I’ve been tagged by The 12 Movies Meme.
By Burbanked on Jul 25, 2008 in Blogging, Movies | 781 views |
Leave it to my blog-pal Piper to roust me out of the too-much-working, non-blogging malaise I’ve been experiencing lately by tagging me with one of his ever-loving movie memes. What a rascal!
In Lazy Eye Theatre’s 12 Movies Meme, Piper challenges me and a handful of others to program two weeks’ worth of movies if we were suddenly granted control over the New Beverly Cinema, as was the somehow-still-ubiquitous Diablo Cody recently.
Rather than stock my movie choices with all of the usual favorites and familiar standbys, I figured this would be a more interesting exercise if I created double features comprised of 1) a favorite movie I’ve longed to see on the big screen and 2) a movie I’ve never seen at all, but really should have by now.
So let’s all go to the movies!
| Monday - Tuesday: Manic Michael Mann | |
|---|---|
 When it comes to the creation of smart-action, high-stakes macho-drama, it’s hard to beat Michael Mann. His 1995 Heat remains near the top of my all-time favorites list, and I’ve yet to leave one of his movies feeling let down. I’ve read a lot of terrific pieces on Thief, but have never sat down to watch it. Now that I’ve got my own theater, it seems like a no-brainer. |
|
| Wednesday - Thursday: Dad’s Oldey Time Favorites | |
 My Dad has an affinity for old-fashioned movies about Honorable Men. Men who make the tough decisions even though it complicates their own lives or put them directly in danger. Men who travel the harder, lonelier road for the greater good. I think I’ve developed an affinity to more modern versions of this theme, and I’ve certainly enjoyed High Noon in the past - but I’ve never had the chance to enjoy Dad’s other old favorite The Four Feathers (1939). |
|
| Friday - Saturday: Let’s Get Weir’d | |
 Any additional exposure I could give to movie audiences of director Peter Weir’s incredible body of work pretty much guarantees that the world will be a better place. Having said that, I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve never seen Master and Commander, his most recent - the not-recent 2003 - film. And I know that I go on too much about his spectacular and grievously underrated Fearless, but I’d give anything to see it on the big screen once more. |
|
| Sunday - Monday: Good Redford, Bad Newman | |
 Hard to pass up an opportunity to screen classic and favorite movies without including Redford and Newman somehow, but I figured I’d pick a pair that they weren’t in together, and where they were playing decidedly different roles from each other. 3 Days of the Condor is a terrific potboiler of a film which stands up pretty well, and I’ve never gotten around to seeing Hud before, so this seemed like a good match. |
|
| Tuesday - Wednesday: Life and Other Kinds of Violence | |
 Quite honestly, I’m not sure what made me put these two together. They both deal in the violence we do to each other, how we handle it psychologically, how we try to heal, usually with poor results. They’re both downers. And there’s some cross-dressing involved. And A Clockwork Orange is one of those films that I feel like I’ve seen all the way through before, but I’m really not certain that I actually have. |
|
| Thursday - Friday: Yippee-ki-yay, Mr. Hackman | |
 This one’s easy: I’ve never watched The French Connection, despite every evidence that it would own my action-movie-loving ass. And Die Hard is a slam-dunk. How is it that this movie has never been re-released in theaters? Isn’t it the 20th anniversary this summer? Hello, movie distributors: must I do everything for you? |
|
Anyhoo, here are the rules of Mr. Piper’s Meme:
- Choose 12 Films to be featured. They could be random selections or part of a greater theme. Whatever you want.
- Explain why you chose the films.
- Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre so he can have hundreds of links and he can take those links and spread them all out on the bed and then roll around in them.
- The people selected then have to turn around and select 5 more people.
And here are my five poor bastards valued blogging buddies:
Now go see more movies in the theater!
Dedicated screenwriting 101 here: From an interview with Harrison Ford on the MTV Movies Blog in which the inevitability of another Indiana Jones movie is mentioned:
How do I get out of this? I love going to the movies with my boys, opening up their minds to the great pleasures of cinema and all that, but this is a hard one. Please help me: do I suck it up and just go, or can anyone out there provide me with a plausible, kind-hearted, permanent way out? (
© Copyright
Piper | Jul 25, 2008 | Reply
Never seen 3 Days Of the Condor. Damn.
And you gotta see The French Connection. If only to see Popeye Doyle do his thing.
And Fearless is one of my all-time favorites.
Glad I could pull you away for another post.
Scott | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply
I’ve seen:
Heat - This is one I need to see again.
High Noon - Talk about honorable men, he’s the most honorable one I can think of, the prototype.
The World According to Garp - Best choice!
Clockwork Orange
The French Connection
Die Hard
Fearless - I’m glad that someone else champions for Fearless. I showed it to one of my classes and it played very well. The first 30 minutes is mind-blowingly amazing.
I haven’t seen:
Thief - But I will very soon.
Four Feathers
Master & Commander
3 Days of the Condor - I own it, but haven’t seen it yet.
Hud
Great list, very diverse.
Scott
he-shot-cyrus.blogspot.com
Too too Badeenie | Jul 29, 2008 | Reply
I like you. I like all these movies: I have seen them each about 15 times.
Burbanked | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply
Too too, you strike me as an intriguing yet dangerous person.
Sulu at the Helm | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
I like your selections, but I’d pair “The French Connection” with Friedkin’s later work, the much underappreciated “To Live and Die in L.A.”. “Die Hard”, to me, represents the moment action movies went wrong–when they became bloated, excessive and seemed bent on using every last production dollar to hammer cliches into granite. Just get to the action, dammit!
Piper | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
Burbanked,
Since we’re dishing out “likes” I would say I like you too, Alan.
Sulu,
Why ya gotta hate on Die Hard? “The moment action movies went wrong?” While I might think that Die Hard is an excellent action movie, I would certainly be open to people listing others before it. But I certainly wouldn’t say it’s when action movies went wrong.
Sulu at the Helm | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
Piper, looking back on it, that’s my analysis. I liked “Die Hard” when I saw it back in 1988, liked, not loved. It resembled “Lethal Weapon”, which I liked much better, too much. My take on action movies is that they really need run times no longer than two hours, ideally right around 1:45. They need to move quickly. This movie moves way too slowly at times for me. It’s too “big” for its own good. Instead of moving with action, as an action film should, it seems to collapse under its own weight.
Burbanked | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
Sulu, you might suggest that action movies started a downhill slide after DIE HARD, but to suggest that DH is in and of itself so flawed as to lead to a trend in bad action movies, well then you might need to be slapped around a little.
In a nice way, of course.
For me, DIE HARD is the first action film where the protagonist became a real guy, relatable and human. I agree with you that LETHAL WEAPON did some of this heavy lifting as well in showing us a flawed, three-dimensional protagonist, but ultimately Riggs displays the exact kind of Superhuman Action Male traits we had seen before. At the very least, his ability to withstand torture is a cliched, rather familiar quality. He’s a progression into realism, but still feels like a more or less typical movie character to me. He’s Rambo but he cries.
McClane, on the other hand, feels real. True, he’s a SuperCop and displays terrific reflexes, pain threshhold, etc., but he also sweats, bleeds, curses, makes a mess, makes bad decisions, runs away, grunts a lot - the whole human bit.
And I’m a firm believer that a film is exactly as long as its story will bear. A long movie doesn’t automatically mean it’s bloated and if anything DH is a prime example of feeling succinct even if it’s not. What would you cut out of DH to get it to move along better? I’ve always thought it was pretty lean to begin with. The first time I ever saw it, the damn thing flew right by.
Piper | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
Alan,
You can’t see this but I’m tearing up a little over here. Well said. Well written.
Sulu at the Helm | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
I’d cut out the subplot about his children being exploited by a local tv newsman. Didn’t need it. How about the deputy police chief character who makes every dumb decision possible? That character, along with the uselessly dumb FBI agents, exists for one reason–to keep the hero fighting the baddies alone, without assistance from the police, except for McClane’s cop buddy, a common patrolman who just happens to know the “terrorist’s playbook” while the people who are trained to deal with just these sorts of criminals are inexplicably and cartoonishly oblivious (a real crime for a movie, that as you pointed out, wants to create a real hero. Why would you want to have a realistic hero battling cartoon cutout bad guys?). When a movie requires that many characters who are willfully dumb, I think there’s a problem. LW has its problems as well. I think most action films are silly at their bases, but I’ve always thought of DH as a behemoth of a movie that trips all over itself when it needs to run smoothly.
Too too Badeenie | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
SULU:
I like you Sulu.
Sulu at the Helm | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
I like you too, Too too. Just don’t be asking for hugs.
Burbanked | Jul 31, 2008 | Reply
The children exploited by the newsman is what clues Hans in to McClane and Holly’s relationship, which is a fairly important story beat for the movie’s climax.
Dwayne T. Robinson and the Agents Johnson are comic foils, I’ll agree. But the story is only propelled forward if McClane is forced into doing everything for himself. He doesn’t start out that way - he tries to contact the police, tries to alert someone, all to no avail. He comes to realize that the only way to save himself is to NOT depend on others, NOT trust anyone, and figure out how to survive on his own.
At the same time, the authorities also serve to play into Hans’ “terrorist” plans and follow the playbook. They do what they’re supposed to do; they follow the rules. McClane does not. Of COURSE the hero has to go it alone; that’s the hero’s journey. It may be a stereotype but it’s also very well handled in DIE HARD. The comedy of the characters you’re so easily dismissing provides a counterpoint to the action, blood, bullets, and the cruelty of the villains.
I think also that there’s meant to be a fair amount of fun played at the expense of Los Angeles, the lifestyle, the ridiculousness of it all. McClane’s a NEW YORK cop. He’s a badass, resourceful, knows how to get the job done. The LA cops and FBI guys are lazy, self-centered, egotistical, full of bluster and machismo, but it’s all an act - all of which can be said about LA. The whole story is filled with these kinds of contrasts, and every one of them pays off.
You’re right: most action movies ARE essentially silly - which is why, when a good one with tight plotting, real characters, exciting action and a fun payoff comes around, it should make its mark on the genre as DH certainly has. And although on the surface DH might seem like an unruly behemoth as you say, I’d counter that it’s actually a small story with a very simple point:
A cop who has pissed off his wife just wants to apologize - and he’s only got to kill 12 terrorists to do it.
Sulu at the Helm | Aug 1, 2008 | Reply
I just found the dumb cops/FBI guys parts too much to bear. I’m not the first to say this, but I think movies in the action genre ned to be well-oiled machines. That doesn’t mean they must be all action. I think the drama in LW and DH really set them apart from what much of this genre had detriorated into. I watched DH again several weeks ago and liked it even less than my previous viewings. To me it’s always come off as too clunky, too big (trying to do way too much) for its own good. I like your points about how the movie is making commentary on LA. But it just doesn’t seem to fit. Maybe DH is too ambitious for its own good.
That last comment is great! I can it apply it to LW this way. Lethal Weapon is about a cop looking for a reason to live. He only has to machine gun and karate kick and punch 12 baddies to find that reason.
I’m going to close out my contribution to this discussion with the following point. Last night I watched “Road House” on cable. That’s all.
Burbanked | Aug 1, 2008 | Reply
Well that certainly explains a lot, Sulu.
Scott | Aug 14, 2008 | Reply
I just watched Thief on your recommendation. Awesome. I liked it a lot more than Heat, surprisingly.
Burbanked | Aug 18, 2008 | Reply
Scott: I added a bunch of the films above that I hadn’t seen yet to my Netflix queue, and Thief was the first to arrive.
And I was more or less completely bored by it!
It might have been that I watched it too late at night, in the wrong mood or whatever, but I just thought it lacked a lot of Mann’s signature style. Caan is certainly macho-cool in the movie, but there seems to be very little substance or depth to the role. I never cared much about him like I have Mann’s other protagonists. I even fell asleep a few times during the movie and realized it didn’t even bother me all that much.