Moonlighting (1982)

Moonlighting (1982)

“I must concentrate on work; I must drive them harder.”

Synopsis:
When a Polish construction manager (Jeremy Irons) arrives in London with three non-English-speaking co-workers (Eugene Lipinski, JirĂ­ Stanislav, and Eugeniusz Haczkiewicz) to illegally reconstruct a condo for his boss, he becomes increasingly stressed and paranoid about ensuring the work gets done, even amidst strife in their home country.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Corruption
  • Immigrants and Immigration
  • Jerzy Skolimowski Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “beguiling film (shot and edited in one month’s time) from Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski” is at first “comedic in tone but later it’s an increasingly bleak and desperate political allegory.” In describing the spare but powerful story, Peary writes that Irons “is a married, educated Polish construction worker living in Warsaw” who, “because he knows how to speak English,” is sent by his “wealthy boss (looking for cheap labor)” to “London to turn a dull flat into a snazzy retreat to which the boss can take his mistress.”

He “takes three workers with him” who he selects “because they don’t know English and are stupid [sic], so he figures they’ll be easy to supervise” — and, “indeed, they do everything he says, including staying inside so no one will know they are working illegally.”

However, “as their stay goes on, Irons becomes more and more isolated from his men — becoming their slavedriver and watchdog and the person who rations food and clothing allotments,” “keeps all the money the boss has sent them, takes away their source of entertainment and news…, [and] manipulates them into working more hours by altering his watch.” Perhaps worst of all, “he doesn’t tell them… when he learns that there has been a military crackdown in Poland and Solidarity has been outlawed,” given “he fears they will stop work at the depressing news.”

Ironically, “in effect, [Irons] has deprived them of all their freedoms”: their “lives are so oppressive under Irons that they are enduring (on a much less frightening level, of course) what their fellow workers are going through back in Warsaw.”

Indeed, this film represents a living nightmare on numerous levels: not only are Irons and his men perceived either as non-entities or nuisances (much like thousands of immigrant workers continue to be all over the world), but there is nobody to keep an eye on (or temper) Irons’ increasing totalitarianism and paranoia. He is so fixated on working for a short-term monetary goal that any ends seem to justify the means — including repeated bouts of risky shoplifting. Meanwhile, he’s miserable; this is not a man getting high on his own power so much as someone blindly carrying out orders — and involving others — “as a puppet of the Polish elite.” By the film’s appropriately bleak ending, you will truly feel the hopeless injustice of their situation — which is, precisely, the point.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jeremy Irons as Nowak
  • Tony Pierce Roberts’ cinematography

  • Stanley Myers’ score

Must See?
Yes, as a uniquely effective film.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Beguiled, The (1971)

Beguiled, The (1971)

“I’ve got the strangest feeling that I’m some kind of prisoner in a girls’ school.”

Synopsis:
When a wounded Yankee colonel (Clint Eastwood) seeks refuge in a southern girls’ school run by middle-aged Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), he quickly finds himself presented with multiple opportunities for flirtations — including with sexually forward Carol (Jo Ann Harris) and demure Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Civil War
  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Don Siegel Films
  • Elizabeth Hartman Films
  • Geraldine Page Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Love Triangle
  • Strong Females
  • Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Don Siegel directed this gothic horror tale (in which females are the ‘monsters’) that surely is one of Clint Eastwood’s oddest films (and one of his rare money-losers).” When Eastwood’s “injured Yankee soldier” is suddenly “surrounded by females of all ages,” he “can’t understand them and underestimates them.”

Because he’s “afraid of being turned over to the rebel army,” this “least moral of Eastwood’s characters lies his way into the passionate hearts” of numerous women — but quickly “learns about the wrath of woman scorned.”

I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that this “Southern Gothic” cult classic more than delivers on its potential. The cast — from Eastwood and Page to all supporting players — is top-notch; Bruce Surtees’ cinematography is luminous; Lalo Schifrin’s score is appropriately haunting; and we’re kept on our toes from the first moments of Albert Maltz’s screenplay (based on a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan) until the very end. There are numerous twists and turns, unpredictable character arcs, and sequences of genuine horror which nonetheless play out as entirely realistic within this particular bounded universe (I won’t share any of them here because the fun is in the watching). Be forewarned that nobody here is really who they seem — and yet they are each, very much, exactly who they are.

Note: Apparently this was Don Siegel’s favorite of all his movies, which makes sense — though I suppose it also makes sense that viewers at the time expecting more of Eastwood’s typical action fare would be disappointed (it was a failure at the box office).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Clint Eastwood as Corporal John McBurney
  • Geraldine Page as Miss Martha Farnsworth
  • Elizabeth Hartman as Edwina Dabney
  • Jo Ann Harris as Carol
  • Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy
  • Mae Mercer as Hallie
  • Fine location shooting
  • Bruce Surtees’ cinematography
  • Lalo Schifrin’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a strong cult classic by a noted director.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Important Director

Links:

Scarface (1983)

Scarface (1983)

Welcome to my entry in CMBA‘s Fall 2023 “Blogathan and the Beast”!

There are few cinematic anti-heroes beastlier than Al Pacino’s Tony Montana, so let’s explore him in this review. Thanks for reading! – FilmFanatic

(To read more about this website, please click here. To sign up to be able to post a comment, please write to me at filmfanatic.org@gmail.com.)

“I always tell the truth — even when I lie.”

Synopsis:
When ambitious Cuban immigrant Tony Montana (Al Pacino) arrives in Florida with his friend Manny (Steven Bauer), he immediately begins plans to enter into the drug trade — starting with local kingpin Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Al Pacino Films
  • Brian De Palma Films
  • Cuba
  • Drug Dealers
  • Gangsters
  • Immigrants and Immigration
  • Oliver Stone Films [screenwriter]
  • Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly not a fan of “Brian De Palma’s… remake of Howard Hawks’s 1932 classic,” referring to it right away as “ugly” and “disappointing.” He argues that Pacino “gives one of the most pungent (as in stinky), self-impressed performances in memory — snarling, swaggering, shouting, sneering, and sniffing coke up his snout ad nauseum.”

Peary complains about nearly every aspect of the film — but before going further in citing his review, I should note that he was not at all alone in his disdain for this movie at the time of its release; De Palma received a Razzie Nomination as worst director of the year, and according to TCM’s article:

Andrew Sarris branded Scarface “… so much more a disaster than an outrage” while David Denby sloughed it off as “a sadly overblown B-movie.” Brickbats also came from John Simon, Pauline Kael and Rex Reed” — [however] “there were dissenting opinions. In The Chicago Sun Times, Roger Ebert awarded Scarface four out of four stars. In the New York Times, Vincent Canby found the film “a revelation…” and in Time Richard Corliss claimed “Pacino creates his freshest character in years.”

Peary writes that “the story details Pacino’s rise from petty drug runner to righthand man of Miami’s drug emperor to emperor himself,” noting it’s a path “marked by bloody rub-outs, great amounts of money floating about, connections with corrupt policemen and drug suppliers in South America”:

… “and fallings out with his pretty wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), faithful friend (Steven Bauer)… and decent but naive sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio).”

He complains that “De Palma doesn’t show the development of the incestuous, overly protective feelings Pacino has for his sister after they are reunited in Miami (and she has matured from kid to sexy woman),” noting that “it happens too quickly and comes across as just a writer’s convenience that will cause Pacino to break with Bauer (who loves Pacino’s sister.” (I disagree; inappropriate attractions can start early, and Pacino’s character is most certainly a disturbed dude.)

Peary also argues that De Palma “neglects showing [the] inner workings of Pacino’s mob,” and questions, “Where are all his men and what do they do all day? We just see a few guys repeatedly making large bank deposits.”

He adds: “They deal drugs, but, considering this is a gangster film, rules of the genre dictate we be able to envision Pacino’s territory.” (I wasn’t personally bothered by this; we get enough of a sense of Pacino’s hold on his men through the violent actions we do see.)

He goes on to complain that the “editing is terrible,” there “are many flubs,” and the “female costuming is a joke” (I didn’t notice any of these factors). He does note that the “look of the film — the sun-drenched streets, orange sunsets, Art Deco architecture (it was mostly shot in L.A.) — is good:”

… “but not so impressive now that we’ve seen television’s Miami Vice.” He points out that the film’s “heralded violence has shock value at [the] beginning — particularly in the famous scene in which Pacino’s crime mate is dismembered with an electric buzz saw:”

… but he asserts “it later becomes as calculated for audience response as are the film’s quieter, character-development scenes.”

I’m not nearly as much of a hater of this film as Peary is; my main take-away (appropriately so) is that being a drug kingpin is lonely, dangerous, shallow, violent, pathetic, and paranoia-inducing.

Pacino doesn’t experience love or even lust with his trophy wife (they never kiss, let alone show any other affection). To that end, I think De Palma, screenwriter Oliver Stone, and Pacino do a good job portraying what a miserable dead end (literally) his character’s aspirations are — which makes it all the more interesting how much of a cult favorite this film quickly became.

I’ll close by saying how appropriate it is that this film ended up as my selection for “Blogathon and the Beast.” Even Peary agrees that Pacino’s performance is animalistic; he’s a “truly despicable character” whose dramatic finale (a slaughter) is well “earned”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Al Pacino as Tony Montana
  • Fine supporting performances across the cast


  • John Alonzo’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Smithereens (1982)

Smithereens (1982)

“Everyone’s a little weird these days; it’s normal.”

Synopsis:
A self-serving, would-be singer (Susan Berman) in New York City pursues a punk musician (Richard Hell) while managing and manipulating interest from a van-owning artist (Brad Rinn).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Homeless
  • New York City
  • Punk Rock

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that in this “impressive low-budget independent film directed by Susan Seidelman” — who leapt to fame a couple of years later with Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) — the director more accurately portrays Greenwich Village as “realistically, an ugly, hellish, unfriendly place where offbeat characters are too stoned, crazy, and selfish to help out their kind.” He describes Susan Berman’s “young refugee from New Jersey” as a drifter/grifter with “no money, no apartment, and no friends who will help her out” given that “most everyone has had enough of her grating personality, her lies (usually about needing no one), and her shameless taking advantage of anyone she thinks may help her.”

She’s “forced to live in a van with a nice guy (Brad Rinn) from Montana but she keeps disappointing him with her disloyalty”:

— and while “he wants her to go away with him… she’s planning on going to LA with a young singer (Richard Hell of the punk band, the Voidoids) — not seeing the signs that Hell (who is broke) is using her as she uses everyone else.” TouchĂ©.

Peary writes that while “we keep expecting Berman to wise up so she can enjoy a little happiness — we could use a little relief as well” — “Seidelman won’t let her” since “she wants to draw an accurate portrait of the typical Village loser.”

Peary points out “technically, the film is fairly polished — Seidelman composes her shots well, creating striking tableaux by situating her strangely dressed and coiffured characters in the frame with colorful props (Rinn’s van, for instance) and bizarrely designed or graffiti-colored walls.”

However, while I appreciate the effort Seidelman put into her debut indie film — made on a shoestring, with plenty of support from local artists and ample shooting delays and challenges — I’m hard-pressed to see it as anything but an unbearable downer featuring an utterly unlikable protagonist. It may be realistic (it sure reads that way), but I struggled to make it through to the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious to see Seidelman’s debut.

Links:

Lone Wolf McQuade (1983)

Lone Wolf McQuade (1983)

“Forget it, kid; I work alone.”

Synopsis:
With help from his eager new partner (Robert Beltran), Texas ranger J.J. “Lone Wolf” McQuade (Chuck Norris) enters into a vicious battle against a psychopathic drug runner (David Carradine) whose girlfriend (Barbara Carrera) falls for Norris.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Chuck Norris Films
  • David Carradine Films
  • Drug Dealers
  • Sheriffs and Marshals
  • Westerns

Review:
Chuck Norris does what he does best — stereotypically embody traditional notions of masculinity — in this neo-western which was purportedly inspired by Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. While there’s apparently a popular drinking game in which rounds are consumed upon hearing the term “Ranger” being spoken, I found it more fascinating to focus on how relentlessly one hyper-masculine image or trope after another — guns, explosives, beer, drugs, horses, tanks, turbo-charged cars, helicopters, planes, smoking, seduction — manage to be crammed into this film, ranging from Norris’s initial take-down of a horse thief and his banditos:

… to his single-move slamming of a bully in a bar up onto a pool table:

… to a strategically placed image of bullfighting (I guess they couldn’t justify an actual scene of that!) behind Norris in a later sequence:

… to his chemistry with Carradine’s mistress (Carrera), who has requisite sultriness and allure but was more amusingly memorable as a Bond villainess in the same year’s Never Say Never Again (1983).

Sweater-clad Carradine, meanwhile, seems to be having a ton of fun playing a sadistic baddie who’s equally comfortable blowing people away and showing off his martial arts chops.

In his third film after Zoot Suit (1981) and Eating Raoul (1982), Beltran is well-cast but given too little to do (perhaps inevitably) as Norris’s sidekick; he’s primarily meant to represent a nervous new ranger who learns to overcome his fears and act like a “real” man by heading out guns blazing.

In the image above he’s shown alongside character actor L.Q. Jones, who has some memorable early moments as “Dakota Brown.” Also adding extra quirkiness to the cast is Daniel Frishman as a megalomaniac little person in a wheelchair:

… and William Sanderson — “Sebastian” in Blade Runner (1982) — as a buffoonish drug dealer named Snow, with coke bottle glasses.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting in El Paso
  • Norris and Carradine’s final battle

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as an archetypal Norris film, especially given his duels with Carradine.

Links:

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

“I’m saying we’ve been set up.”

Synopsis:
A former elite CIA assassin (Chuck Norris) collaborates with a fellow vet (Lloyd Haynes) in uncovering a plot by a corrupt politician (James Franciscus) to have all survivors of a certain raid in Vietnam assassinated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Assassination
  • Chuck Norris Films
  • Political Conspiracy
  • Veterans
  • Vietnam War

Review:
Chuck Norris’s first notable role was in this post-Watergate political conspiracy thriller, starting with an action-packed raid in Vietnam which goes terribly wrong.

Flashing forward, we see that Norris is now a graduate student in political science at UCLA, who enjoys racing cars on the side:

… and has no trouble being pursued by numerous beautiful women — including a mysterious reporter (Anne Archer) who he quickly becomes involved with.

Meanwhile, we see Haynes getting increasingly suspicious about a spate of strategic murders taking place across the nation — all involving men who were part of their elite team.

The film takes us across various scenic locales, including a ski resort at Lake Tahoe:

… with bloody sniper kills interspersed at regular intervals. What role does aging alcoholic politician Edgar Harolds (Dana Andrews) play in all of this?

That’s not revealed until much later on; but one thing is guaranteed: we will get to see Norris fighting at least once.

Note: Watch for Jim Backus in a cameo role as a doorman.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Dana Andrews as Edgar Harolds
  • Creative sets

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Norris fans. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Force of One, A (1979)

Force of One, A (1979)

“The headlines are screaming there’s a karate killer loose in this city!”

Synopsis:
While trying to crack a case of mysterious cop-murders carried out by a masked karate killer, a police detective (Jennifer O’Neill) enlists the help of a martial arts expert (Chuck Norris) whose adopted son (Eric Laneuville) is eventually put in harm’s way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Chuck Norris Films
  • Drug Dealers
  • Martial Arts
  • Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “pretty good Chuck Norris vehicle is much like a typical television police series, only it has some well-done karate fights to heighten the action.”

He adds that “there’s a strong supporting cast, Paul Aaron’s direction is impressive (particularly during fight sequences), and Norris’s karate exhibitions make up for the fact that he can’t act a lick in this film.”

Of most interest, marginally, is top-billed Jennifer O’Neill, who is effective playing a strong female cop.

Otherwise, there’s really nothing to recommend this one unless you happen to be a fan of such fare — and/or of Norris.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Decent directing

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a Norris fan.

Links:

Cockfighter / Born to Kill (1974)

Cockfighter / Born to Kill (1974)

“I’m gonna keep my mouth shut until I’ve won that medal.”

Synopsis:
A down-on-his-luck cockfighter (Warren Oates) takes a vow of silence until he’s able to win back his fame, fortune, and girlfriend (Patricia Pearcy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ed Begley Jr. Films
  • Gambling
  • Harry Dean Stanton Films
  • Millie Perkins Films
  • Monte Hellman Films
  • Troy Donahue Films
  • Warren Oates Films

Review:
Notable as the only film which lost money for producer Roger Corman, this Monte Hellman-directed movie — based on a novel by screenwriter Charles Willeford — was re-released under various other names (including Born to Kill) but ultimately remains what its title implies: an 83-minute film about cockfighting, a sport which is now illegal across all 50 of the United States (though not in Puerto Rico, where it remains a thriving industry). Your appreciation of this offering will depend on a few factors: 1) how much you enjoy watching Oates turn in an impressive performance despite being limited to just a few lines of speech (in a flashback); 2) how curious you are to see this bloody sport in action (though you could alternatively just watch a short documentary about it on YouTube):

… and/or 3) how much of a Monte Hellman completist you are. Watch for numerous big-name actors in small roles, including Harry Dean Stanton as fellow cockfighter Jack Burke:

… Troy Donahue as Oates’ brother Randy:

… Millie Perkins as Randy’s curler-clad wife:

… and Ed Begley Jr. as a lanky local fighter.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Warren Oates as Frank Mansfield
  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious or a Hellman fan. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Bang the Drum Slowly (1973)

Bang the Drum Slowly (1973)

“How can he be so sick, and play so well?”

Synopsis:
A terminally ill baseball player (Robert De Niro) is supported in staying on his team by his unwaveringly loyal friend, Henry (Michael Moriarty).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Baseball
  • Friendship
  • Illness
  • Michael Moriarty Films
  • Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
When discussing what he refers to as his “favorite baseball film,” Peary notes that screenwriter Mark Harris’s story (based on his 1956 novel) is “sensitively directed by John Hancock” and centers on “how people come through for those in trouble (the same theme as Terms of Endearment).” He writes that the “picture makes you feel good about people but, at the same time, sad that we so rarely show our altruistic side.” He argues “it has wit, creates nostalgia for a more innocent baseball era,” and “also tugs at your emotions [and] breaks your heart.” He concludes by noting that “the two leads, then relatively unknown, give exciting performances” — though “at the time [he] thought Moriarty would be the one to go on to superstardom” rather than De Niro.

Unfortunately, I can’t agree with Peary’s praise of this film; I’m more in alignment with Andrew Sarris, who in his review for The Village Voice noted that it’s highly effective at bringing on emotions (the closing baseball game is a tear-jerker) but otherwise too simplistic in its presentation. I’m guessing this one may mean a lot more to those who enjoyed the novel. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Michael Moriarty as Henry
  • The lump-inducing final baseball sequence

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing if you’re curious.

Links:

Winter Kills (1979)

Winter Kills (1979)

“Listen, kid: we find the killers of your brother, you’ll be a hero — a fucking legend.”

Synopsis:
With support from his father (John Huston) and girlfriend (Belinda Bauer), the brother (Jeff Bridges) of an assassinated president tries to follow an increasingly bizarre maze of clues leading to identifying the killer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anthony Perkins Films
  • Black Comedy
  • Dorothy Malone Films
  • Eli Wallach Films
  • Elizabeth Taylor Films
  • Father and Child
  • Jeff Bridges Films
  • John Huston Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Political Conspiracy
  • Ralph Meeker Films
  • Richard Boone Films
  • Sterling Hayden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Comic fantasist William Richert wrote and directed this cult film adapted from a novel by Richard Condon” (who had written The Manchurian Candidate 15 years earlier). He points out that the “picture has off-the-wall humor, bizarre characters, innumerable plot twists, [and] strange moments” — including “girlfriend Belinda Bauer talking to Bridges while sitting on the toilet:”

… “Huston walking around in red bikini shorts:”

… “Bridges riding out of Dad’s earshot to yell back, ‘You stink!'”:

… “loco spy-network wizard Anthony Perkins carrying on a calm conversation with Bridges although Bridges has just broken his arms:”

… and “a doorman in a temper tantrum,” among others.

However, he points out that “there are too many loose ends and overly eccentric characters” (no kidding!), noting in particular that “we could do without Sterling Hayden’s war-games fanatic.”

He adds that “it seems as if none of the star actors read the whole script,” given that “scenes have little connection to one another.” Perhaps worst — though this is meant to be a darkly comedic paranoia thriller — is that “the tongue-in-cheek approach makes what could have been a provocative vision of the corrupt American power elite into something quite trivial.”

I agree. This seems like a film that may have once felt more relevant given its proximity to JFK’s assassination, but now merely seems too purposefully disjointed and quirky for its own good. With that said, among the many cameos or supporting performances to watch out for are Richard Boone:

… unbilled Elizabeth Taylor:

… Eli Wallach:

… Ralph Meeker:

… and Dorothy Malone.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jeff Bridges as Nick Kegan
  • Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography

Must See?
No; while this film clearly has its fans, I’m not among them.

Links: