Hear the Hurd

Oscarblogging - Slapshot

Now before you assume I'm writing this post in reference to the great 1977 film starring the impeccable and 12 times better than you or me Paul Newman, make note that it is not. Yet we should touch on that briefly as the reference allows me chance to mention that awesome film. Just in terms of the Oscars, Slapshot never had a chance as good as it was. That years Oscar for Best Picture was won by Annie Hall with Richard Dreyfuss taking home Best Actor for The Goodbye Girl. Lest we forget, this was also the year of Star Wars as well as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Saturday Night Fever all of which gained major nominations. But the film also shares some semblance of connection to what occurred last night on live television. Apparently violence may be celebrated.

I should mention that my interest in the Academy Awards has waned considerably from what it once was. The fact that I have a subsection of this blog devoted entirely to this institution suggests that at one time in my life it meant a great deal to me. I watched every single ceremony each year from the time I understood that I loved film and movies. But after years of mind-bending choices by the members or some other, it meant less and less and less. In truth, that is much the point of these Oscarblogging posts...to single out the idiotic wins and losses often handed out by this group of people. In response to last night's slap shot, I could only post to social media that "And somehow Peter O'Toole, Deborah Kerr, Richard Burton and Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. ::shrug::" By that I meant that undeserving wins happen all the time and more deserving performances are often overlooked. Sometimes with impunity.

I told some that I would not watch this years ceremony because I was over these egregious mistakes both in what is honored or not but also how the ceremony itself is planned and run. Much like baseball, the complaint was always "it's too long" and in attempts to shorten the time things are lost. Not just playing deserving winners off the stage because they rambled on too long, but cutting out important and welcomed (at least by myself) honorary Oscar wins - the Thalberg, Lifetime Achievement, etc. In the face of short attention spans, the Oscars always make the wrong choice and frankly never saves time anyway. You cut out a slew of deserved moments when Best Film Editor or Sound (which used to be two categories) are shortened at the least and then include a musical number that lasts five minutes when it was not even nominated? I don't have the factual numbers on this, but the ceremony last night lasted nearly as long as any other I have ever seen. Whatever time they save by cutting important stuff like...oh, I don't know...awarding deserving films which appears to be the goal on the masthead...is instead taken up by what I assume they think the audience would rather watch. No matter that Sam Jackson received an honorary Oscar given to him by Denzel Washington the other night at the Governor's Ball. Why would we want to see a thing like that?

Yet I did watch and here is where we get down to the most bizarre thing I have ever witnessed on an Oscars telecast. I remember Sacheen Littlefeather. I recall the streaker behind David Niven. I witnessed when Marisa Tomei won for My Cousin Vinny. I still feel sorry for Beatty and Dunaway when the wrong Best Picture was announced in 2017. These are all Oscars lore. Hell, I've studied it so much that I know well the incident from the 1963 contest in which Joan Crawford basically stole Anne Bancroft's statue when the latter won for The Miracle Worker (look it up.) But I do not recall ever seeing an actual assault.

What was witnessed last night was a petulant child and more, a crime. I don't care how famous is Will Smith. And I generally like him. Yet when a very famous person approaches a comic and moves to violence, they have gone too far. ANYONE that does such a thing has gone too far. Spare me the excuses that Jada has alopecia. A joke is a joke and frankly she has laughed at such before. And even if in bad taste, that does not excuse the action. My God, Don Rickles made a brilliant career out of such. If you cannot laugh (sorry Sean Penn) then much more is going on. And it holds no place in front of a live television audience. I won't go into what I think was the motivation, but I will speak to the repercussions. That is...there will be none.

Will Smith won his Oscar (however well deserved) and pleaded apology but not to the man he assaulted. He was given a standing ovation and allowed his tears and thankfully Chris Rock was somewhere backstage surely pissed but not willing to press charges. Actions indeed have consequences but it seems to me that the level of consequence is woefully inadequate in this case. Smith was feted and given reward (and award which really has nothing to do with it) and Rock is left to wonder what the hell just happened. In a proper environment, Smith should have been escorted from the premises as should (and is) done in every comedy club in this country. Yet in this case, I suppose because of infamy and the moment, the Oscars and the Academy just wanted to move past it as quickly as possible. No matter that it was the most interesting and/or impactful thing that had occurred on their broadcast for many, many years. And also a crime.

Where was the virtue signal? Oh...the Academy tweeted after that they "do not condone violence in any way." And then the bulk of the tweet was a lot of congratulations. Yet precedence has now been set. Apparently the next time Ricky Gervais or Dave Chapelle host an awards and say the joke that we all enjoy (you know you do) it is now fair game for the subject of said joke to go up and bitch slap them. You know what? That is why they won't host such. Is that what we want? And who the hell gives Will Smith the privilege to get away with such a thing? I could not. You could not. I suppose we are not famous enough.

I will end on something that has been ruminating in my mind this morning - anyone reading this that purposely showed your support of Ukraine when that war began and now supports Will Smith "standing up for his wife" need to have your thought processes thoroughly examined. Is the bully the one that spoke the words? Or the one that took action and committed an assault? Last I checked, we held free speech no matter how offensive (and that one is getting dicey) but it is still against the law to physically assault another individual. How far down the hole do want to get? And Christ...this is just Hollywood. Rules for thee but not for me? We've seen a lot of that these last two years and more. I say check yourself before you...give too hot a take without considering the outcomes of such. Last night was an embarrassment on many levels and is of a piece. Weird does not even describe it. Privilege, wealth and fame can obviously go a long way. Or...

The Church of Scientology Strikes Back!

I joke (there we go again) but last night was a major disappointment in both broadcast and action. Among all else, Denzel did not win his third which itself is a crime. I was only rooting for that. Instead I (and we) got this bullshit. And then the response. God help us because we clearly need it! That is all.

Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back

For anyone that knows me, it should come as no surprise that I was highly intrigued by this project. To those uninitiated, there was an attempt to record both an album and a live TV show/film in 1969 which ended up breaking down to much acrimony by the end due to mainly business between the various members and the songs set on the shelf for some time before Phil Spector produced what we know as the album Let It Be. Between what was later called the Get Back sessions and what eventually became the album, the film by the latter name was released and was not terribly well received. The Beatles themselves did not care for it. It has colored many peoples attitude towards their break up ever since. Also, while I'll admit I've never seen the original film in its totality, it has been roundly panned over the years and more - most consider it a document of the greatest band ever breaking up. Part the reason I'd like to see it, but it's not so easy to find.

Now I will be honest with you, dear reader. I hold only one song The Beatles ever released as poor. Revolution #9. That belonged on Two Virgins (the album John and Yoko did together in 1968...and was assisted by none other than Sir Paul McCartney.) Other than that, I believe them all to be genius. They are my favorite band of all time and so I have no issue watching hours upon hours of them working, or not working such as it appears. And there can be no doubt that this documentary just as the film that preceded it shows very much both. It is bittersweet, to be sure. These four men had created something not yet seen. Not Elvis. Not Buddy Holly. Not Chuck Berry. Not Little Richard. Not yet The Rolling Stones (though they did give the Stones their first hit with I Want to be Your Man.) Not quite 8 short years of recording (and some years before honing their craft) they broke up. Went their own way. Who does that? The Beatles. That's who.

By 1969 their path together was spent, it seems to me. Both films show this. The first by Lindsey-Hogg and now this by Jackson really don't show too much difference. The biggest that can be seen is that the original showed a break up (so it has been said) and this one shows a group unsure of the next steps. George Harrison is surely looking to break out and use his talents gained over these many years. Ringo is happy (and hungover a lot) and seemingly pleased to remain (which is weird since he was the one that often left because of internal rancor.) John seems quite happy, especially I suppose because Yoko is there, but he may or may not be in the midst of drugs (weed or heroin - take your pick) and Paul? He's just desperately trying to keep it together. There is a moment when he speaks with Lennon and makes a point of saying that John was and is the leader. John doesn't want it. He's already on the way out. So Paul tries to pick it up and pisses off George (which I think he'd been doing for years.)

The largest difference between the two films and the one I find most welcoming is the little moments between each member. Yes, the infamous moment between Paul and George is mostly included ("I'll play or not play...just tell me what will please you.") And there is plenty of uncertainty with all of them as to what they want to do ultimately. Yet what I found most happily was how they got on when times were not stressed. Just playing. Together. Ringo has an idea for a song and George moves over to help him (Octopuses Garden from Abbey Road.) Much as been said about the origination of Get Back and rightly so. Paul has a noodle of song and then one by one they all join in. Lennon comes in late after they've figure out a structure and just joins in with the rest. Early bits where no one really has a song, because they wanted to do all new material, John is working with Don't Let Me Down and then later with I've Got a Feeling. The brilliance of that working relationship between John and Paul can be seen here.

More? That relationship, to me, is the greatest thing I witnessed while watching this documentary. I'm a fly on the wall watching these two master song writers create more of their long history. Their amazing songbook. There's no doubt I feel poorly for George Harrison (who would create great songs and had done so already) but there was a difference at that time. Lennon/McCartney had been a thing since 1958 or so. George himself has said that he had to catch up. I love much of his music, but there are few things I love more than watching those brief moments between John and Paul...when they know what the other is saying without having to say it. They just want to impress the other. Always did (and led to some bitter songs by John later, sadly.)

More than anything else? I always love hearing John, Paul and George harmonize. Don't get me wrong. I love the Beach Boys (more than I ever thought I would) and CSNY but nothing brings me greater joy than hearing those three voices together. John and George backing Paul on Let It Be (and I think John plays bass on that.) Trading vocals on I've Got a Feeling and then sharing them on Two of Us. Both of them backing George on I Me Mine (at least on the track.) And as always, Ringo's amazing timing. His drums always fill it out. These four always knew what they needed to do to make perfection. Not a one of them held back, no matter what else was going on. Irritating filming? They still played. Bullshit business? They still played. Marriages and what else taking away? Drugs? They still played.

In short, I loved the documentary. Of course, I am the MOST amenable to it. I want hours and hours of it. I want to see the Sgt Peppers sessions. I want to see the Decca Records session! I want every hour or minute I can get from them. I love them that much. Part the reason I love One After 909. Early days. Early songs. And Paul and John remember it and well.

I will say that it is not their best album. If you want to ask, I will tell you. But it is messy, no doubt. The Spector cut is what came out first and then McCartney did his own with Let It Be...Naked. I'm told there is a Glyn Johns version. They all have differences. The worst of the Spector version is leaving Don't Let Me Down off the album...why???, but the others don't have Lennon doing his asides. I'd also say that McCartney's version starts and stops with his songs. It really doesn't matter at this late date. If you are a fan, you've heard these permutations and like or dislike them. In the end, it is no more than what the documentary suggests. They could play these songs a million times and be different each time. Each one different and just as special.

They are The Beatles! Of course they can. And they broke up and this is what we have left. Lennon is dead. Harrison too. Paul and Ringo are octogenarians (well Paul almost.) We're never going to get anything more from this Fab Four. This is the closest we're going to get. Every bit to me is a window into the greatest four men to ever play rock and roll together. Sorry kids. You missed out, but you have this. That is all.

Oscarblogging - Paul Newman

It has been some time since I posted about the Oscars for reasons best left unsaid. Suffice to say they do not really mean as much to me now as they once did. I used to pay attention every year but not as much anymore. However, the history of them remains interesting to me and having gone down a rabbit hole thanks to The Ringer doing a podcast on The Color of Money, I happily dug in. Especially on my favorite actor Paul Newman. Infamously he would win this Oscar in 1986 for that film after 6 times not winning for (arguably) better roles/performances.

I must backtrack slightly and say that one of the things that fascinate me about the Oscars are the wins/losses, so many or lack thereof and how they went down year in and year out when looking back at them. It astounds me that Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar (and I've blogged on this in the past.) So too Richard Burton. Not one win in seven tries. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar with five nominations. Arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. Glenn Close has never won an Oscar after eight nominations (pushing O'Toole.) To me, the one that kills is Al Pacino. He'd been nominated 6 times without a win and then got both 7 and 8 in 1993. He would finally win, but for the wrong film. (Note, he now has a ninth nomination but still just the one acting Oscar.)

But this post is dedicated to Newman (so it will surely be 12 times better than any other post.) In total, Paul Newman was nominated nine times between 1959 and 2003 before his death in 2008. And perhaps outside of his role in Sweet Bird of Youth in 1962, he was almost always given a nod when deserved (well, more on that below.) As before, what I want to do here is look back at each of these "contests" and see if the outcome was deserved or not. If nothing else, it gives me a chance to look back at some amazing films and at the worst, allows me to judge both the Oscar voters and the times in which these votes were made. So, we begin at the beginning:

1959

• David Niven – Separate Tables as Major David Angus Pollock
  • Tony Curtis – The Defiant Ones as John "Joker" Jackson
  • Paul Newman – Cat on a Hot Tin Roof as Brick Pollitt
  • Sidney Poitier – The Defiant Ones as Noah Cullen
  • Spencer Tracy – The Old Man and the Sea as The Old Man

Firstly, I must say here that I have sadly never seen The Defiant Ones. To my shame. That said, I have to think that Curtis and Poitier cut into each other's votes here. Poitier would go on to win an Oscar (which we will cover below.) This was Tony Curtis' only nomination. Spencer Tracy was nearing the end of his terribly successful career and had already won twice (and never would win again...shades of Bette Davis.) And Niven? I have seen Separate Tables and while I love the actor, the work itself does not hold up terribly well. Prestige picture, sure. Maybe ahead of its time given the subject matter. But to compete with one of the great Tennessee Williams plays? This is a year in which Gigi won Best Picture and Elizabeth Taylor did not even win Best Actress for her role in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I have to say, right off the bat, this was a miss. Maybe it should not have been Newman compared to Curtis or Poitier, but the eventual winner seems weak.

I'll call this a +1 in his favor.

1962

• Maximilian Schell – Judgment at Nuremberg as Hans Rolfe
  • Charles Boyer – Fanny as César
  • Paul Newman – The Hustler as Eddie Felson
  • Spencer Tracy – Judgment at Nuremberg as Dan Haywood
  • Stuart Whitman – The Mark as Jim Fuller

We're still early on in my film watching career so I've never seen César or The Mark. Boyer is a great actor and also never won an Oscar but this was his fourth nomination (most notably to me for Gaslight in 1944.) Whitman is most definitely a "that guy" and this would be his only nomination. So this contest comes down to the two films. As always, one must look at two actors nominated from the same film so it is impressive that Schell pulled out the win. But again, Tracy is nominated and having already won 2, maybe did not get the votes he might otherwise deserve. To me, this is one of Newman's iconic roles (which would later give him his actual Oscar) but I have to admit if I am looking at this objectively, I would probably give my vote to Tracy. So another fail. I think Schell is great, but Tracy is better. And so is Newman.

I'll call this a +0 because it would not have necessarily gone to Newman if Schell doesn't win.

1964

• Sidney Poitier – Lilies of the Field as Homer Smith
  • Albert Finney – Tom Jones as Tom Jones
  • Richard Harris – This Sporting Life as Frank Machin
  • Rex Harrison – Cleopatra as Julius Caesar
  • Paul Newman – Hud as Hud Bannon

I really cannot fault this year. Five great actors in five great films. While some might push for Finney here, I think this was a two man contest and the best man/performance won. Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing in Hud (as is the great Patricia Neal who would win Best Actress for her performance) but Poitier cements himself as a power in both race and talent and I would not change this result in any way.

Call it another +0 because the right man won.

1968

• Rod Steiger – In the Heat of the Night as Police Chief Bill Gillespie
  • Warren Beatty – Bonnie and Clyde as Clyde Barrow
  • Dustin Hoffman – The Graduate as Benjamin Braddock
  • Paul Newman – Cool Hand Luke as Lucas "Cool Hand Luke" Jackson
  • Spencer Tracy (posthumous nomination) – Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as Matt Drayton

To me, this year is the oddest contest. I love Hoffman and he deserves his nomination, but he is the least deserving of these five great actors. And Beatty is amazing even if he is not one of my overall favorites. The oddest thing is that Poitier was NOT nominated and Steiger was (much less won the thing.) It was, obviously, a year in which race relations were widely considered and rightly so. Thus, Tracy certainly deserved his rightly given nomination even if he had died by this time. If both Steiger and Poitier had been nominated, I can see a split vote. But that only Steiger got the nod, I guess he eeks out the win.

All of this is backdrop to me to one of the greatest Newman performances of all time! It is his greatest performance and his most iconic role in a career of many. It's my 2nd favorite performance of his career (again, more below) and that it was even a contest is shocking to me. I suppose we can assume "timeliness" and all of that, but it doesn't make it right. This should have been Paul's all day long.

I give this a +4 in Newman's favor because he was better than any of the others to my mind.

1982

• Henry Fonda – On Golden Pond as Norman Thayer Jr.
  • Warren Beatty – Reds as John Silas "Jack" Reed
  • Burt Lancaster – Atlantic City as Lou Pascal
  • Dudley Moore – Arthur as Arthur Bach
  • Paul Newman – Absence of Malice as Michael Gallagher

I can't argue with these results in any way. It says something that Newman went over a decade without a nomination (and again...more below) but these are some amazing performances and Fonda absolutely deserved this nod and win! Here's another that had a long career without the recognition he likely deserved. I'm not a huge fan of Reds but Beatty deserved this and Lancaster is great in his film. More than anything, I love Arthur and Moore. It is one of my favorite films of all time and I'm just happy he got the nod for his performance. Newman too deserves his nod this year, but the right man won. Easy and hands down.

Definitely a +0 for Newman here.

1983

• Ben Kingsley – Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi
  • Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels
  • Jack Lemmon – Missing as Edmund Horman
  • Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin
  • Peter O'Toole – My Favorite Year as Alan Swann

Just damn! One of the toughest contests of Newman's career. These are five iconic performances from five amazing actors. I'm sad to say, as much as I love these actors, Lemmon and O'Toole are also rans here. They are great, but the real winner should have been Hoffman for Tootsie. Newman is awesome in The Verdict, but Hoffman goes all out. Did they cancel each other out? Hard to say. And Kingsley? I cannot fault his win here because it is an amazing performance in an amazing film.

Honestly I would rank them Hoffman, Kingsley, Newman, O'Toole and then Lemmon. And I'll watch any film of theirs at any time. All five I consider my favorite actors!

Got to call this a +0 for Newman. He wasn't going to win.

1987

• Paul Newman – The Color of Money as "Fast Eddie" Felson
  • Dexter Gordon – Round Midnight as Dale Turner
  • Bob Hoskins – Mona Lisa as George
  • William Hurt – Children of a Lesser God as James Leeds
  • James Woods – Salvador as Richard Boyle

It has been suggested over the years that this was a gimme Oscar. I think that is wrong. Paul finally gets his recognition by the Academy. Rightfully so. These are all great performances (most especially to me by Dexter Gordon, but he was an enlightened choice by the nominating committee...he wasn't going to win.) The interesting thing this year was William Hurt. At the time, he was in the midst if a five year run of amazing performances with all accolades given and deservedly so. He'd just won the Oscar the previous year for Kiss of the Spider Woman and would be nominated again the next year for Broadcast News. That, to me, is the only thing that suggests it might be a gimme Oscar for Newman. Marlee Matlin would win for Best Actress (which I might have given to Sissy Spacek for Crimes of the Heart or Sigourney Weaver for Aliens...but so be it) and it was clear this was a well considered film. But Newman had never won.

Like John Wayne for True Grit or Pacino in Scent of a Woman, it is understandable that Newman would get this ultimate nod finally. In my mind, he deserved it more than either of those two for their winning roles. And he joins a small group of people nominated twice for the same role (again, Pacino in The Godfather.) It is an amazing film (and the reason I'm blogging about it today) but as I look back at his career, it does look a bit as a gimme. By my count, he should have already won once, if not twice (and he did not even compete in some other instances...once more...see below.) I'll take the win.

No need to give a plus or minus here because he won.

1995

• Tom Hanks – Forrest Gump as Forrest Gump
  • Morgan Freeman – The Shawshank Redemption as Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding
  • Nigel Hawthorne – The Madness of King George as King George III of the United Kingdom
  • Paul Newman – Nobody's Fool as Donald "Sully" Sullivan
  • John Travolta – Pulp Fiction as Vincent Vega

OK. This is one of the most egregious years ever. Look, I love Tom Hanks and I enjoy Forrest Gump, but please! Hawthorne was amazing, no question about it. And Travolta? He was lucky to get this nod as much as I enjoy that film. This is a two man race and neither man won. We are talking about two of my favorite films and two of my favorite performances. It's hard for me to say which I might have voted for at the time should I have a vote, but I nudge towards Newman. Freeman should have won, in my mind, but I would have been happy (and rooted for) Newman to pick up a 2nd. I guess they felt he already had one now and Freeman would have to wait (as he would eventually win for Million Dollar Baby.)

What to give this one? Hmm. I guess a +1 because he should have had a shot.

2003

• Chris Cooper – Adaptation as John Laroche
  • Ed Harris – The Hours as Richard "Richie" Brown
  • Paul Newman – Road to Perdition as John Rooney
  • John C. Reilly – Chicago as Amos Hart
  • Christopher Walken – Catch Me If You Can as Frank Abagnale Sr.

I've no problem with this, especially because this was a Supporting Actor nomination. Prior to this, Newman was always nominated for Best Actor. This last was just the Academy being the Academy. Long time famous actor that does something interesting? Sure...why not. Look at Meryl Streep (and don't get me wrong, I love her!) I think the only competition here was between Cooper and Walken. The right man won.

Call it another +0.

So...what to make of all of this?

Nothing really since Paul finally got his Oscar. But I keep saying more later and here's where we get into that. Two years after Newman was nominated for Cool Hand Luke, he was NOT nominated for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It's only my favorite film of his and not only was he not nominated, neither was Redford. Instead, here was that year's roster:

• John Wayne – True Grit as Rooster Cogburn
  • Richard Burton – Anne of the Thousand Days as King Henry VIII of England
  • Dustin Hoffman – Midnight Cowboy as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo
  • Peter O'Toole – Goodbye, Mr. Chips as Arthur Chipping
  • Jon Voight – Midnight Cowboy as Joe Buck

Do you see the miss here? Burton, Hoffman, and Voight definitely deserved their nominations. I love O'Toole, so...OK. Wayne! And he won. How is Newman not nominated here??

+2 here because Hoffman and Voight likely deserved this and Burton was still on his losing streak.

Now how about 1973...

That year the Best Actor race was:

• Jack Lemmon – Save the Tiger as Harry Stoner
  • Marlon Brando – Last Tango in Paris as Paul
  • Jack Nicholson – The Last Detail as Billy "Badass" Buddusky
  • Al Pacino – Serpico as Frank Serpico
  • Robert Redford – The Sting as Johnny Hooker

I've no problem with the winner here or any of these nominations except that Newman is better than Redford in The Sting (AND the film itself won Best Picture.) As much as I love Brando, Newman should have had that slot and we'd still see the same winner. After all, Lemmon is one of the greats and this is one of his greats (and his second Oscar after Mr. Roberts.) Brando already had 2 after On the Waterfront and The Godfather, Nicholson had 1 from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (on his way to 3 with Terms of Endearment and As Good As it Gets) and Pacino was still on his losing streak. Redford has never won an acting Oscar (this was his only nomination) so he would wait to win for Ordinary People in 1980 as Director (and even there...Raging Bull anyone?)

So the way I see it, Paul Newman should have 3 competitive Oscars (and at least 2 more nominations.) I'll take the win for The Color of Money and add a win for Cool Hand Luke and Nobody's Fool (and possibly a 4th for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.) Honestly, he should have been nominated and then won for Butch Cassidy. He certainly deserved them and this is, of course, an exercise in what if. It wasn't. After all, and again, Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Burton never won an Oscar. O'Toole never won one. At least Paul got his the one time.

Feel free to offer your own opinions about such as I welcome them and if there is another you are interested in me looking at (as if you couldn't) please let know. But I went down a rabbit hole this morning and this is what I came up with. A whole slew of Hollywood history, films, actors and actresses and I find all of that interesting even if the Oscars mean nothing. So there is that. And...that is all.

The Many Saints of Newark

Those two and a half readers of mine may recall that I was a huge fan of the HBO show The Sopranos. To me, it is the greatest show ever put to television (and yes, Breaking Bad is 1b.) You can drill back and find my reviews of the last seasons and certainly my most read and commented upon post here was my reaction to the series finale. Now, here we are many years after that finale and have a prequel film written by David Chase. What follows is a (sort-of) cross post from the place I spent most of time during those years - the great Sopranos forum The Chase Lounge (where I remain a moderator and admin.) If some of it sounds too familiar to the reader, that is why.

[Note - At the end of this post, I will add some spoilery so beware when you get to that point!]

So now, the review...

Short answer, I enjoyed it. Longer answer below.

I will state that I am of mixed emotions about it, to be sure. You will note that I did not say that I loved it above. I did not. Nor did I hate it. I think it was true to the spirit of the original show yet any one episode (outside of the few we might all agree were subpar) would have been (and was) more enjoyable, deeper in themes and ideas and simply better acted all the way round. All that said, it was nice to have (some of) the gang back. And do not get me wrong. There are some stand out performances in this movie. I think the main one would be Vera Farmigna as Livia Soprano. She does an excellent job trying to match the tone of Nancy Marchand without moving into parody. Body language and intent are all there and even allows some pathos seeing how Livia would become what we would see as the show began. Alessandro Nivolo is also a stand out as Dickie Moltisanti. There are some differences in what we see of him in this film from what we were told about him on the show, but it was highly interesting to follow his footsteps and entertaining (despite some of his actions) to actually see a character we never saw on the show itself. Finally, one must single out Michael Gandolfini as the younger teenage Tony. Obviously he resembles his father in both looks and actions so he fits perfectly in as the younger Tony. As well, I cannot imagine any one of us does not have somewhat of a bittersweet emotion seeing him inhabit this role.

The other younger versions of themselves were less successful, by and large. All of the actors did their best to find the motions and even in some cases the voice of the characters we grew to know and (sometimes) love on the show but at moments they do verge on parody or perhaps a well done SNL skit. The actor that plays the younger Silvio has his mannerisms and vocal tics down to the smallest thing (and it was humorous to show when and how he began wearing a wig) but at moments it takes you out of the piece. So too the younger Paulie and possibly even the younger Pussy. I could say the same thing about Corey Stoll as the younger Junior but at times he really does offer some excellent moments. You do get a brief shot of the young Carmela, the young Artie Bucco and even a blink and you'll miss it bit of Jackie Aprile. There is no sign of Ralphie Cifaretto or Tony B. And speaking of that, I did not think that Joanne Blundetto Moltisanti would have been old enough to be a peer to Livia but they do portray it that way here so a little bit of continuity blown there but not enough to kill anything.

I should also single out Ray Liotta playing a duel role here as the twin elder Moltisanti brothers. Firstly it is about time he enjoyed the entire rest of the cast of Goodfellas in finally joining the Sopranos universe and second I think he acquits himself well here even if his chops might not be as sharp as they once were. Lastly, I think that Leslie Odom, Jr. is excellent in his time as at first a soldier to Dickie and then later a rival. That said, Chase still does not know quite what to do with race in the world of the mafia. It's not poorly done, but not enough space was perhaps given here to fully flesh out what he attempted. Perhaps if this was stretched out to a full season rather than nearly two hour film.

Now on to the meat of the film:

This was billed as "how Tony got his start" but by now you surely know that it is really no such thing. The film belongs to the character of Dickie Moltisanti. It follows his rise and inevitable fall (no spoiler there) and only shows Tony's reaction to it from time to time, first as a small child and then later as a teen. I honestly do not have a problem with that except for the mislabeled pitch. As stated, Nivolo is excellent as Dickie and Chase takes him through his paces as he at first deals with his father, then his rivals and lastly with his girlfriend (and sometimes all of them together.) In the show, we were led to believe that Dickie was a junkie just like Christopher would later turn out to be, but this is not portrayed here. Now that could just be another lie Tony would later tell Christopher or it could be a missed opportunity for Chase to remember all of the things he put out there back in the show. However, what IS shown is just as troublesome. I will not spoil any of that in this thread, but if you thought Tony had some terrible traits, you will see a lot of that as well with his "uncle Dickie." Can we say that Tony learned such from him? I doubt it since Tony is rarely around when Dickie is doing these things (unlike when he sees Johnny Boy chop off Satriales finger or get arrested at the circus...which is somewhat recreated here.) But maybe he later heard the stories. Who can say?

And speaking of Johnny Boy, he's really not in the film that much which was a bit disappointing. I grew to love the actor that played Johnny in the flashbacks on the show and while this actor is good, he just isn't given much to do other than fill the beats of things we've already heard about him (yes, we do get a scene of when he shot through Livia's hair bun.) In many respects, what Chase has floated here is that it was Dickie as much if not more that was the natural father figure to Tony which both fits somewhat what we know of Tony's troubled relationship with his father but also contradicts the same at the same time. The real truth is that Dickie was fleshed out so little as a remembered character on the show, Chase had plenty of a blank slate to work with whereas he had only limited room with Johnny and Livia. Again, maybe not a missed opportunity but not enough time to truly explore these complex relationships as it relates to Tony and then later to Christopher.

And here is where my real beef comes into it...the framing device used. It is Christopher that narrates during the film. From beyond the grave. Knowing nothing about his father outside of what lies he's been told. Now true...who knows what we find out in the afterlife? And sure, it is surely tempting to try and tie this film to at least once actual actor that was in the original show. But it is the least workable aspect of the film. I just don't buy it. AND that it comes and goes, it's not even used particularly well. Sure, if Gandolfini were still alive, I can see the use of this narrative device. But Chase no longer has that luxury and should not have tried to shoehorn another into that role.

I'll say that Alan Taylor's direction is to his usual excellent ability and the music, as always is used well. Perhaps too much at times, but well. There remains no doubt that Chase still belongs to the Scorsese school of using rock music and liberally for his mafia stories. Locations were often quite nostalgic and I'm sure some would say too much as easter eggs throughout but I found them welcoming. I was a little confused about the house the Sopranos live in when Tony is a teen because I thought that would be the one used at the start of the show, but things could have changed between the 70s and 90s.

Overall, I really enjoyed this extra glimpse into the universe so many of us spent hours and hours considering many years ago. It brought back many memories and I'm sure I'll have more to say as I re-watch and/or read what others have to say. If you want to read some of the more spoilery things, you can go to The Chase Lounge, but I will say this here on my own platform...

 

AND YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...

 

It turns out is was Junior that called the hit on Dickie! I would have never guessed that even if it fits his personality in every way. So good on ye there, Chase. An inspired choice, especially since he puts out a hit on his own nephew many years later (a failed one, but "cunnilingus and psychiatry brought us to this!") 

So for this review, these are my two boxes of ziti. A good movie, but not great. Certainly worth my watch. That is all.

AL's 2014 Oscar Picks

It's that time of year once again as the Oscars come tomorrow night. And unlike the past few years, I have actually seen a good amount of the years nominees prior to the ceremony - Gravity, American Hustle, Philomena and just last night Dallas Buyers Club. All excellent films, as well. Though I don't do a full slate of picks anymore, I will still give you my thoughts on the big six. So here we go:

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave

Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine

Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club

Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity

The sad thing is that American Hustle will not be well represented here as perhaps it should be.  It was on equal footing for the best film I saw this past year along with Gravity. Jennifer Lawrence could win supporting actress, but she won her first just last year, and Amy Adams will have some support as she has not yet won before while the other best actress nominees all have at least one Oscar but Blanchett pretty much has it wrapped up. Hustle could win for screenplay but even there, Her is getting much love.

I recognize that my picks pretty much track general opinion with not one shock in the bunch, though for that I think supporting actress could provide such as it so often does. However, I am at a loss as to who might benefit from a split vote between Lawrence and Nyong'o. For a truly shocking pick, perhaps look for American Hustle to win Best Picture. Opinion suggests if 12 Years a Slave does not win, it would be Gravity and the manner in which they vote for Best Picture still leaves Hustle outside looking in, but it would be a shock and a pleasant one at that. We shall see. Looking forward to my yearly Oscar ceremony.  It has been a great year for film. That is all.

HBO's Game Change

I caught the final portion of this film recently and hesitate to watch the rest.  It has nothing to do with the sourcing of the book or film, either.  It has to do with being a faithful adaptation. I read this book and was interested in how it would be presented on screen.  I thought the casting was interesting even though I knew it would be a hit job on every liberals favorite punching bag, Palin.  But when I watched it, I saw nothing of half the book.

Yes, it went into great detail on Palin and her pick.  But a good portion of the actual book covered Obama vs Clinton and some salacious episodes on Edwards that were by then old news.  The National Inquirer somehow reported that story at the time and no one in the major media wanted to check on it.  Apparently that wasn't dramatic enough for this film either.

Thus, this review will be short.  I will give Ed Harris credit for a credible job portraying McCain.  Moore wasn't bad as Palin, but Fey does her better.  And Woody needs to go back to the pipe.  No portrayal of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards or anything else about a large portion of the book.  One has to ask why?  That is all.

2009 Oscar Picks

It is Oscar time again and I'm getting a bit of an early start on my picks.  I've picked over 50% over the past five years (my best being 21/24 in 2004) and hopefully I can keep up with that pace.  I've done some research here and there in which films have won what and now make my best educated guess as to which films will come out on top on February 22nd.  Below are my picks and when the winners are announced, I'll mark those I got wrong.  So let's get to those picks:

Best Picture - Slumdog Millionaire

This seems to be the consensus pick of all the films up for best picture.  This is definitely Danny Boyle's year and I would be very surprised if this film doesn't win.  It's won all the other awards and I don't think we'll see a surprise change on Oscar night.

Best Actor - Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler

I'm taking a heartfelt risk here.  Sean Penn is the safe choice and I think there is about a 50/50 chance for one of these two men to take home the gold.  We may see a split vote here giving the award to Frank Langella, but I am going to go with Mickey.  After comingback from where he has been, this would be great to see and I think The Wrestler is making a late showing amongst voters.  His interview on Charlie Rose the other night certainly did not hurt him.

Best Actress - Kate Winslet for The Reader

After five previous nominations for Winslet and no wins, I have a hard time believing the Academy would give Meryl Streep her third Oscar before giving Kate her first.  Like the above category, there could be a split vote giving the award to Melissa Leo or even Anne Hathaway, but the best actress category isn't as "volatile" as supporting actress usually is.  I've not seen the film, but one could see voters giving Winslet this for not just The Reader but so too her performance in Revolutionary Road.

Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight

The surprise of the night would be to see someone else take this award.  There is a chance of some backlash over the sure thing that is Ledger's performance, but that would be wrong-headed.  Robert Downey, Jr. would likely be the recipient of any but I foresee Ledger's win here as the surest thing of the night.  What an incredible performance and what sadness that he won't be there to accept.  Further, at least this great film will win one award after being left off (and wrongly I might add) from the Best Picture list.

Best Supporting Actress - Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This is the toughest of the acting catagories, mostly because several other awards have included Winslet's The Reader performance and she's won.  As well, one can never truly accurately pick a lock here.  Best Supporting Actress always throws you for a loop.  But always consider the Woody Allen actress a strong contender.  As well, the voters often like to reward up and coming actresses here.  Tomei gives what I understand is a strong performance but she's already won this for My Cousin Vinny.  There are two performances from Doubt included, though Viola Davis likely has the edge there.  In the end, I'm going with the safe pick of Cruz.

Best Director - Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire

With two of my favorite directors going for this award, it might be a tough call, but Boyle seems to be taking in all the wins.  I've loved this guy's work since Shallow Grave and it will be excellent to see him finally take home an Oscar.  This is pretty much a sure thing.  If Slumdog picks up a lot of the other awards, as I think it will, then he is a sure thing.

Best Foreign Film - Waltz with Bashir

Another pretty sure guess here.  As usual, I've not see any of the films, but this one keeps winning.  I feel pretty secure with this pick.  If it doesn't win, look for The Class to upset.

Best Original Screenplay - Dustin Lance Black for Milk

There is an undercurrent suggesting Wall-E might have a shot here, but I am going to go with Milk as the winner.  It seems to have the backing and Milk was a well considered film.  I went out on a limb and went against Penn in the acting catagory, but without Slumdog to compete with here, I think Milk is the safe choice.

Best Adapted Screenplay - Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire

Another award Slumdog competes for and another it wins.  I really don't see how another could possibly win here.  It's the safe choice, to be sure.

Best Cinematography - Anthony Dod Mantle for Slumdog Millionaire

I might as well go with the sweep for Slumdog this year.  It has a lot of backing.  I have not seen much on this catagory but this seems to be a safe pick.  No idea who might upset, though I understand the duo of Menges and Deakens has a shot.

Best Art Direction - Donald Graham Burt and Victor J. Zolfo for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Without Slumdog to compete with here, Benjamin Button finally gets a chance to win some awards.  It is the most nominated this year and from what I've seen of the film, it deserves this.  It will pick up some other technical awards this year, to the detriment of The Dark Knight, also nominated in many of the same catagories.  Just no love for the Batman this year.

Best Costume Design - Michael O'Connor for The Duchess

When you have a period piece with lots of fancy dresses, don't pick against it.  It's just that simple.

Best Film Editing - Chris Dickens for Slumdog Millionaire

In a sweeps year, pick the sweeping film.  Thus, Slumdog takes this too.  Of course, I'd like to see The Dark Knight take a victory, but I don't see it happening.

Best Sound Editing - Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood for Wall-E

This seems to me a three way race between Wall-E, The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire, the latter especially given the sweeping nature of its awards night.  But I think the veteren Burtt and the love for the film will give Wall-E the win here.

Best Sound Mixing - Slumdog Millionaire

I'm not going to list all of the peope involved in this but I think here is where we see the sweep taking place.  For the above award, they are looking at sound effects creation wherein here we see the mixing of said sounds into the film itself.  While Wall-E might have a shot here too, I think these two films split these awards.  It is possible that The Dark Knight could sweep the two, giving it a decent night, but look for the sweep.

Best Score - A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire

He's won just about everything else for this and I think he'll be part of the sweep for the night.  From what I have heard, it is deserving too.

Best Song - "Down to Earth" from Wall-E

With The Boss not competing this year, it is a wide open race.  Both of the other nominees are from the same film so they will likely cancel each other out giving Peter Gabriel a win.  Too bad he won't be performing it on Oscar night but I understand why (they only wanted to give these nominees a short time to put them into a medly and Gabriel refused.)

Best Make Up - Greg Cannom for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

In the tech catagories, Benjamin Button will do well.  Hellboy II might have a shot, but look for the amazing work in Button to take the gold.

Best Visual Effects - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I won't be listing all the people for this either, but suffice to say Button takes another of the tech awards.  The Dark Knight could sneak by, but I don't think so.  The aging process alone in Button seems to deserve it.

Best Animated Feature - Wall-E

This one is pretty easy.  Many felt this to be the best of the year in total so it would surprise me if another broke through here.  It would be silly to pick against it.

And Now The Crapshoot:

Best Documentary Feature - Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short - The Witness from the Balcony of Room 306
Best Animated Short - Presto
Best Live Action Short - Spielzeugland (Toyland)

I actually feel pretty strongly about this other than docu short.  Man on Wire has been winning a lot this year, despite Werner Herzog and Erryl Morris both having films nominated.  And for the shorts, the animated has a Pixar entry which I cannot guess against and the live action short has to do with the Holocaust.  One should know never to bet against that in an Oscar race.  Tried and true always works in the crapshoot.  Let's see how well I do.

Well, that's that.  Hopefully I can get over the 50% threshhold if not more.  I'd like to see me do better than half on the crapshoot.  That always helps the final tally.  The year I got 21 out of 24, I guessed three out of four in the crapshoot correctly.  Return on the 22nd where I will try and live-blog the event.  I do like to watch it though, so it may not be a lively live-blog.  If anything, I'll certainly do a wrap up the next day.  That is all.

The Dark Knight

Had to check out the new Batman movie and decided it was time for a new review.  I could come at The Dark Knight in a couple of different ways, honestly.  Given the amount of hype and hyperbole spilled in internet ink before and after the films release, I would have to say it could be considered a let down.  But when you come right down to it and see the film for what it is, it is a damned good movie.  However, it remains a popcorn flick and those that would have you believe it is Oscar-worthy are engaging in that very same hyperbole mentioned above.  I'm sure they'd like it to be as it is rare that a movie like this gets such consideration but this is not a four star film.  In truth, I'd give it three and half out of five.

What's good?  The performances by everyone but Christian Bale, though even he shines in a few moments.  His Batman is overshadowed at nearly every step of the way by his co-stars.  Even the limited screen time given to Michael Caine shows that the elder actor inhabited his role with more meat and skin.  I'm not sure if this is due to script, though it must be, as Bale is an excellent actor.  He was not given the words to build on.  There is one scene showing what a playboy lifestyle Bruce Wayne lives that gave Bale something interesting to do but for the rest of the film, Bruce Wayne/Batman seems to be reacting to events and characters around him.  But as the star of the film is the Joker, then perhaps that was exactly as Christopher Nolan meant it.

And let's go ahead and get to that star turn - Heath Ledger's Joker is a marvel (pun not intended as this is a DC comic) as the agent of chaos with no desire for form or structure.  He has a scene in which he explains himself and it is note perfect as is his entire unhinged performance.  It is impossible to separate this role and what he does with it from his accidental overdose that occurred just after wrapping production on this film.  It can easily be seen that Ledger put his all into the role and given what he does with it, unfortunately I don't think he was able to leave it behind as easily as one might expect.  His Joker is one of the most evil and unpredictable characters ever presented on screen and to see him inhabit that skin (and perhaps knowing something of the events surrounding the film) it is actually a bit hard to watch at times.  If there is one bit of hyperbole going around that actually is no such thing it is the chance that Ledger might receive Oscar consideration himself.  Even had he not died, I still think he'd receive such consideration.  He is that good.

The other actor receiving much adoration for his role is Aaron Eckhart.  While I generally love the man's work, I just didn't think this was as excellent as so many have suggested.  He's not bad in the role and does much with his later turn (if you know anything about the character of Harvey Dent then I've spoiled nothing here for you.)  But while many have suggested he was the embodiment of good guy with a perfect moral compass, I didn't really see it.  He didn't seem such a "White Knight" that is supposed to compare to Batman's darkness and moral ambiguity.  I just didn't buy it.  Maybe because I know of the eventual nature of the character or that I saw potential for that early on (which may be a credit to the actor) but the turn seemed to occur too easily for me and should have been more of a struggle.

If there was a true weak link at all it was once again in the female love interest though I will readily admit that Maggie Gyllenhaal was much better than Katie Holmes in the previous film.  Gyllenhall's performance wasn't bad so much as they did not give her much to do but be the girlfriend, save for one large role midway through the film.  While the payoff is there for her presence, the presence itself seems superfluous for two films.

There has been much said about the themes presented in the script, especially the duality between The Joker and Batman as well as between Dent/Two Face and Batman.  One might even also include Gary Oldman's superb turn as Jim Gordan vs Batman.  Each of the roles plays off what we see in Wayne's Dark Knight in different ways.  In truth, if there really was a true "good guy" it would be Gordon.  But limited as he is to combat crime in Gotham, the policeman requires the assistance of the vigilante/caped crusader.  One must hand it to the writers and the director that they include such complicated themes into what many would consider just a super hero movie.  But often the super hero world is full of such complicated themes and helps explore real life issues.  This should be no different.

There has been some discussion that Batman is a cypher of some sort for George W. Bush.  I don't know that I buy that as implicit in Nolan's vision, but it is not untoward to consider such an idea.  In truth, Batman must do the unpopular and be comfortable in a less than positive light in order to get accomplished what needs done.  That he takes on the heavy burden of being not just the hero but so too perhaps the villain to some is not far away from what the President must endure to fight his war against terrorists and what is the Joker but terror wrapped in man?

This isn't just a super hero movie, that is for sure.  Many have considered it a crime film wrapped in a super hero cape, and often they consider it one of the best ever made.  Once more, I might consider that hyperbole but to be honest, I need to see the film a few more times before I can make such a judgment.  The movie theater I saw this in did not have the right sound levels, if you ask me, and I missed a decent amount of dialogue at times.  And the run time suggests that there is much to ponder written into the movie.  The themes and denouement require further reflection.  I could easily come back in three months time and give you either a two star rating or bump it up to the full five.  In truth, simply while writing this review, I have convinced myself that it is solidly a four.  See what change a little thinking can bring?

Certainly go see the film, though it has some major violent scenes and this Batman is not even close to the one presented in the previous film Batman Begins.  He is much darker as the title suggests.  While I could do without Bale's raspy voice (at times, it was really quite grating), the full effect of each character working off of each other and in and around a much more fully realized city (in old Chicago) makes for a delightful two hours and change.  If anything, I would suggest not going in with heightened expectations.  Assume you'll get an enjoyable film and then be suprised at how much you really like it.  I might have enjoyed it more had I done so rather than assuming it to be true art and being slightly let down.  But it was still a fun ride and Heath Ledger's Joker is reason enough to see it.  That is all.

The Big Chill

It is difficult to know where to begin with The Big Chill.  There's the great cast, the brilliant choices in music, the witty script and above all else, the huge rewatchability factor.  Most likely, it can be considered Lawrence Kasdan's best film as director and it is certainly his most critically successful work. There are many reasons why.

Let's start by simply looking at the plot.  Old friends reunite at the funeral of one of their college pals after his suicide.  Over the weekend, they attempt to discover why he did so and at the same time re-evaluate their own lives.  Set to outstanding tunes from the 60's and populated by an all-star cast, we have the recipe for a winner.  The script is full of questions left over from the days of radical campus politics and attempts to reconcile with the "me" decade of the 80's.  In the attempt to explain why the radicalism died, the script fails other than to blame it on a "cold world" aka the chill of the title.  However, I took a different idea from that - in many ways, the film shows how idealism of youth almost always disappears with age.  And those that have a difficult time putting away such idealism struggle.

The cast, as mentioned, is incredible.  Kevin Kline, William Hurt, Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum...on and on.  It's really a who's who of 80's talent.  Even Kevin Costner has a role, though it ends up on the cutting room floor.  He plays the corpse and for the longest time, I felt this role to be his best.  I've since come to appreciate his work.  And the most under-rated actor in the whole film probably has to be Kline.  He's the most talented (in my opinion) and is almost wasted on a role that has little to do but be the rock (along with wife Close) for the rest of the friends to cling to in this time of trouble.  He is subtle and often provides a counter-balance to the other more curious characters.

And the music.  Before Scorsese and others figured out how to score dramatic moments using rock and roll, this film had already done it.  It was not the first, but by all right, may very well be the best practitioner.  There are flawless mixes of action and music that populate the film throughout and the film would be dramaticallly changed without that.

As a genre, it is difficult to place The Big Chill.  It is at once both comedy and drama.  Above all, it is an ensemble piece but not in the sense that say an Altman film is.  It's the ensemble here that must tell the story in a conventional setting but through unconventional means.  One aspect illustrates it well - the affair between the Glenn Close character and Alex, the dead friend.  Never spoken of in great detail, it is mentioned and left alone even though Close brings her emotions regarding this towards almost every scene she is in.  It helps explain why she does certain things near the end of the film and further provides a contrast to the other women, especially Jo Beth Williams.

By being his most difficult film to plug into a ready made hole, perhaps this is what makes The Big Chill Kasdan's most successful effort.  Rather than depend on elements familiar to a certain genre, Kasdan is forced to tell his own story in his own way.  It works.  Humorous, touching, sad and happy - The Big Chill is a great way to spend a few hours.  The music will certainly make you tap your feet, the words and actions of our characters will make you smile and perhaps even cry, and I can guarantee that if this is the first time you watch this film, it will not be the last.  It's a one of a kind.  That is all.

Body Heat

Lawrence Kasdan's debut film is a fine piece of work.  On it's own, it is a mostly tight little neo-noir for the 80's, and seems to have been one of only a few.  Neo-noir did not really take off again until the late 80's and 90's.  There was the success of a few films in the 70's, notably Chinatown, but Body Heat harkens directly back to the noir standard, Double Indemnity.  In fact, it feels almost like a remake in many ways.  But the more impressive feature of this film is the cast.  With any other actors, this film cannot hold together with tone, music and script alone.  But using a young William Hurt and Kathleen Turner certainly helps turn up the heat and hot it is.

The story is fairly straight forward for a noir - beautiful woman uses horny male to cheat her husband and inherit a great deal of money.  Turner shows this almost immediately.  Her Matty Walker is all shape and lust, angles and guile.  She is willing to use any man in any way and plays Hurt's Ned Racine like a fiddle.  For his part, Hurt does not display a weak man completely, but at least weak for the opposite sex and is completely taken with the woman.  He is easy prey.  There are some interesting moments in which certain elements of an old style noir are deconstructed as the motives are explained and the double-cross becomes clear.  But for the most, the actors are given a typical script to work with and elevate the material to showcase the talents that would become apparent.  On it's own, the film is perhaps not forgettable, but simply of a piece alongside other attempts to re-envision a classic style, but its more useful feature is to show the development of its major players - Hurt, Turner and Kasdan.

This was the beginning for all three of them, for the most part.  Hurt had some films under his belt already (notably Altered States) and Kasdan had been writing, but this was Kathleen Turner's first major role and she bit into it hard.  She is a beautiful woman, and never allows the audience forget it.  In many ways, she has been coasting on this performance ever since despite having a fairly healthy twenty some odd year career.  Many of her most famous parts are simply derivations or plays on this role - Romancing the Stone simply takes this role and turns it on its head and her voice-work as Jessica Rabbit plays directly to it.  There is little doubt that her roles distinctly different from this have been few and far between, though to be fair, she is especially good in War of the Roses and Serial Mom.

Hurt's promise is another that seems to have fallen off in recent years.  Though he would have an incredible run during the mid-80's, he has seemingly flown under the radar since.  It has not been for lack of work as he has made plenty of films over the last twenty years, but the roles he plays have not had the same seeming level of care applied to them, with only a few notables to suggest such as his roles in Michael and A History of Violence (though I was not as impressed as some with that part.)

And as for Kasdan, let's just say that this was a very nice start and it is no wonder that studios were willing to go full ahead with him after this debut.  His writing was already a proven thing with this film coming out around the same time as his other major writing triumphs - The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Continental Divide.  And this film did very well at the box office from what I recall.  The early 80's were still under the drug of post-hippie, disco era free sex without the fear of AIDS.  This film belongs directly in that time period and the audiences ate it up.  The mood is classic noir thriller, but the look is stylized gloss that focuses on the sweat of our main characters, be they having sex or trying to determine how they are being double-crossed.  It's desire is to be dirty while wrapping it all in a clean package.

As a "genre man" it is clear that Kasdan is able to see what works and what does not in past examples of this style and he utilizes it, almost in a workmanlike attempt.  It comes across well because we have talented and pretty people inhabiting the world and perhaps because audiences were starved for this type of story, Hollywood having lost sight of the old style noir.  If I had to give it a star rating, I'd say three and half out of five.  It scores points because of the great cast (including a young Ted Danson and a beautiful Kim Zimmer before she went on to become famous as Reva Shayne on the daytime soap opera Guiding Light) and for the attempt to recreate a classic feel, but loses some due to the clinical feel of the finished product.  Sultry, yes.  But almost as if they tried too hard.  It's worth a watch for the history of it all, but it has a hard time equaling any of the great noirs of the past. 

Next up, The Big Chill.  That is all.