Author: mfordfeeney

#140RVW

Very original heist film, set in Gulf War, provides unique look at hard to pin down time in history. DP Sigel creates visual masterpiece…

What’s more:

The polarizing subject matter likely keeps people away from this one, which is entirely their own loss. Regardless of your feelings about the Gulf War, it remains a unique and interesting time, and this film may be the most original viewpoint on it. I personally don’t consider this to be a political or message-based war movie. I think there is something of great merit whether you supported the war or not; the movie may have a message, but it’s not a message movie.

The premise is great; good enough that when writer/director/prima donna David O. Russell heard the idea for a story by John Ridley called “Spoils of War” about a Gulf War heist, he immediately sat down and wrote the story of Three Kings. Allegedly that’s all this movie has in common with Ridley’s story, but he still was given credit for coming up with the story. We’ll probably never know the full story.

But what a great setting. It can’t really be called a backdrop for the heist story; more of a character or even the story itself.

The acting is excellent. Clooney had truly become a leading man with Out of Sight the year before, but he ups his game and turns in a great acting performance here. Marky Mark & Ice Cube are both surprisingly effective; probably the last time anyone looked at Wahlberg as an “aspiring” actor. But Spike Jonze is a revelation…

The look of the film is its most unique feature. Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel deserved an Oscar nod at least for a truly original picture. Shot on different stocks, including transparent, to replicate the look of the newspaper reporting of the war, he uses filters and color timing and a variety of techniques to keep up with the constantly changing moods and settings.

Great audio work here, as well, bringing a realism and grittiness while avoiding the usual war movie effects.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

FAIL

#140RVW

Actually just as good as its reputation suggests. A modern psuedo-noir classic from Altman. Tolkin’s tight screenplay exceeds his own novel.

25 words or less:

Altman makes tight and gorgeous thriller with Hollywood as the main character. Tim Robbins is captivating as exec who is in over his head.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass, technically, as 2 detectives talk to each other.

#140RVW

Almost exactly average. If they’d just filmed it like a normal western instead of trying to make it music video-y it may have become more…

What’s more:

Sort of covered this with my review of the sequel. (Young Guns II) “Virtually all of the criticisms of it are valid; it definitely had that MTV-style over substance thing going on and the actors looked like little boys playing cowboys & indians. (Actually, in hindsight this may have been ahead of its time a little on the use of music video styling in filmmaking.)”

“But for all that, I liked it. While not probably expected to be a beacon of historical accuracy, it was probably more on the money than any other film on the Kid, and certainly takes the subject matter seriously. There are lots of fun little moments, particularly early on with Terrance Stamp. The brat pack of young actors actually handle themselves well and the biggest problem with the movie frankly is it’s so Hollywood. It feels like the big production that it is and subtlety is out the window.”

Other than that, I’d just like to say that Jack Palance is almost always a subtraction by addition kind of actor, and this is no exception. Also that I can’t watch or even think about this movie without remembering the Dennis Miller bit where he refers to the movie as the one where everyone in it is Martin Sheen’s son but none of them have his name. “Charlie Sheen, Emilio Estevez Sheen, Lou Diamond Philips Sheen…”

Poster:

Trailer:

#140RVW

Reaches far beyond original movie, which was shot more like a music video than a Western. Gorgeous photography & very good characterization.

What’s more:

This is one of my favorite movies, and I won’t apologize for it. It’s hardly high art, but it is a highly enjoyable movie that approaches (if not reaches) something even better.

To start with, I liked the first one. Virtually all of the criticisms of it are valid; it definitely had that MTV-style over substance thing going on and the actors looked like little boys playing cowboys & indians. (Actually, in hindsight this may have been ahead of its time a little on the use of music video styling in filmmaking.)

But for all that, I liked it. While not probably expected to be a beacon of historical accuracy, it was probably more on the money than any other film on the Kid, and certainly takes the subject matter seriously. There are lots of fun little moments, particularly early on with Terrance Stamp. The brat pack of young actors actually handle themselves well and the biggest problem with the movie frankly is it’s so Hollywood. It feels like the big production that it is and subtlety is out the window.

By contrast, then, the sequel feels markedly different. The characters have tried to move on from the events of the Lincoln County War, and if they are not entirely successful, it makes for more interesting characters. As The Kid enjoys his notoriety, it clearly is not fulfilling him as he tries to reclaim the camaraderie of the Regulators and his desperation at trying to keep the group together is real.

And if William Petersen isn’t given the screen time to really delve into the interesting character of Pat Garrett, it’s no slight on his performance, which makes use of all the time he has. In the hands of a different director, this film could have possibly become a character study between these two fascinating men.

The story is a much better one than last time. One thing I observed and consider a great tool is the fact that the characters are always in motion, always setting out on adventures, but in the end they really never get anywhere; they are prisoners of their own lifestyle, one that is untenable. The dialogue may not be cited by many film professors, but I think there are some really wonderful passages that benefit immensely by the fine work the actors do in making the words seem entirely natural to their characters.

The cinematography of this movie is really what I keep coming back to, though, when it comes to why I think this movie is worthy of attention. Director of Photography Dean Semler, who would win an Oscar for his other 1990 film Dances With Wolves, shot both movies in this series. I don’t know if it was the change of locations (this one split time between Arizona & New Mexico) or a deliberate different feel to reflect the story, but this film feels so much more grand. Vistas are sweeping and vast, hues are reflective of the desert and the Old West seems alive.

Need any other reasons to give it a try? Let’s see: a young Viggo Mortensen has a neat part as one of the lawmen, Jon Bon Jovi gets shot, and James Coburn (the most wonderful voice in Hollywood) brings the gravitas, and one of his lines from when he played Pat Garrett!

Poster:

Trailer: