Quigley Down Under (1990) Dir. Simon Wincer

QDU QDU1 QDU2

Here’s a film I had long forgotten, Quigley Down Under.  This is another film I remember seeing in the theater when I was 8 years old.  I really liked it at the time because it was a Western set in the Australian Outback,  but it was also an adventure story.  I wasn’t sure if I would have the same feeling revisiting the film after over 23 years.  The film started out a bit of a rocky for me, once Alan Rickman’s villain Elliot Marsten showed up, the film took off for me, and I was thrilled to go along with the ride once more.

I don’t know if this film is still remembered by a lot of people, but if you haven’t seen it in a while, it’s really worth a revisit.  It’s got a great story, and the experience I had re-watching the movie was an interesting one.  At first I wasn’t sure if this was going to be the movie I remembered.  Once Quigley arrives on the shores of Australia, he meets Crazy Cora, a woman he saves from Marsten’s men, and she keeps calling Quigley, “Roy”.  At first, I was just as annoyed as Quigley because for a woman who was supposedly crazy, I didn’t know if they were going to go anywhere with the character apart from trying to make her a goofy sidekick/potential love interest.  Thankfully, the storytellers actually did a great thing with the character, as we find out later on she’s the victim of a trauma.  During an Apache attack on her home in America, Cora accidentally smothered her baby to keep it quiet during the attack.  Her husband, Roy, was so outraged, blaming her for sacrificing their baby to save herself, that he had her exiled on a boat to Australia.  What’s great is through the course of the film, she is able to work through her trauma and in the end finds her way to Quigley to start her life over.  I found Cora to be a step up on characters that are portrayed with mental illness because as a heroic character, she manages to save herself and survive.  She is able to move on with her life.  Cora wound up being the most engaging and sympathetic characters in the film.

As for Tom Selleck as Quigley, well…he plays Tom Selleck, but that’s just fine.  I liked Tom Selleck as a kid, and he’s still just as entertaining as a kick ass/nice guy western hero.  He is pretty much a nice guy, saying no to anyone showing harsh intolerance and violence against anybody.  Quigley is hired by Marsten as a long range rifle shooter.  But when he finds out that Marsten wants him to use his gifts as a sharpshooter to kill Aborigines, Quigley quickly has Marsten thrown through a window, and it doesn’t take very long before the two wind up becoming enemies.  Marsten has Quigley and Cora sent to die out in the middle of the Australian Outback, and it’s up to the two of them to survive and make it back and stop Marsten from wiping out more Aborigine tribesmen.  When Marsten finds out they’re still alive, he keeps sending men after them only to have them continually wiped out.

Another one of the great things about this film is that Marsten’s henchmen are actually unique and fun characters on their own.  My favorite of them was a young red head kid who, while remaining with the bad guys all the way through, he doesn’t come off as cocky or obnoxious, but as somebody trying to fit in with the other guys.  There’s a funny scene where he practices shooting, and he asks Marsten, “Do you think someday I’ll be able to shoot as well as you, sir?”  Marsten: “You mean if you keep practicing hard every day?  No.”   Alan Rickman is gleefully evil in this, and is just a dick. He steals his scenes pretty effectively as the villain, It’s like taking Hans Gruber and making him the bad rancher of the west.  This is definitely one of the more fun villains Alan Rickman has portrayed.  He channels Gruber quite a bit in this movie, and like I said, once Rickman arrives on the scene, the movie shifts gears and just becomes a really good time.

If you haven’t seen Quigley Down Under, it’s available on Netflix Instant, so by all means check it out.  It’s just a really good time, and somewhat of a forgotten classic.  It’s got a great cast, a great story, and plenty of action.  Don’t miss it.

QDU3

#Quigleydownunder #AlanRickman #TomSelleck #Westerns #forgottenclassics

 

Rosemary’s Baby (1968) Dir. Roman Polanski

RB1

I recall seeing Rosemary’s Baby awhile ago on TV, but not knowing what it was.  It all came back to me as I remembered seeing this film before, but thankfully this time I got to see it from the beginning.  And it is a truly great horror film, one that could have ended up being far sillier than it turned out to be.  I mean the premise is pretty silly when you think about it, especially since this was made in 1968.  It was pretty natural at that time for a younger generation to believe anyone over 60 worshiped Satan.  But what makes it work so well is that the older people in the film are intentionally made funny, especially the diabolical, and not to mention incredibly nosy, Minnie Castevet (hilariously portrayed by Ruth Gordon).  Their ability to manipulate young Rosemary (Mia Farrow), is pretty unprecedented, as anytime Rosemary wants to get away or find her own way, the scheming old timers simply compromise and bargain with her, playing to her wishes when they know in time they will definitely get what they want.  They have pretty much all the patience in the world.  They’ve probably done this so many times manipulating young girls that Rosemary is probably just too easy for them (well, okay, she’s a bit of a challenge, but by the end we see nothing they can’t handle).

RB3

The only other Polanski film I’ve seen is Chinatown, but that is also an incredible film, and the director has a unique style and vision, and dare I say is a game changer in cinema.  The film is grounded firmly in the reality it portrays, and what’s great are the incredibly natural performances that come from the cast, making it all the more real and frightening for us as the film goes on.  The young couple, Rosemary and Guy (John Cassavetes) start out as a free spirited, only to be seduced and taken over by the older generation, eventually crippling what’s left of their youthful vigor.  Guy especially, who seems manipulated into joining them right off the bat when he’s promised a great career at the expense of having somebody else suddenly and inexplicably becoming blind. Dark stuff indeed.  I especially loved the character Dr. Saperstien (Ralph Bellamy), who is just as conniving as they come, but always the patient and meticulous doctor, doing everything to please Rosemary, while covering up his sinister intentions.

RB2

As far as the ending goes, it’s a bit uncertain what’s happening in Rosemary’s mind as we fade out from the final shot, having realized she’s just delivered the anti-Christ.  What’s scary about that final look is seeing her as she gives in to the darkness.  Her previous identity gone.  Rosemary’s Baby shows what happens when we lose that free spiritedness in ourselves, and how older values corrupt the spirit when we are trying to find ourselves and figure out what we want most in our lives.  The older medicine winds up causing Rosemary more pain than anything, and even her younger friends try to warn her to seek help from a younger professional.

There is something to be said about this era of cinema, especially with horror, which served as a great medium for expressing the anger and rebellion happening among a younger generation during those times.  Rosemary’s Baby is no exception and delivers it in a scary and fun way.  There’s a great balance with the humor and the more insidious threat being played out.  This is definitely a great horror film.

RB4

Jurassic Park (1993) Dir. Steven Spielberg

JP1

This weekend I got the chance to once again see Jurassic Park on the big screen with it’s new 3D conversion.  First, to be perfectly honest, I don’t care to talk about the 3D because 3D itself doesn’t have much of an effect on me, apart from noticing it for maybe the first 10 minutes of the film and then completely forgetting about it for the rest of the film.  So if 3D’s your thing, from what I saw it looks pretty good.  Other than that, I want to delve right into the film.

I saw Jurassic Park like many people when it first came out in 1993.  I remember the experience like it was yesterday.  We went to the just opened AMC Town 6 theater in Burbank.  What I remember most was that this film was the first time I sat in a theater with stadium seating.  The theater was brand new, the sound was exquisite…it was really the ultimate movie going experience.  I loved the move when I was 11 years old and there were those moments of sheer terror that blew me out of the water.  Over the years and subsequent viewings I’ve had more time to process the story and the film itself.  It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen the film all the way through as I look at it now through adult eyes.  To be honest, this isn’t one of my favorite Spielberg movies, but I enjoy it for what it is, even if there are parts of the story that don’t quite mesh (which I’ll get into).  This movie was made at the same time as Schindler’s List, and is in my opinion the pinnacle of Spielberg’s career.  Everything after Schindler, for me has been a slow decline, where his movies still had moments of greatness, like Private Ryan for example where the main plot is nowhere near as exceptional as the incredible D-Day attack in the first 20 minutes.

Now we’re in the age of Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, Warhorse, and Lincoln, where Spielberg has now lost the one thing that kept even his weakest stories afloat:  Character.  Character if anything is the one thing that has epitomized the success of the best of Spielberg’s career.  Without great characters to empathize with, we would never have the sense of wonder and joy of the fantastic in his films.  We would never feel any of this had we not seen it through the eyes of these wonderful actors who portray these characters.  It’s the reason a film like Jurassic Park works so well on audiences.  We can’t help but love the characters in this movie even if the story might begin to loose its focus from the first half in favor of the popcorn adventure of the second half.  We love Alan Grant, the kids, the funny, womanizing Ian Malcom, Ellie, Hammond, and even great supporting characters such as Nedry, Mr. Arnold, etc.  There was even a funny bit I had never noticed before that made me laugh.  When Dodgson is meeting Nedry to deliver the embryo canister, he gets out of his cab and leaves the door open.  We see in the background the cabbie get out of the car, shut the backseat door and throw Dodgson an angry gesture.  For a character that just has one scene, it’s great that Spielberg still showed in that little moment just to show what a son-of-a-bitch Dodgson is, and that he has no respect for anyone subservient.  Touches like these are great because Dodgson represents Hammond’s competitors trying to get their hands on the valuable dinosaur embryos, and because he only has one scene, a lot is done in that moment to make this one shot character memorable.  Spielberg does this with all the characters in the film, giving them each a little trait the audience can latch on and identify with, such as Hammond’s Walt Disney like enthusiasm, Ian’s womanizing, the fact that Grant doesn’t like kids, Lex who thrives on being a computer nerd and vegetarian despite being chased by carnivores for most of the film.  Gennero’s sudden turn to greed once he sees what a gold mine the park really is.

As for the story, the problem the film has is that it sets up a lot of interesting ideas about DNA, genetics, Chaos Theory, the fact that the dinosaurs are all female to keep them from breeding, but there’s no payoff to any of these story points except to set up the set piece of the characters being chased by dinos in the second half of the film.  There’s nothing wrong with the way the second half of the film plays out because obviously that’s the most fun part of the movie, and it’s the most engaging in that we care so much about the characters that we don’t want to see anything terrible happen to them.  But there are things, for example, like the idea of the dinosaurs being female, but the frog DNA chosen causes the dinosaurs to inexplicibly change sex and breed anyway.  What’s funny to me about this is it almost seems smarter if the bred them all as males at least to deny to dinosaurs a physiology system that would allow them to lay eggs.  When Grant later finds the eggs, we see that the dinosaurs are in fact breeding on their own, but there’s no real payoff except to say that “Life found a way”.  Which is interesting commentary but doesn’t really say anything regarding the rest of the film.  What goes on like in the dinner scene where Malcolm is complaining to Hammond about playing God and never earning the responsibility of the knowledge for himself, these are all fascinating ideas and debates that are discussed, but then abandoned when it comes time for the dinosaur chase.  This doesn’t change my enjoyment of Jurassic Park knowing any of this about the story, it’s just that as enjoyable as the film is, it isn’t as tightly structured with its ideas as, say, Spielberg’s earlier films like Jaws, Raiders, or E.T.

JP3

I have three favorite sequences in this film.  The first is the sick triceratops scene.  I think it’s a beautiful moment for Grant, and it’s a terrific setup as we’re introduced to the triceratops from Tim’s perspective, walking through the tall grass and then seeing the dinosaur revealed.  Grant goes on about how beautiful she is, even feeling every breath, and it gives us some backstory that the triceratops was Grant’s favorite dinosaur as a kid, tapping into that childlike wonder in him that seemed forgotten when we first meet him.

My second favorite scene is where Hammond talks about his first attraction, a motorized flea circus.  Again, this is a scene that gives us a lot of wonderful history on Hammond, a dreamer and a creator who wished for the day that his creations weren’t an illusion, but something real that people could see and touch.  It even touches a little into Hammonds dark side and his compulsion to play God with his line “Creation is an act of will.”  Ellie has to shake him back into reality when he becomes more concerned with the outlook of the park than the lives of people they love who are in danger.  Hammond struggles through this with the rest of the film as his dream begins to crumble.  The back and forth debate in his head with the park vs. the well being of the people he loves is one of the stronger moments of the film.

JP2

The third sequence, and possibly my favorite in the film is the raptors stalking the children in the kitchen.  For those who know me well, I’m a sucker for child endangerment in films, and this is most definitely one of the scariest sequences put on film.  We learn just how smart raptors are quite simply because they figured out how to open doors.  They’re strategic and incredibly vicious.  The only thing I’m curious about is that in the earlier scene when Muldoon is talking about the raptors, and one of them being particularly vicious, taking over the pack, I kind of wonder which raptor he was referring to.  It doesn’t take away the scariness in anyway, but the whole setup and the way the sequence plays out is just brilliant.

I had an interesting discussion once about this film with my life drawing teacher regarding the effects work and animation done on the dinosaurs in this film.  One of the things we all agreed on is that the dinosaurs in this film are the most convincing out of all the Jurassic Park films.  One of the reasons for that was the stop motion animation work done by Phil Tippitt and his team.  Originally, the computer technology used for the full motion dinosaurs was so new that nobody was sure it was going to work.  As a back up, Phil Tippit did stop motion animation of all the dinosaur sequences, including the T-Rex attacks, the brachiasaurs, the Gallymimus sequence, and the raptors in the kitchen sequence.  These stop motion films served as reference for the CG animators, giving the dinos a sense of weight and timing.  More attention to weight especially makes the dinosaurs more convincing because Tippitt was relying on real life puppets to animate.  The other Jurassic Park films skip this process entirely which is a shame as much as it is frustrating, because the animation in those films isn’t nearly as convincing or interesting.  In breaking new ground with the first film, the creators were forced through circumstances and a lack of technology to find ways to make the dinosaurs not so much realistic, but instead BELIEVABLE, which is the one thing we strive for more than realism when making films. I discuss this in another post called Realism and Believability in the Movies.

But quite frankly that’s what also amounts to the success of Jurassic Park as a film as well.  While we strive for a story that is tight where all the pieces are in place, it’s the believability of the characters that makes the film real for us.  Spielberg gives us character moments spread throughout the film.  One of my favorite acting moments in the film is where Malcolm is explaining chaos theory to Ellie while at the same time hitting on her.  In a subtle way we can see she’s a little creeped out by his overbearing advances.  It’s a good moment of interaction among the characters.  Grant likes to scare children, such as the obnoxious kid in the beginning of the film to get him to show “more respect” for velociraptors, or faking Lex and Tim out getting electrocuted by the fence.  Or even Hammond sitting by himself eating ice cream and his moment with Ellie when he talks about the flea circus.  These little moments add up to our empathy with the characters.

Jurassic Park is by no means a perfect film.  But for a Spielberg movie, it’s still makes for a great, engaging ride, with terrific visuals and giving us a reason to care about these characters, something that is sorely missed now from his more recent efforts.

Jurassic Park 1993

A Monster In Paris clip

I may have to check this movie out and see if it’s worth recommending. I watched this clip below, and the animation on the angel singer is just extraordinary. Just incredible, beautifully subtle movements. Whoever animated this section is just a master. Now I’m very interested!

Cinecon 49!

49film_couldhappenHey everyone!  Cinecon 49 is coming up soon!  For those who don’t know, Cinecon is a terrific classic film festival held every year at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, and features fantastic prints of some rare Hollywood treasures, some of which are so good and yet currently unavailable on DVD.  This is your one place to see them!  The festival this year is held Labor Day weekend, from August 29th to September 2nd.  Already the site has updated with some of the films they will be showing this year. Check it out here!

Toy Story (1995) Dir. John Lasseter

TS1

I took a great class yesterday from Marshall Vandruff, a terrific artist and teacher. The class was a Visual Storytelling Analysis of the film Toy Story, where we went through the entire film, stopping after each sequence and discussing the story structure and emotional line of the film. It was an absolutely terrific seminar. I wanted to talk a little bit about Toy Story as a film in general, because it really is such a great, well told story.  This is a film where the story was allowed to be what it should have been.  There was a tremendous amount of searching to find the film this would eventually become, but this movie turned out to be the ultimate game changer for animation.  What’s even more astounding is that this film does not feel dated in the slightest.  While the animation and visuals would technically be considered “primitive” to what CG films can do know, Toy Story was still approached with a wonderful artistic eye, and the visuals are still just as wonderful and aesthetically pleasing to the eye as it was when it first premiered.

I was 14 when Toy Story first came out.  From what I do remember about seeing the film, I remember how much I liked it although I didn’t know the impact it would have that one day CG would completely take over the animation field.  I never saw myself wanting to go into a career in CG after this, but I saw it as the use of a different medium.  The story was great, and the film itself was a lot of fun.  There was one particular scene that hit me pretty hard when I first saw it, and still today it’s my favorite scene in the whole film.  It’s basically the fall of Buzz Lightyear when he discovers that he’s not a space ranger, just “an insignificant stupid little toy”.  It’s his fall from grace and his discovery that the world was never what he imagined it would be.  The scene I refer to in this is where Buzz and Woody are talking in the middle of the night at Sid’s house and Woody is trying to get Buzz to help him escape.  Buzz just sits their alone with his sad line, “I can’t help.  I can’t help anybody.”  It’s been a few years since I’ve watched this film, but yesterday as I watched the film I couldn’t help but be moved to tears by this sequence.  Not in a heavy depressed way, but as the scene plays out, the two of them have reached a penultimate moment where they couldn’t get any lower and two guys that were once enemies finally reach common ground.  It’s a beautiful scene.  And when Buzz finally sees the words “Andy” on his shoe and gets the message that there is a new, better life for him out there, you see a character that finds bliss in that moment.

There’s a lot of great visual storytelling devices in this movie.  I’ve always liked the opening sequence with Andy playing with his toys.  The camera is always kept at the Toy’s point of view, even though they are in “play mode”, meaning they don’t move.  When we’re introduced to Woody, who appears to us as just an ordinary toy, the camera keeps everything so that we see what he sees in his head, from going down the stair railing to spinning in the chair with Andy.  One of the interesting things that was pointed out when I was in the class was an idea that started out as a cliche joke and goes on to become an important part of the story.  The scene starts with the army men going to investigate the new birthday presents Andy is getting.  After one of them gets crushed, the wounded soldier shouts out “Go on without me!” to which the Army captain returns and says, “A good soldier never leaves a man behind!”  This theme is echoed through to the final sequence in the film, where twice Woody and Buzz make self sacrifices for each other.  For instance, the first time Buzz is caught in a fence as the moving van is leaving, and he shouts to Woody, “Go on, I’ll catch up”, to which Woody who is right at his moment of victory, decides to jump down and help Buzz.  Then the second time it happens, Woody’s leg is caught in the dogs mouth and he cries out to Buzz, “Take care of Andy for me!”, to which Buzz shouts No! and jumps on the dog, pulling up and snapping its eyelids.

TS2

From a structural standpoint it was interesting to see how so many different elements are set up and paid off later in the movie.  The story structure of this film is a solid as they come.  The sequels were never quite the same when it came to this film, and one of the things I enjoyed about this film was Mr. Potato Head, who is much more of a smart ass, and while he’s not a villain, he is a bit more of an antagonist figure here.  A part of it is that he’s somewhat jealous of Woody’s position as Andy’s favorite toy, and manages to convince the other toys not to let Woody come back to them after what he did to Buzz.  While Potato Head makes some good points, at the same time, you can’t help but feel his motives are a little ulterior even if he’s not conscieous about what he’s doing.  There’s a part of him that already wants Woody to go away anyway, just because Woody decided to be self-proclaimed leader of the toys.  Potato head even gets a bit of comeuppance at the end of the film when the race car flies into him and his body parts scatter all over the place.  And then of course, he gets a happy ending when he finally gets Ms. Potato Head!

TS3

I’ve always had problems with the sequels for this film, because to me the idea of the toys getting replaced because their masters grew up or moved on…for some reason that story was never important to me.  It’s almost like it comes to a shock to all the toys that their master is going to grow up, when I think if every toy before hand had to deal with this, you’d think toys would have some plan or initiative on what to do when they had to move on to another master.  You’d think instead of “holding on” to each other, that one day they would split up and move on to other people, and one day eventually end up in the trash pile.  But that’s just what their existence is.  It seems like they’re not okay with the idea of dying or moving on.  I was more interested in the first Toy Story because it dealt with the toys dealing with ordinary problems that we can relate to as people.  The jealousy of a new toy coming into the picture when Buzz arrives, which angers Woody, is very human and a story we can all relate to when somebody comes into our lives we didn’t ask for and we don’t know how to deal when that person comes in with newer or more impressive ideas than the old toy.  Some of the aspects we talked about in this film were the metaphors about how the space race came in during the 60’s and took over when before every kid was interested in cowboys and Indians and then suddenly everyone was into space and astronauts.  All of this helps to build on a great rivalry with the characters.

Toy Story will always be one of Pixar’s greatest triumphs.  The story is so solid as well because the filmmakers had no choice but to go in that direction.  They had to accept and allow the story to unfold and be what it wanted to be.  It’s disappointing to me that the rest of the Pixar films (at least everything after The Incredibles) couldn’t be as on par and allow their films to bloom in the way that Toy Story does.  It’s just a great solid film, and one of my favorite animated films ever made.

TS4