Showing posts with label film studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film studies. Show all posts

Thursday, November 19, 2020

The Hunter (1980)

Steve McQueen’s final film feels like a script that Burt Reynolds rejected. Much of the film could have been appealing but ends up as a pile of clichés and disconnected plotlines. It’s a very 1970s work comprising a series of vignettes about the protagonist’s bounty hunting exploits. It feels very much like a Hal Needham film, which is why it resembles a Reynolds’ movie or a Roger Moore Bond adventure with its disjointed storytelling.

The Hunter in a biopic based on the experiences of real-life bounty hunter Ralph “Papa” Thorson. The film opens with the very white Thorson showing up in a black neighborhood to catch a black bail jumper played by LaVar Burton. McQueen’s Thorson is a terrible driver who bangs into several vehicles while trying to park in that the neighborhood notably upsetting many of the residents. Hilarious. He is a caveman dropped into a modern world, a relic equipped to take on the dregs of society and bring them to justice. However, the biggest problem for the film is its lack of focus.

Within the plot is a completely unnecessary subplot about the hunter being hunted by a figure from his past, an ex-convict, Rocco Mason (Tracey Walter), whom Thorson was responsible for apprehending. Back home, Thorson has a pregnant girlfriend (Kathryn Harrold) who longs for him to put a ring on her finger. Harrold is given virtually nothing to do in her role as the character except complain and get kidnapped by the vengeful ex-convict.

Had the director Buzz Kulik focused on the exploits of Papa Thorson’s experience in tracking down bail jumpers, the movie would have been tolerable. I imagine that whoever produced the film believed that the whole hunter being hunted subplot was needed to stitch the vignettes together into an appealing plot.

Kulik's background includes a handful of B-movies, but he had mainly directed episodes of television along with several TV movies, the best known of which would be Brian’s Song, that delightfully sappy male bonding film about football, manhood, and friendship with Billy Dee Williams and James Caan. It’s hard to beat Lando Calrissian and Sonny Corleone.

Steve McQueen was an actor with strong screen presence whose earliest recognition came from the television series Wanted: Dead or Alive, which focuses, yes, on the weekly adventures of a bounty hunter. The setting of that show is the old west. The Hunter takes place in a contemporary, late 70s/early 80s, setting. There is certainly symmetry with his early and final roles. However, the knowledge that his performance in The Hunter was his last and not a particularly well-developed part leaves me feeling disheartened because such an important actor deserved a better exit. Still, McQueen is charming as Thorson even if the character doesn’t give him much to do. His understated method and lowkey humor cannot carry this film. As stated, this feels like a rejected Burt Reynolds movie, and that actor’s easygoing not so subtle mugging would have better served this material. That’s not an insult: those qualities made Reynolds lovable. What we loved about McQueen was his effortless coolness that was closer to Clint Eastwood’s style but dialed down a notch.

Unfortunately, The Hunter is not a very good film. What could have been an insightful and humorous depiction of life in a dangerous profession ends up being a misguided action comedy. The Hunter is neither a lost masterpiece nor bad enough to charm your socks off.

Monday, November 16, 2020

On Deadly Ground (1994)

What is not to love about the possibilities of Steven Seagal’s On Deadly Ground? It not only stars Seagal, but he directed the film too. What could possibly go wrong? You name it.

Perhaps the most amazing fact about this film other than its director and star is the rest of the cast: Billy Bob Thornton, John C. McGinley, Joan Chen, R. Lee Ermey, and Michael Caine. Michael Caine. I have no idea of what state of mind Seagal was in during this period, but this seems to be a well-intended, socially conscious film with a compelling cast. Well, you know what they say about good intentions.

The premise of the film involves a big oil company attempting to acquire drilling rights from Native Alaskans or something like that. Forrest Taft (Seagal) works for that company, but suspects there may be shortcuts and underhanded doings going on. The company is willing to murder whoever gets in its way. Soon, Taft finds himself fighting for his life and ends up taking a spiritual journey where he must make the choice between enlightenment or the pleasures of the physical world. While I admire Seagal’s plea for environmental responsibility, his execution of those ideals doesn’t quite stick (unless you count his stabs a few of the bad guys with whatever he could get ahold of when meting out justice). It looks like the sort of film I would have made in junior high, using violence and power to make a point about enlightenment and harmony: an ill-conceived, immature comic book assertion on righting wrongs. Yes, we will show these callous business tycoons the right way by putting their heads on sticks. That sounds reasonable.

Watching On Deadly Ground on videotape was satisfying for all the wrong reasons. The story and direction were ham-fisted, but most of the actors seem to get that this film was not to be taken seriously and performed accordingly. This movie offers a ridiculous good time with Caine and McGinley blowing everyone else out of the pond with incredibly over the top performances, seemingly in a different dimension from Seagal’s stoic attempt at coolly detached mannerisms that just ends up in his typically ludicrous delivery—except, of course, when Seagal’s Taft inevitably disposes of both characters violently. Seagal apparently sees himself as some force of righteous nature but comes off like some cosmically charged high school bully who never quite learned how to connect with others. As mentioned earlier, Billy Bob Thornton is also in this film, and while his presence is essentially wasted, he still provides more charisma than Seagal could ever dream about.

This movie is just good, stupid fun and answers an age-old question: what if a homicidal maniac decided to become an environmental activist? Run, Forrest Taft, run.


Friday, November 13, 2020

Slaughter in San Francisco (1974)

Slaughter in San Francisco is promoted as a Chuck Norris film, but he is neither the central figure in the movie nor in it very much. The main actor in the film is martial artist Don Wong, who plays Officer Don Wong, a San Francisco police officer who goes rogue against his department. So, while the Walker, Texas Ranger star is not really the star of this film, the real question is, how bad does a movie have to be to embarrass Chuck Norris (rumor has it)?

          Legend has it that Don Wong, the actor, replaced Bruce Lee, who had been allegedly set to star in the film had he not died. Although the film’s director, Wei Lo, had directed Lee in The Big Boss (1971) and Fist of Fury (1972), it seems doubtful that the icon would have ended up in something like this. Each of Lee’s films seems to be several notches above what we see in Slaughter in San Francisco, which lacks the charm and wit of the star’s body of work.

          The film is perfect for VHS with its 1.33:1 aspect ratio and ridiculous dubbing, including American actors like Norris, which provides the perfect argument for the existence of this blog. Rumor has it that there is a DVD with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and no dubbing, but who wants that? No amount of pristine cinematography or surround sound can cover up the stench of a dung heap.

          The plot of the film is your basic rogue cop cleans up a dirty system story. Officers Wong and John Sumner (Robert Jones) rescue a young woman from an attempted rape that she later denies happened. It turns out that her attackers are members of a criminal organization led by San Francisco crime lord Chuck Slaughter, played by Chuck Norris. Wong and Sumner’s persistence leads to the former’s suspension and the latter’s murder, leading to the cliché of the noble cop avenging his fallen partner. That’s about the only thing in this movie that you can really comprehend as the police captain (Dan Ivan) turns out to be corrupt and ends up paying the ultimate price at the hands (literally) of Wong, who ends up getting reinstated—how did Wong escape manslaughter charges at the very least?

          As badly put together as I found this film, it does ultimately work as a thoroughly 70s martial arts films that goes completely through the looking glass and ends up being entertaining for all the wrong reasons, including Norris’ ridiculously abundant body hair. Hey, nobody watches a kung fu movie for a riveting plot or nuanced performance.

 

Thursday, November 12, 2020

My VHS Theatre


Back in the 1980s when I was in college at the University of Georgia and shortly after, friends and I would decide that we’d like to see a movie. We would pile into a car and head over to a video rental store, Quality Video, located across from the Dunkin’ Donuts and the Taco Stand on Milledge Avenue in Athens, Georgia.

We would get back to one of our places and watch films that included Lewis Allen’s Suddenly (1954), Orson Welles’ The Stranger (1946), Alan J. Pakula’s The Parallax View (1974) among others.

There are many ways for a film to achieve greatness. Spaghetti westerns were often awkward with voices dubbed in for both English and non-English speaking actors. This quirk ended up becoming part of the genre’s charm, like the martial arts films of the 70s with their even worse dubbing combined with delightfully ridiculous sound effect for fight scenes. A great film can be great based on more than its intentions or outward beauty.

VHS is not just a format but represents an important and influential period for film appreciation and film making. Director Quentin Tarantino has stated an affection for VHS, which is understandable since he considers that his time working at a video rental store provided him with the material and essence that formed his skills as a film director. He has also stated a dislike of Netflix and streaming films in general. Unlike, Tarantino, whom I consider a genius, this blog will not be agenda driven. I enjoy Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services. One of the main reasons I have decided to start this blog is that I have been able to pick up videotapes for about 25 cents at thrift stores because VHS is a defunct format.

For this blog, I will watch these films on a Daewoo 27-inch CRT with the Rosen RVP9800 VCP, designed for automobiles but plugged into that old television. As expected, the image nor the sound is very good, but the point of watching movies on a VHS is to capture the essence of the film and to not be distracted by the beauty of its cinematography, lighting, or sound qualities. It’s also reminds me of when I would watch films after midnight as a teenager, discovering the wonderful world of older movies that stood the test of time as well as movies so bad they went through the looking glass to become entertaining.

Essentially, I believe that watching movies on videotape forces a viewer to focus on the movie itself—the good, the bad, and the cheesy.