Swing Shift (1984)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Cast: Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell, Christine Lahti, Ed Harris

Have I Seen it Before: Never. To wit, before this last Friday, I had never even heard of the film. But there sure is something about checking into a hotel late, turning on the TV, working through whatever motion blurring difficulties you might be subjected to, hoping that the cable package includes TCM, and just going with whatever might be on.

It’s a unique way to take in a movie. There aren’t a lot of reasons to miss cable, but TCM is one of them. Aside from re-watching Romancing the Stone (1984), I didn’t get to watch nearly enough random movies from cable this vacation.

Did I Like It: There’s a thinness to the whole affair that I can’t quite get over, that’s only exacerbated after I read that the film was largely taken away from Demme in favor of Hawn, who put more focus on the relationship between her and Russell, even though neither of them are asked by any version of this film to do anything that made them objectively stars, and subjectively undeniably watchable.

What we’re left with is a distressingly tepid World War II homefront drama. Lora mentioned as she was half-falling asleep that there is almost nothing—even up to the structure of the screenplay itself—that wasn’t done during A League of Their Own (1992), and it’s hard to argue that. I’m tempted to give this film a degree of credit for getting there eight years ahead of League, but that movie obviously has more of a hook than what we’re given here, a far deeper roster of a supporting cast, and two leads in Tom Hanks and Geena Davis who are far better cast here than Hawn or Russell are in this.

I’m still glad I got to watch it, though, even if it was by accident.

Escape From L.A. (1996)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Stacy Keach, Steve Buscemi, Peter Fonda

Have I Seen it Before: Admittedly, no. As much as I will spend my time professing love for Carpenter, I’ve had more than a few blind spots when it came to his later work, a set of blind spots I’ve been spending all summer trying to shore up.

Did I Like It: Carpenter proclaims that this is better than <Escape from New York (1981)> , which always seemed like the kind of thing the guy who apparently just directed an entire TV series from his couch would say…

But God help me, he might have been right. It wouldn’t be hard to write this film off as a remake-bordering-on-rip-off of New York, but I can’t avoid thinking about it as a real attempt to make the movie that Carpenter, Russell, and crew wanted to make all along. The original film takes place in a dystopia for the sake of dystopia, whereas the world of President Adam (Cliff Robertson) is an insane Christian Theocracy* that now feels less like speculative fiction, and more like sober reporting on the issues of the day.

Things start off here great stylistically from the opening credits. The cast is pound-for-pound surprisingly great, and Carpenter’s score is back in fine form. Carpenter’s melodies quickly take a back seat to the larger portion of Shirley Walker’s score, but the balance here is certainly better than in <Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)>, and if you’ve got to move away from a Carpenter score, you could do a lot worse than the musical voice behind Batman: The Animated Series.

Sure, there are some flaws here. The special effects are nearly wall-to-wall early CGI, where the original adventures of Snake Plisskin (Russell) were a triumph of practical effects, even in the parts of the film you thought were early, experimental CGI. Also, your individual mileage with the movie will vary directly with the degree to which you might enjoy depictions of surfing in movies, which isn’t really me.

*You know, as opposed to the really reasonable Christian theocracies that are out there.

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Kim Cattrall, Dennis Dun, James Hong

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah. Of all Carpenter’s films, this is the one I’ve never quite loved as much as other people (Some eagle-eyed readers will note I’ve always been a little cool on The Fog (1980), but I really do prefer to think people are more with me than not there.)

Did I Like It: That’s all different now. Where some of Carpenter’s best films are exercises in ruthless simplicity, this is a sometimes overwhelming feast for the senses, but in true Carpenter fashion, it wastes no time getting to what it promises, and seeing Russell let loose and have fun with Carpenter at his side.

And then I’m starting to run out of things to say about the film. Maybe I don’t like it as much as I want to. Is it because it might be a bit problematic around the edges, featuring an asian-influenced story brought to you by a white director and two white leads? It’s certainly possible, but I already had this reaction when I first saw the movie. Also, Burton is pretty thoroughly depicted as something of an idiot in over his head, so I think (read: want to believe) that counts for something.

Is the vibe of the film just a bit too aggressively 80s for my taste? Probably. I always blanche at that, wanting my films (and Carpenter certainly does this with many of his earlier works) to have a timeless quality to them.

Maybe the real problem is that Carpenter’s tough luck in the box office of this era, he couldn’t launch forth with the sequels he might have been actually interested in making. The Thing (1982) and Escape from New York (1981) (I know; bad example), but this is ultimately a good looking pilot for a series the network didn’t pick up. This is ultimately a beginning with—through no fault of Russell or Carpenter—no follow through.

The Thing (1982)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, A. Wilford Brimley, Keith David, Richard Dysart

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, of course. In fact, I was a little surprised that I hadn’t written a review of this one, as the we did do the show on Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but it must have been in that brief time between when I joined the show and when I started these reviews.

Did I Like It: An idiot out there might say—and probably did when this film was initially released—that decided that Carpenter had effectively run out of juice after Halloween (1978)*.

This film is an absolute triumph of everything Carpenter excels at. It is lean. It is mean. What it adds to the proceedings that Carpenter’s earlier films—largely out of necessity—lacked is a visceral (and I do mean of, pertaining to, or possessing qualities of viscera…) . The various Thing-creatures are some of the most nauseating and unnerving creature work in the movies. Those images stuck with me before I ever even managed to see the movie. I remember a kid’s book from the library I devoured when I couldn’t have been any older than six or seven featuring various movie monsters. Godzilla was there, and Dracula, but also the recently revealed Norris-Thing (Charles Hallahan), all contorted face and absurd limbs. It stuck with me then, and it sticks with me now.

What’s more, this film is still unnerving and still scary as hell. The scene where MacReady (Russell) is testing the blood of the other men. I’ve seen this film. I know how it ends. But I’ll be damned if I don’t feel every inch of the tension as it proceeds, and I’ll be doubly damned if I wasn’t completely thrown for a loop when the blood finally reacted.

If a movie can blow past forty and still hold power on multiple viewings, that’s magic of a high order, and no one can take that away from Carpenter. He certainly never ran out of juice by the time The Thing was released, and for my money he never did. He may have eventually given it up after he didn’t have any use for it anymore, but that’s up for debate.

*The original The Thing from Another World (1951) was, naturally one of the films playing on TV during Carpenter’s breakthrough hit. The other was Forbidden Planet (1956), and I’ll never not wonder what Carpenter’s remake of that film could have been like. Might even be better that it is always something that I’ll have to just imagine… Unless, you know, he decides to make one on his couch. It just now occurred to me that Russell would probably have to play the Walter Pidgeon role… Which, now that I think about it is essentially Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 (2019). God damn that was a long footnote…

Escape from New York (1981)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasance

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. I remember there was a stretch of time there during a particularly ice storm in 2007 where I was desperate to watch this film (in addition to Robocop 2 (1990) for reasons which are still unclear to me), but couldn’t get it running without power to a DVD player. Any time there is cold temperatures, I’m flooded with a desire to watch this movie. How I haven’t watched it since starting these reviews is beyond me.

Did I Like It: So much about this film feels like it is of the later Carpenter period, but it is only three years after he leapt on to the scene with Halloween (1978) almost immediately after The Fog (1980), almost immediately before Carpenter binge-drank his way through the screenwriting process which bound Michael Myers and Laurie Strode as siblings for decades in Halloween II (1981). Maybe it’s the presence of Kurt Russell, which more than any other single element props up Carpenter’s ambition to fuse westerns and sci-fi films together and for all time. Russell channels sufficient Clint Eastwood energy as Plissken and Carpenter wants to be—if not quite Sergio Leone—at least John Ford. They even managed to bring Lee Van Cleef along for the ride, for good measure. The two of them trying their best to be the second coming of that is not a complaint, by the way. Far from it. There are few things in movies I’d rather watch than that pairing with that ambition than almost any other movie combination. Ok, so I want to wrap up the review and watch The Thing (1982) and Big Trouble in Little China (1986) as soon as possible, don’t I?

Other little parts of the film delight, and of course I’m talking mostly about the hilariously miscast, creepiest British man who ever lived Donald Pleasance as the President of the United States. I mean that sincerely. I love it. Pitching that man playing the American President is enough to sell a movie on its own merits.

Death Proof (2007)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Zoë Bell, Rose McGowan

Have I Seen it Before: Yes. But I honestly have no memory of Planet Terror (2007) the other half of the Grindhouse double feature.

Did I Like It: Which I think speaks volume for this film. I wrote about Jackie Brown (1997) recently that it was the most anonymous of Tarantino’s films, whereas this is the exact opposite. From the opening shot of a woman’s feet* all the way to the cameo of Big Kahuna Burger, this a concentrated dose of Tarantino. If you’re disinclined to like his work, then the film never has a chance.

Thankfully, I’m inclined to the opposite, so the film works, if not to the delirious highs of something like Once Upon A Time…In Hollywood (2019). What holds it down from true greatness is the format. Tarantino has always been interesting in committing homage to exploitation films of the 1970s, but he has always been remixing those elements to create new, vibrant art. Here, he is trying to make one of those films that he so enjoyed. The stark cutting would have riddled films of the genre, but that is part of the environment through which we see those films. Here, it is artificial, and to much less effect. Death Proof is a worthy experiment, if not the crown jewel of the man’s work.

That being said, the stunt work—the film’s entire reason for existing—is exquisite, and of a type we are not likely to ever see in films again. That alone is worth the price of admission, or the purchase of a DVD.

*One wonders if at a certain point Tarantino gleefully steered that motif into parody. We all laugh about the man’s foot fetish, but I start to think it may have been overblown. Then, I pop in one of his films and… Damn. That dude really enjoys filming women’s feet. More power to him, but it’s hard not to see the auteur in those shots.

Stargate (1994)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Kurt Russell, James Spader, Jaye Davidson, Alexis Cruz

Have I Seen it Before: For someone who only very recently and casually got into the vast television franchise this film launched, the VHS of this film was on regular rotation during my childhood, so much so that while watching this Director’s Cut for what I think is the first time, I was able to figure out what scenes had been rearranged and added in.

Did I Like It: As my wife and I have started our way through the long (too long? I assume we’ll find out) multiple television series, I can’t help but be consumed with one overwhelming thought:

This needs a little more James Spader*.

And the movie is more than willing to provide. It’s ultimately a B-movie that would have felt right at home with a z-grade budget produced by the studios of yesteryear, but with Spader’s unpredictable, sort of slithering movie-star quality, the film unfurling is more interesting to watch than the standard sci-fi fare of the era. 

The special effects don’t age exceptionally well, but that can hardly be held against the film as the more time passes the more films produced in the 90s are going to look like garbage graphics from a local news station. The shimmering water of the Stargate itself, or the slightly hypnotic screensaver quality of the transit between gates, and the shifting nature of the villains masks are just a couple of things that make the film a relic of its era. It’s strengths lie elsewhere. With sweeping epic desert shots that couldn’t be faked with CGI—and, admittedly were yanked directly from other, better films like Lawrence of Arabia (1962)—the film has a more interesting visual sense than you might expect from other big budget films, especially these days. It may derivative, sure, but at least it reaches for something a little more than its trappings.

*In case you’re wondering, as far as television series needing a certain degree of James Spader included, Stargate functions better with some Spader, Boston Legal cannot function at all without wall-to-wall Spader, and The Office would generally be better without Spader. It’s not a universal constant.

Sky High (2005)

Director: Mike Mitchell

Cast: Michael Angarano, Danielle Panabaker, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kurt Russell

Have I Seen it Before: More time than I would have thought I would have for a live-action Disney film.

Did I Like It: Is it surprising? Is it showing me anything I haven’t seen* before? Is it going to down in history as one of the greatest films of all time?

Probably not.

However, one cannot deny that the film has no illusions about its ambitions. It aims squarely at its audience and efficiently delivers exactly what it promises. That may read as damning with faint praise, but far too many films lack the focus to know what they are, and more than a few of them have been lately produced by the Walt Disney Company. The film is intermittently funny, deals in appropriate levels of cuteness, and couldn’t possibly offend the sensibilities of anyone who came to the movie with the right level of expectations.

So, why have I watched it so many times? Why do I own it on DVD?

My wife really likes it. For all the times she has patiently sat through RoboCop (1987), accepted that I view Die Hard(1988) as a Christmas movie, and accepts that I’m likely not going to get rid of my special-edition Blu-ray of Bubba Ho-Tep (2002), it’s important to watch movies that she likes for no other reason than she likes them. That may sound at odds with my lukewarm praise for the movie, as if I don’t think she has good taste. She has the best taste, and I’m pretty sure if I’m not 100% on board with this movie, the problem lies with me.

Therefore, I’ve decided I like it quite a bit. But please, don’t make too big a deal out of that. She might make me watch Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) again. Which I would do. For her.

*Or made…

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

Naturally, spoilers for a recent release follow. Read at your own discretion.

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Kurt Russell*

Have I Seen it Before: No. New release, and Tarantino always keeps things fresh within certain parameters, although I’m absolutely certain I’ve seen shots of feet like that before. Damn, does that man love feet. If he does end up making a Star Trek film—as looks to be a strong possibility as his tenth and allegedly final film—be prepared to see some Starfleet officers out of their boots.

Did I Like It: I’m still processing a lot of it, but yeah, what’s not to like with Tarantino?

Every movie of his has been like hanging out with a much cooler older brother who has seen every movie you should. It also helps that he is skilled enough to distill all of those wonderful things into expertly crafted entertainments in their own right.

And it’s that feeling that continues here, but with less emphasis. There are deep dives into the wonders of B+ Spaghetti Westerns and 60s action-adventure TV, and it is all a delight. Tarantino loves the 60s, and through the course of the film I cannot help but share his love. The milieu also does a remarkable job of establishing the kickass bonafides of Cliff Booth (Pitt) by having him drop kick Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) into the side of nearby sedan. It also removes the potential for any future about if Booth or Lee would win in a fight. 

There have been no shortage of hot takes about the level of violence in the film. Most of them somehow have the nerve to sound surprised that Tarantino would deign to feature elevated levels of violence in his films. It’s pretty clear that if these people weren’t born yesterday, they’ve certainly been asleep for the better part of thirty years.

Even so, the violence is different here than anything we’ve seen from Tarantino before. For one thing—along with the language—it is remarkably restrained, until it isn’t. The worst examples of violence are perpetrated against women, which in and of itself is problematic, but at the same time Pitt and DiCaprio viciously murder two of the more unrepentant killers in modern history, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel (along with their companion Charles “Tex” Watson). 

But then again—just like with Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds (2009)—history is turned on its ear, and by the time Manson’s assassins meet their grisly end, they’ve really only broken and entered (that’s the past tense of breaking and entering, right?). 

It’s certainly given me more complex things to think about than the cathartic end of Adolf Hitler in Basterds. 

And all of that leave me with even more interesting things to consider. With Helter Skelter thwarted before it could get off the ground, how does that change the makeup of pop culture? Does Manson (Damon Herriman) and his family pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and start all over again? With Manson’s prophecies fully disproven, does the family unravel, leaving old Charlie a wandering racist vagabond, without his infamy to fuel his hateful ego? Does Sharon Tate become the delightful screen presence that her brief time in front of the camera hinted at, or will she become a side note in cinematic history? That pretty lady who was once married to Roman Polanski?

Could that be the takeaway? Everybody in Hollywood is destined to be a little less famous than they would like to be? I’m content to think that isn’t the thesis, because ultimately this is Tarantino, and his latest film fulfills its promise by being a symphony of strange and unusual things. I could unpack every element, but I would need several thousand more words and at least another screening or two before I could hope to do it justice. It will stick with you long after the director of the Red Apple cigarette commercial calls “cut.” And—assuming you’re into Tarantino—you’ll like it, too.

*It proved more difficult than I might have otherwise thought to come up with a fourth billed actor, as nearly every other actor and character is a cypher throughout the movie. Even Manson, arguably the only catalyst for a plot in the film, appears for maybe a minute, and does precisely nothing. The award has to go to Russell, since he also pulls narration duty.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 (2017)

Director: James Gunn

Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Karen Gillan, Kurt Russell

Have I Seen it Before: Sure. And I’m only 50% sure that’s a comment on how this film is very much More Of The Same in relation to the original Guardians of the Galaxy (2014).

Did I Like It: It’s good, but I’m surprised to report that it hasn’t stuck with me like some of the other films in the MCU.

And to add a statement like that doesn’t feel fair. I can’t fault the film in any way. The movie is generally amiable and funny throughout, and it manages to avoid the occasion Part II curse of Marvel movies and is happily content to not need to set up much for future films. 

As a matter of fact, there are several elements of the film that are candidates for the Greatest Of All Time. The opening credits are a big ball of crowd-pleasing joy. It possesses far and above the greatest Stan Lee cameo in any film ever. Peter Quill (Pratt) exclaiming “I’m going to make some weird shit!” is as fine a creative mission statement as we’re ever going to get on film. 

One might think that the reliance on Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) for much of the action and plot would be cloying, but I’m of a mind to believe the market research dictating that idea was right on that money. Anyone who insists they aren’t entertained by Groot is hiding something. Maybe they aren’t charmed by the toddler tree, but if that much is true, they probably have a couple of bodies buried in their backyard.

I also appreciate that Quill’s walkman actually sounds as crappy as a walkman ought to sound in the instant before Ego (Russell) destroys it, but only because it resolves one of my nitpicks from the original film.

As I type all of this I begin to realize that maybe on this viewing the movie will stick with me more. It deserves to.