Here’s a movie that I must admit goes beyond anything I ever expected in the realm of science-fiction (and not in a good way).  David Lynch is well known – as I’ve discovered in the last few weeks – for his overly stylized weirdness.  This time going into the one genre of filmmaking which requires an immense imagination he not only falls into the realm of over aloof-ness but he just misses the point of making a movie.

The point of making a film isn’t to make something that is so high brow that only you and the three special children in the theatre will think that they get it.  The point is to take the art of visual, narrative and sound a put together something that will affect me and it’s impossible to affect me if I don’t get it.

I know that I’m leaving myself open for all the stupid comments that will come about how it’s so simple.  I was with this movie for the first hour.  It set itself up like a hybrid of some RPGs and RTS games that I know of.  The film begins with trying to explain the politics of the need to control the spice which is mined from these other planets and I know that this can be taken as some metaphor for a lot of the exploitation of nations across the world for their natural resources (i.e. diamonds in Africa and oil in the Middle East).  Unfortunately, it just felt so over my (and most other’s) head that it was a waste.

I was even slightly bothered by how he introduced me to this interesting/cool action fighting system in this futuristic world when we meet the character of Gurney (Patrick Stewart) but we never really get to see much of it through the film.  Even though the final fight scene between Feyd (Sting) and Paul (Kyle MacLachlan) was pretty nicely done.

The movie just felt like it had something special and Lynch decided to hide everything that’s special about it in a plethora of overly un-understandable imagery and a clunky plot.  I never seemed to understand as to why each character was doing what they did.  I could make an intelligent guess, but films aren’t supposed to be so obscure all the while.  There are films that are obscure at points and I love, but those tend to use the lack of understanding as an opportunity to explain whether by exposition or actually showing me.  This movie on the other hand took the obscurity and rode the horse all the way home without caring what I thought of it.

It’s a film that I’ll probably never revisit because I know that if I need to sleep I can just count some sheep and I’ll eventually get there.

IMDB says 6.5/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 62%

I say 2.0/10

Sailor (Nicolas Cage) and Lula (Laura Dern) are in love and on the run from any and everyone that Lula’s mother, Marietta (Diane Ladd), has sent on their trail to kill Sailor.  While on this trip Lula and Sailor encounter numerous strange individuals through the roads of Louisiana and Texas.

I’m already worried that I’ve made a misstep by deciding to do this marathon.  I knew going in that David Lynch was someone with a reputation for weird movies, but somehow I doubt any preparation would’ve made me ready for this movie.  All the colours and ridiculous amounts of Nicolas Cage’s best Elvis accent while having him and his love girl on a Natural Born Killers style road trip, with a lot less killing that is.  I feel almost like I walked into this one too seriously because if I was to do anything but laugh at it all then I don’t know what was going on.  Especially when we would switch back to Marietta back at home constantly turning more red with each minute that passed where her daughter was on the road with that manslaughterer.

I don’t know how else to say it; this movie is fucking weird, and not in the good way.  I’m sure if I went out to the internets and searched some symbolized meaning of this film I’d find people who discovered things about themselves that they never knew and how they needed to get out on the road and get themselves a snake skin jacket that represents their individuality and their belief in personal freedom.  There were even points in this movie where I wasn’t sure whether what I was watching was an overdramatized version of reality or just a dream.  When Sailor and Lula are dancing in the club and Sailor stops the entire club because another man begins to dance with Lula I just can’t believe that this is any version of reality; and since the film never strayed from that skewed perspective I found myself more than disoriented in how to perceive the film itself.

I think my biggest problem with this movie was that I don’t know what I – or any of the characters – gained after spending our time together.  Did Sailor learn to put his criminal tendencies behind him?  Did Lula get over her issues of being molested as a young teen?  Did Marietta realise that Sailor and Lula were meant to be together?  I don’t think any of those things happened, I think the movie started, happened, and ended with little point to it.  I’m sad to say but I think I’m going to be in for a rough ride on this marathon, but I’m sure going to try to complete it.

IMDB says 7.1/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 64%

I say 3.5/10

I’d like to blame people like FilmSpotting for my recent need to do these marathons.  I’ve so far completed my Yule Tide Marathon, Kurosawa Marathon and Cowboy Marathon.  I’ve had a ton of fun with those so it’s time to get into some murky waters as I start churning though the catalogue of a filmmaker that I know only by reputation.  At this point in time I have yet to experience one of his films, but having seen films like Requiem for a Dream and Antichrist and lived to tell the tale I’m pretty sure I can manage this one without having to worry about my mental health just yet.  For the month of August I plan on working my way through the eight films of David Lynch. See list and dates below:

Aug 3 – Wild at Heart (1990)

Aug 7 – Lost Highway (1997)

Aug 10 - The Elephant Man (1980)

Aug 14 – Dune (1984)

Aug 17 – Blue Velvet (1986)

Aug 21 – Eraserhead (1976)

Aug 24 – Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)

Aug 28 – Mullholland Dr. (2001)

Hope you all look forward to the marathon and if anyone out there is planning to play along let me know and feel free to email me links to your reviews so that we can have a wild trip together for the next four weeks of film education.

Frank Ross (John Pickard) heads into town to handle some business where he’s shot dead in cold blood by his own assistant, Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey).  Frank’s daughter, Mattie Ross (Kim Darby), wants justice.  She therefore goes out and hires who she thinks is a man who has ‘True Grit’, Marshall Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) to hunt down the man who killed her father and bring him to the law so he can be judged and hung.  La Boeuf (Glen Campbell) is also on the trail of the same man and finds himself tagging along to make sure he gets his fair share of the reward that he’s been working so hard for long before this Ross business occurred.

When I began this marathon I had many misconceptions about how ‘lame’ westerns are.  I must make it very clear how opened my eyes are now, which is the biggest reason why I do these marathons.  Unfortunately I haven’t done (or even worse completed) many of these marathons as yet, but I hope in upcoming years of blogging and movie watching to come I will have mastered the art of the movie marathon.  Even though I’ve now been able to actually name more than one western I love I definitely still see a lot of clichés that are pretty much embedded in the genre that I’m not a huge fan of.  Here is lies my biggest problems with True Grit.

True Grit starts out simple enough and it sets up the revenge plot that the movie is.  However when we actually get around to the enacting of the revenge, i.e. Mattie hiring Rooster to help her go out and I find myself uninterested.  Usually what I find most interesting about these movies is the way these groups of individuals, whether it be Blondie and Tuco (from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) or Chris and Vin (from The Magnificent Seven), interact with each other on these long journeys across the land.  Here however I found myself less interested in the drunken John Wayne and how he just generally pissed off La Boeuf and his employer.  It just felt like generic had finally figured me out for foolish.

When it came to the action sequences I was pretty surprised at how enjoyable they were, especially the final battle between Rooster and Ned Pepper (Robert Duvall).  It gave me a moment in the film that I could actually bring myself back to consciousness for a reason beside having to write this review.

I was so happy to get some great moments with good actors in this movie towards the end with the introduction of Pepper and Moon (Dennis Hopper) that I almost decided to start enjoying the movie.  However in the end I guess this movie was always destined for the mediocre result that it started out with.  Maybe to someone who went to the theatre as a six-year-old with his father to see The Duke do what he does best then I can understand.  But that kind of nostalgic flavour is lost on me who was never there to have those memories to work off of.

IMDB says 7.3/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 93%

I say 5.0/10

note: I know that my Outlaw Josey Wales review was supposed to go up last week, I plan to post it sometime this weekend.  Until then enjoy this review for The Gunfighter.

Jimmy Ringo (Gregory Peck) is the infamous gunfighter has come to the town of Cayenne looking for his true love, Peggy (Helen Westcott).  After all his years of gunslinging he’s finally realised how pointless it all and has finally decided he no longer wants to be that man.  So while on the run from three brothers seeking revenge against him he spends the morning in Cayenne to try and convince the love of his life to go with him.

This is without a doubt one of the greatest westerns ever made.  It takes the character of the gunfighter that we all know and love from some of your favourites and ages him ten years and shows us who that man becomes and what he has to deal with.  We are always so anxious to see the story of the upcoming youthful gunslinger who wants to make a name for himself, but what happens after he’s done that.  Once he’s solidified his position in the Wild West as one of the greatest men with a gun?  The film answers that question quite simply: he becomes a lonely man always on the run and always being challenged by the first young slinger thinking he can take the crown.

The film gives us a comprehensive look at all the characters you can find in the west that has everything to do with gunslinging.  You have the great notorious gunfighter, Ringo, the older gunfighter who gave it up and got a real job and left the life behind him, Marshall Mark Strett (Millard Mitchel), and the young quick-on-the-draw upcoming fighter looking to make a name for himself, Hunt Bromley (Skip Homeier).  Through these characters and how they all interact in the town you can get a clear understanding of what a gunfighter’s career is like, and what life choices they have to look forward to.

Even though the film is about a man trying to reconnect with his love there isn’t a lot of time spent on relationships.  We see how he interacts with Mark Strett and Mac (Karl Malden) who are two old acquaintances.  Mark was Ringo’s partner in crime back in the day, and Mac was a bartender which knew him from a ways back.  When we do eventually get to see Peggy and Ringo meet and talk it becomes more of a 50s western cliché where the woman, even though she’s trying her best to be strong and sensible, she does eventually come to the man’s terms.  However, I really don’t mind because this desire for the reconnection is really just a facilitator of the main point the film is trying to tell.  This, as I’ve mentioned before, is the life of the gunfighter.

Overall I can’t recommend this movie enough.  It’s being immediately filed under one of my all-time favourites without a doubt.

IMDB says 7.8/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 100%

I say 10/10

On his way from place to place Shane (Alan Ladd) ends up randomly passing through a piece of land that’s being farmed by some poor workers.  They are being forced off their land by a man called Ryker (Emile Meyer) who believes he is the rightful owner of the land.  Shane decides eventually to stay with a family that works on the land and befriends them.   When eventually Ryker realises that Shane isn’t any regular farmer he hires a gunfighter, Wilson (Jack Palance), to deal with him and the rest of the farmers on the land.

Having now seen a few westerns I’ve realised that one of the most interesting part of the characters throughout these films is usually that they’re never really by the book heroes that never cross a line.  There’s this very ambiguous sense of right and wrong, especially in respect of our protagonists.  It almost feels like there’s a completely different rule book written for the cowboys.  This is understandable since we are in a time when the law was very local, even though really bad men were often sent to famed jails like Yuma.  So it was normal for the law to operate more on the ends rather than the means.  And usually we end up with the law deciding that this bad man’s unlawful action was justified.  It’s a very Machiavellian approach to a way of life.

In this film we’re fed the wanderer Shane, who has a very strict way of thinking.  His heroics are very one note and never waver.  While for a high school literature class that may make for a wonderful discussion on a few set themes in film it just drags out.  Until of course the hired gun, Wilson, comes into town.  I almost wish the story was told in the perspective of Wilson as opposed to Shane.  Yes I’d still expect for Wilson to lose in the end but it would really make for a gripping story in the end.  In the end I have to deal with a cliché story that felt way to much like a movie that they don’t make any more for good reason.  Even though Jack Palance’s entrance in the film increased my enjoyment exponentially anytime I had the pleasure of seeing a scene with him in it.

One thing that the film’s story did create for me was a sense of setting.  Unlike all the other westerns that I’ve seen, and am probably going to get used to, this one decided to focus more on the settlers and regular folk than the gunfighters.  We know that the John Wayne’s and Clint Eastwood’s are definitely what makes us fall in love with the genre but there were a lot more characters around at that point in time in history that definitely needs there chance to shine.  Even though I didn’t full enjoy this one, I can imagine a better film doing this in a way that I would truly enjoy.

This is hopefully the low point in the marathon that I will never have to repeat in the coming weeks as I spend the rest of this month finishing up.  Not a movie that I’d outright recommend to anyone but definitely has its place among films set in the period.

IMDB says 7.7/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 96%

I say 4.5/10

After a failed bank robbery where half the gang lose their lives a band of outlaws are still searching for the final score that will see them through for a long while.  With a group of bounty hunters on their trailer they head to Mexico.  There they meet up with the General Mapache (Emilio Fernández) who asks them to highjack a train for ten thousand dollars in gold.  They take the job and so begins the next ‘final job’ for The Wild Bunch.

What do I say about another western that became an instant classic?  It’s a great story, with a few minor problems, that hasn’t lost its sting yet.  Watching Pike Bishop (William Holden) lead this group of misfits through the land trying to make this great score that he needs is almost oddly satisfying.  The only problem I had with it is that the film eventually shifts its sympathy towards the end.

Avid filmgoers know how to pick out all the clichés in the book.  The number one rule of Hollywood filmmaking is that the good guy has to win or, at the very least, the bad guy has to lose.  Here be begin with this Wild Bunch as the clear bad guys, or maybe the better term in the case of this film is anti-heroes.  So we’re watching this movie following these characters expecting for Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan) to finally catch up with Pike and his men and bring them to justice.  However, since the film so easily makes Pike the main character in the film (i.e. the protagonist) we’re left in this odd place trying to figure out what to expect of the filmmaker and while I’m enjoying the actual story fuelling the action filled film I’m still left in this form of purgatory where I have no idea what’s going to happen next.  It’s not until more than half way into the movie that we’re introduced to the General Mapache and realise who the real villain of the film is and things become clear.  It’s almost as if even though the first half of the film plays up this epic chase between Deke and Pike, it remains a far second place in the plot to that of General Mapache and Mexico.

What struck me about this movie was the level of violence.  Now I’m not saying that it’s something I didn’t like, it’s actually quite the opposite; but at the same time it’s unexpected from a film from this era and this genre.  Most westerns, even the new ones like 3:10 to Yuma, tend to make their action very PG-13 at most.  Here however Sam Peckinpah, a man whose name makes him sound like he actually lived through the Wild West era, doesn’t sugar coat the west and makes all the blood and gore that comes with the ammunition count show.

What I can say for sure is that forgetting all the odd narrative choices made by the filmmaker he still ended up making a kick ass western that I’ll easily watch a couple more times.

IMDB says 8.2/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 97%

I say 8.0/10

After doing a couple of dirty deeds Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is out on the look for a man that knows about a lot of loose confederate gold.  Tuco (Eli Wallach) and Blondie (Clint Eastwood) are partners in a con and eventually decide to go opposite ways.  Tuco doesn’t like how their partnership ended and so he’s out for revenge against Blondie.  While out enacting this revenge they find out about the Confederate gold, but each only knows a part of the story as to exactly where the gold is.  Insert Angel Eyes and you have a race to the finish with each man trying to get the gold and the information while leaving the other two in the dust in the process, all while the civil wars continues to drag on.

I entered this marathon only three weeks ago with the preconception that Westerns were generally a complete and utter waste of time.  I’m not even half way through the marathon and I’m already ready to apologize publicly to all you lovers of the genre who’ve had to listen to my constant bickering.  After watching this film, which most consider to be the greatest of the genre, I must concede that I spoke out of turn.  This film is brilliant.  I love the first two films in the trilogy, but this is definitely the best of the lot.

Not only was Sergio Leone able to bring in another brilliant character this time around, i.e. Tuco, that’s just as enjoyable to watch as all the others we’ve seen so far, but he’s increased the scope and grandness of the film by introducing the civil war backdrop.  At first I was worried that the war would interfere with the film’s hopes and dreams to kick ass more than its predecessors, but by the time the film was thirty minutes in and we had finally been introduced to all three of our main characters I had no more fears.

What makes this movie so special for me now is that it proved to me that you can have a film basically about three really badass characters with a story that engages you.  One of my biggest problems with films, like the kind that Michael Mann directs, is that they like to give this macho character(s) that is all powerful and is able to overcome any obstacle, but it ends up faltering usually when we ask it to give us a somewhat gripping story.  Here we get it all: acting, story, characters, direction and action.

My only real problem isn’t so much a problem with the film, but really a problem with the film’s misrepresentation.  This is the third and final chapter in the Man With No Name trilogy: A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few More Dollars (1965), The Good The Bad and The Ugly (1966).  However throughout those films Clint Eastwood, and eventually Lee Van Cleef, play different characters in each film.  Deep down Clint is generally the same person, except with slight changes from film to film, but Van Cleef is definitely a completely different person from A Few Dollars More to The Good The Bad and The Ugly.  This isn’t really a criticism as much as an observation of something I never really noticed.  These films are really only related to each other by their lead actors, director and genre.  It’s as if Sergio Leone was creating his own western movie playlist for people to enjoy in the theatre, or at home.

I also want to take note at the obvious reference that Quentin Tarantino was making during the opening sequence in Inglorious Basterds with Col. Hans Landa’s interrogation of the dairy farmer.  It’s so obviously a reference to the scene at the beginning of the film when Angel Eyes comes to interrogate the man about Jackson and what name he’s currently going by.  It’s so obvious, from the music used (which Tarantino took from this film’s score) to the dead stare that Angel gives the man.  The only thing that differs is a few minor details to how the conversation ends and how long Tarantino decided to hold the tension in his version.

The movie is straight up brilliance from start to finish and deserves no less than the royal treatment.  If you’ve never seen a western before and need a film to inspire you to start watching them this is the one.

IMDB says 9.0/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 98%

I say 10/10

A poor village of farmers in Mexico is being terrorized by a bandit and his men.  They are forced to give all they have every season to them.  They finally decide to fight back. They go to the town near the border and hire some lone guns to fight the bandits.  In comes The Magnificent Seven.

This is the American remake of the Kurosawa classic Seven Samurai, which I reviewed a few months back.  When I saw Seven Samurai I had a few complaints, mainly of the ending battle between the samurai and the bandits.  Here however I have no real complaints about it in this version.  William Roberts and Jim Struges were able to make it more of a believably enjoyable action sequence as opposed to the overly detailed and methodically correct war between two forces.  It may be due to the technological changes (guns and rifles instead of arrows and swords) but it worked for me here where it couldn’t in Seven Samurai.

Where this movie increases in overall enjoyment it lowers itself to a normal action film level in impact on the viewer.  Whereas I didn’t find myself bolstering to my DVD player to hit that play button again after watching Seven Samurai I did understand how profound the filmmaking and storytelling was in it.  Here however I could probably watch it twice over again without a problem (an hour less runtime helps that fact) because I felt myself more enjoying it than questioning the nature and beauty of the tale.

The film shows its biggest problems in a lot of the character development. It’s pretty much waved over in this version and it shows mostly in the character of Harry Luck (Brad Dexter) a bit, the same role that Toshiro Mifune played in the original, in order to keep the story moving. Even with the recruitment of the seven we never get this feel that the seven more than just appeared.  Even when some of the seven men met their end during battle it felt like the filmmaker eventually became too afraid to change too much so he had to rush their end.  It’s a love/hate relationship with me and this movie.

Overall it’s a great western which has the trouble of having to live in the shadow of its original.  How can I not love a film that stars Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn and Robert Vaughn?  I can’t.  So if you haven’t seen it I say watch it for sure, and also check out the original film Seven Samurai.

IMDB says 7.8/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 93%

I say 8.5/10

Ethan (John Wayne) returns from the civil war to his family.  The very next day he’s brought into this posse to try and catch some Indians.  It was a diversion.  Ethan returns home to find that the Indians have murdered his family and taken his niece, Debbie (Natalie Wood).  Ethan and Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) spend the next five years searching for these Indians in order to bring his niece back home safe and sound.

When I decided on the ordering of my marathon I didn’t really try to do much other than make sure to begin and end with John Wayne films.  Only for the simple reason that up until this point in my life, I’ve actually never seen one.  I can now say that I have, and I completely get why people love him.  When we talk about actors of today, like Robert Downey Jr. and George Clooney, who just ooze charisma into every inflection of their dialogue and every step in their movement on screen back when the only kind of movies that made money were westerns that man was John Wayne.  Somehow I knew I wasn’t that impressed by the movie on a whole, but I was able to get into it anyways because I was watching John Wayne.

My problem with the film lied with pretty much every character that wasn’t played by John Wayne.  If you were to watch a western parody, like let’s say Blazing Saddles, then you’ve seen every character that’s on display in this movie.  Scar (Henry Brandon) says almost nothing all film and when he actually does it just aggravates me.  Rev. Capt. Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond) is the stereotypical thinks he’s a smart/good leader when he really isn’t; I felt at one point in the film that they should’ve made say something like ‘darn’ so that I would at least know it was supposed to be a joke.  Finally the relationship between Martin and Laurie (Vera Miles) was just too laughable from the get go.  If the Wild West was the age of real men then I don’t know what women did back then.  The silliness that was onscreen just for the sake of comic relief just took me out of the film so much it’s just sad.  For a film whose plot is seemingly so well conceived, I have no idea why it feels it needs to resort to these distractions from what the audience wants.

John Ford is supposed to be one of these great American directors, but honestly I don’t know what the big deal is.  This is only the first film that I’m seeing by him, but call me more than just unimpressed.  Calling him a great after seeing this is like calling Pierre Morel the greatest filmmaker because he cast John Travolta in From Paris with Love.  Yes the lead is fun to watch and he keeps me interested but that’s not exactly what I was promised.

In the end it’s a good story filled with a lot of horrible characters and even worse actors.  If you watch this film, watch it for John Wayne and John Wayne only.  The rest of it is almost not worth the effort.

IMDB says 8.0/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 98%

I say 6.0/10