chan Shen, Hsiung Chao

From: Shaw Brothers

Here's one of the most famous Shaw Brothers movies, and yet this was a first time watch for me. It's not my favorite from the studio yet it was definitely still enjoyable. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below: 

I figured it was about time I saw one of the most famous Shaw Brothers movies, one that is noteworthy in the United States as when Warner Brothers released a dubbed version in '73, it was something that along with the Kung Fu TV show and Enter the Dragon made kung fu a craze at the time; among other things, this is one of Tarantino's favorite films. When it showed up on the El Rey Network Thursday night, there was my opportunity.

The plot is rather sparse: a fighter is sent to train with a master not only to win a tournament but also to defend his town against a band of thugs that think they are the ones who run things in the city. But there's a lot more... things like starting at the bottom at a school before rising up in the ranks, a singer love interest, defending your master's honor, jealousy... and oh yeah, the Iron Fist technique, which is quite zany as it causes a person's fist to glow red and you hear the opening to the theme from the old Ironside show, which everyone now knows as “The Kill Bill siren” as this movie borrows that and Tarantino borrowed it from this movie.

Anyway, it has what you expect from the Shaw Brothers... nice sets and scenery, badass moments, quality fight scenes, bloody moments, detestable villains, and all the rest. With all this-and such things as eye gouging on display-it's no wonder that this caused a stir when released in America, as nothing quite like this had gotten a decent release in the United States before. There are other Shaw Brothers movies I rate higher, yet I am still glad this is something I finally watched.

The Flintstones

The Flintstones (1994)

Runtime: 91 minutes

Directed by: Brian Levant

Starring: John Goodman, Elizabeth Perkins, Rick Moranis, Rosie O'Donnell, Kyle MacLachlan

From: Universal

Yes, I saw this movie for the first time in more than 20 years. Sure, I watched the cartoon and enjoyed it (as long as it's not the version with the horrible laugh track) but even back then I did not love the film and now, it's only a 2 star affair. Alas... I talk about it below in my Letterboxd review:

ou know, I had been watching too many great movies as of late...

Tuesday night I was wondering what I should watch; as typical I had too many choices so it was a difficult choice; I looked on Netflix to see if they had up anything new. Suddenly I noticed that they had this movie up; when it came out in '94 a parent took me and my two sisters to go see it. At the time I was mostly nonplussed by it... even at 13 years old, a plot about corporate embezzlement did not light my ass on fire... not to mention some of the harsh things that happen to the main characters. Maybe I saw it once on VHS after it came out but otherwise this is yet another movie I hadn't seen in at least 20 years.

Like I said, the plot is about corporate embezzlement involving Kyle MacLachlan and Halle Berry (playing someone named Sharon Stone; yes, that's the “joke”) and Fred is a dumbass so he all too easily gets wrapped up in their scheme and he ends up being the patsy. Somehow, it allegedly took THIRTY-TWO writers to come up with this script; at the time it sounds especially absurd. Now, what I have heard of modern movies, too many require too many rewrites and who knows how many are involved with that. As for the script... the visuals and look of the movie do match the cartoon rather well...

I can't fault the cast as the lead roles were filled by the appropriate actors who looked and acted the part. There are chuckles sprinkled throughout. Yet, the script and story aren't great (it's one of those deals where things would have been resolved much sooner if one person had told the other something important, and yet waited to do so because the script said so) so I can't give this more than a 2 star rating.

Superman

Superman (1978)

Runtime: I saw the version that was 151 minutes long

Directed by: Richard Donner

Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder, Ned Beatty, Marlon Brando

From: Warner Bros.

Here's another movie I had seen before but never talked about here. I always enjoyed it from when I first saw it on VHS as a little kid. Thankfully I still enjoy it now. I got the Blu-ray set imported from the UK (but as far as I can tell identical to the one released in the States) with all the ones starring Reeve plus Superman Returns, which I've never seen but is the 21st century version of the character, meaning “he appears in movies that are incredibly polarizing”. I'll get to that eventually... but now, onto the original; you can read my lengthy review of it below, via Letterboxd: 

NOTE: The version I saw was the 2001 Expanded Edition that is 151 minutes long... and a famed longer version, which I'll talk about at the very end.

I have mentioned before in a few other reviews how I don't really watch superhero movies so that's why you rarely see reviews of them done by me. That goes for both Marvel and DC; I can explain why I have seen some of the ones I have but I won't do so except to say that some of the older ones I did see as a kid, from the 80's and 90's Batman (I'll get to those one day as I hadn't seen any of them in years) to all the Superman films starring Christopher Reeve. I figured it was about time I saw all of them again so I can review them here, as I hadn't seen any of those in at least a few years either.

While I am curious in a perverse way about the Zack Snyder movies w/ the character (plus, I have absolutely no idea how I would rate what has to be two of the most polarizing films of recent times), I know that the Jor-El portrayed there is different from the classic version in the comic books, which of course this was more aligned with. I know that some people of today may see this character as played by Reeve as “not cool” as Clark Kent is a dorky newspaper reporter and Superman may be seen as “a square” as he is unfailing in believing that everyone is good and he's all that is righteous and pure. Well, I can say from my childhood that I really enjoyed the first two and I managed to find things about 3 and 4 that I thought were fine (at the time; as an adult, it's not necessarily the same story, but when I see those movies in the future I'll give my thoughts there), and as an adult I still enjoy this old-fashioned filmmaking.

I will admit that as much as modern superhero films can have some nonsensical elements, this has things that I say are on the silly side at best; Lex Luthor's ultimate scheme is rather wacky and that deus ex machina ending raises more questions than answers; I'll just blame that on “things that you'd expect from a comic book” and say that overall I still enjoy this a whole lot. It's a standard origin story where the main players people expected at the time were present and thankfully the right people were cast for the roles.

I could not imagine people like Pacino, Stallone, Beatty or Caan in the lead, yet they were asked to. I don't even know what to make of the story of NEIL DIAMOND in the role; it almost sounds too ludicrous to believe yet it's true. An unknown at the time Christopher Reeve was perfect, as he was great as both the dorky Kent and the heroic Man of Steel. This Lois Lane was pretty cool, and she was played by a pretty cool Margot Kidder; thankfully she has been doing fine since “those few days” around this time 20 years ago where she had that infamous manic episode. The rest of the roles... like I said they were well cast and what a cast of famous faces it was.

The story, it's not too serious (and not just the moments where the dim-witted Otis is on screen) and it's always interesting and entertaining. The special effects are still nice now and they still work; yeah, you can believe that a man can fly. The miniatures and models give me nostalgic feelings for those old movies I saw as a kid. The score from the incomparable John Williams is still pretty grand. But despite it being about a nearly indestructible alien, he has many human moments, from vanity and jealousy to wishing he could save dying people and the pain of being bullied as a teen. Thus, he ends up being a character we could all relate to and that definitely helps in liking Kal-El. Overall, I was happy to see this again as this is a picture I can still rate highly. The sequels, I don't rate them this highly but sometime in the future I'll talk about them.

Soon after I saw the Expanded Edition, I watched something I had known of for years and I had acquired... nevermind how. It was the 188 minute “Salkind International Cut”, after the producers made a deal where they could make more money by releasing a version that long to be shown all across the world on television. Me, I was happy to see the additional footage and some cool things were present that weren't even in the Expanded Edition. It is still a thrilling watch... but overall I say that the “best” version to watch is still the Expanded Edition.

This Is Spinal Tap

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

Runtime: 82 minutes

Directed by: Rob Reiner

Starring: Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, Harry Shearer, Tony Hendra, Rob Reiner

From: Spinal Tap Productions

I am not sure how it had been so long since last viewing this that this is the first time it has been on a site that I have been operating since August of 2009, but it's true. This indeed is a great motion picture. See all the details in my Letterboxd review below: 

Of course I had seen this classic mockumentary before but the last viewing was a long while ago and I figured it was time to review it for this site. I've always enjoyed this and seeing it again did not change my opinion.

I presume that many have seen this so I won't spend much time with the plot of a washed up English rock band that returns to the United States for a tour and it turns out to be a disaster with a lot of calamities and in-fighting. From what I heard, this rather accurately skewers the lifestyle and attitudes of rockstars... their pretentious and haughty attitudes and beliefs, their arrogance... and events from a girlfriend upsetting the chemistry of the band to technical issues and getting lost in old buildings while making the journey from the dressing room to the stage. It apparently is so accurate that it ruined some musicians (it was like an unflattering look in the mirror) and some bands thought the movie was about them.

Droll comedies like this aren't always for me as my sense of humor can be rather odd at times. Yet, it works here. As others have said it's not a laugh out loud thing but it's never not amusing and since it came out there are moments that have become famous beyond the movie, especially “it goes to 11”. Also, if you have a version of this with a commentary by the band in character, it's great and it should be listened to if you love this picture.

Finally, I have to say that it helps in something like this if the music is good, and it is. There are plenty of catchy tunes and it makes the experience seem more authentic. The characters being modeled after actual musicians helps... the most obvious one is that guitarist Nigel Tufnel is Jeff Beck, a guy with prodigious talent but he neveer became as famous as guys like Hendrix, Clapton or Eddie Van Halen. If you're one of those who haven't seen this yet and you love seeing clueless people get made fun of but not in a malicious way, this is your ticket.

Intolerance

Intolerance (1916)

Runtime: The version I saw was 178 minutes long

Directed by: D.W. Griffith

Starring: Vera Lewis, Ralph Lewis, Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Constance Talmadge

From: Triangle Distributing Corporation

Yesterday I finally saw this classic film; I figured it was about time to do so, considering it's 100 years old and all. Well, thankfully it is something worth seeing. I talk about it below in my Letterboxd review:

NOTE: As there are several different versions of this movie out there, I need to clarify which one I saw: it was the cut known as the Killiam Shows Version, which when put out by Image Entertainment online for streaming or on DVD is 178 minutes long.

While it was not a hit at the time, this motion picture that is now 100 years old later went on to be influential in a variety of ways. It was ahead of its time, for sure, and it inspired a wide swath of filmmakers and to be honest, can still inspire filmmakers today. Thinking back on what life in 1916 must have been like, a three hour epic where several stories w/ similar themes are presented at the same time and it could be argued that this was the first blockbuster w/ a at the time huge budget... it's quite the achievement that paid off in critical and filmmaker respect, if not financially.

The four stories that are told are from the periods of Babylonian, Judean (involving Jesus Christ), French (1572 as it shows the real life St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre) and what was then Modern time of 1914. I won't mention the specifics of all four stories but they all share such similar themes as the titular idea of intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, social injustice and persecution. The four stories are told at the same time and there are frequent cuts between the tales... sort of like Cloud Atlas, except that unlike Cloud Atlas this wasn't bad pretentious nonsense. Anyhow, frequently you see Lillian Gish rocking a cradle, as it was important symbolism for the movie.

Once you see the stories come together and you realize the messages this movie presented, you fully understand what the movie is saying and you comprehend why many people say this is great, because it is. All the stories are impressive and interesting to watch (especially the spectacle of the Babylon stuff; it has action that likely would surprise you considering all the crazy things that happened in a movie a century old; the scope is rather large and a few thousand extras were used) but when it's put together the way it is, that is why it is so highly regarded. And wow what a finale. The movie did not need dialogue to be endlessly captivating, have moving dramatic moments or show a dazzling finale.

While I am not sure of Griffith as a human being due to Birth of a Nation, considering the filmmaking aspects of both movies, I should probably see more of his work. To think that he invented or innovated many different aspects of filmmaking that are still parts of its language today.