New Release: John Wick (2014)

Don't laugh just because it's Reeves.
He plays the hardcore title assassin far
better than you might expect.

Director: David Leitch & Chad Stahelski

A formula you may not realize works: Keanu Reeves + Action Revenge Story = Movie Gold.

I know, I know. That Keanu Reeves. It does actually make sense, if you think about it. One of the great knocks against Reeves has always been his laughably limited range. No matter what character he has been playing, he's never been able to shake his own valley dude monotone and dead black eyes. That's a problem when you're trying to play a Shakespeare character (which he did in Much Ado About Nothing) or a hopelessly romantic sycophant (which he did in Dangerous Liaisons). But if your playing a stone-cold killer who decides to start piling up the bodies, then it's a gift from the gods of cinema carnage, who must have smiled upon Reeves's casting as the title assassin.

And so John Wick gets it right. Taking a page from recent action movie successes like Taken and Dredd, John Wick never tries to out-think itself. It knows exactly what it is - an excuse to watch one mean motor scooter shoot and pummel a bunch of scuzzy gangsters.

The set up is just what it needs to be. Wick's wife has died, and he laments the loss of the woman who pulled him away from his previously bloody life as a mafia hitman (Unforgiven, anyone?). Wick is brought to tears when he receives a surprise delivery of an oh-so-adorable puppy, which was arranged by his wife before she died. The scene is schmaltzy, yes, but it is very effective. We get to see Wick as a guy who does, indeed, have a heart.

And then it all goes south. The pampered son of the local Russian mafia boss, not knowing who Wick is, decides to break into Wick's house, beat him up, kill his dog, and steal his car. When John Wick regains consciousness to see the dog, he loses it. And then the fun begins for us viewers. What follows is a carnival of death. And boy, is it entertaining.

From the fight choreographers to the cinematographers to
Keanu Reeves himself, the action sequences are brilliantly
executed (pun highly intended).

I'm not especially a fan of action movies, especially some of the latest successful ones. Movies in the Jason Bourne series and its imitators are dull to me, for they show little style and make no great impression as to the physical feats that are merely implied rather than explicitly shown. Well John Wick shows it all to you. Never once relying on slow motion or ultra close-up, guerrilla-style cinematography, the lethal ballet that Wick displays is captured splendidly with long, wide shots and sustained sequences without overly choppy cuts or edits. The result is an impact and intensity that few Western action flicks have ever delivered.

Another merit is the element of mythical fantasy in John Wick's world. There's a hotel that caters solely to assassins, and fictional gold coins that serve as the currency of the realm. These things heighten the awareness of us viewers that this story is, indeed, a fantasy, and the writers were clever in their admission of it.

Of course, if nearly non-stop brutality and gun play have zero interest for you, then you won't care how it's dressed up. And truthfully, it was just starting to become a ever-so-slightly tiresome to me as the film neared its conclusion. Blessedly and perhaps ironically, the filmmakers avoid overkill by keeping the movie short and tight. At an efficient 93 minutes, the movie wraps ups just as things threaten to grow stale. I walked out well satisfied and ready to watch the movie again soon.

Action movie junkies will surely love this film. Even those like me who aren't die-hard fans of the genre will likely enjoy it, as long as high body counts and some rather brutal film violence don't put them off too much.

Retro Trio: Pacific Rim (2013), 13 Assassins (2010), Dark City (1998)

Pacific Rim (2013)

Director: Guillermo del Toro

This was my second viewing of this one, and I feel the same now as when I saw it on the big screen a year ago. It's certainly fun, but far from a masterpiece.

Yes, it's giant robots fighting against giant monsters, referred to as jaegers and kaiju, respectively. If you need to know more than that, then you probably won't be into this movie.

I do have to say that they do come up with a decent enough story for why we are watching a robot/monster slugfest. It's not exactly novel, but it doesn't try to get too clever for its own good, while not insulting your intelligence. Also, the notion of needing at least two "pilots" to handle the neural requirements to command the jaegers, leads to a bit more genuine empathy than you might expect.

Del Toro made sure that the fights looked at felt just as
titanic as they needed to be. Mindless? Yes. Fun? Hell yes!!

The fights are pretty awesome. They lose quite a bit on a small screen, it must be admitted, but they're still fun to watch, if you're not bored by that sort of thing, like my wife often is (she was fast asleep while I was happily watching Gipsy Danger body slam a Gamorrah lookalike into a Chinese skyscraper). Waiting to see just what type of bizarre powers the kaiju possess, or what kung-fu type moved the jaeger pilots will employ is plenty of fun. And there are a few noble deaths given up for admiration. The a deep-sea slugfest at the end is more than satisfying.

The weaknesses to me are few, but too obvious to ignore. The first is that the dialogue is inconsistent. There are some decent lines, including virtually all of the ones delivered by Idris Elba. However, there are plenty of cheesy duds that made me wince. When the protagonist Raleigh Beckett urges his neural partner Mako, "Let's do this! Together!!", it sounded way too much like the awful, hackneyed dialogue one might hear in a children's anime program. The other weakness to me is the romance between Raleigh and Mako. Totally unnecessary. The shame is that, for nearly all of the film, they don't fall down the Hollywood trap of cramming a romance story into an out-and-out action movie. Then, at the end, we get the cliched kiss-cut-credits sequence. I would have admired the film a bit more if they had simply kept Raleigh and Mako's relationship one of friends and colleagues.

A fun movie, nonetheless. Watch it on blu-ray, on a large screen, with a good sound system, if possible.

13 Assassins (2010)

Director: Takashi Miike

Great samurai flick. I don't watch a ton of Japanese or samurai movies, but I absolutely love them when they're done well, like 13 Assassins.

It probably helped that, just by coincidence, I had finished reading Hagakure a few weeks prior. This 18th century collection gathers the thoughts of a true feudal samurai, and it provides a fair amount of insight into the ideals of that position in Japanese social history. 13 Assassins incorporates several of the deepest sentiments and values of the samurai, both the admirable and the baffling. The primary belief is the ultimate quest for an honorable death. Essentially, a true samurai should never fear death. In fact, a true samurai should embrace the fact that he will die, and he should simply prepare and wait for the opportunity to give his life in the service of his feudal lord. It may seem like an oddly suicidal world view to most of us Westerners, but I've always been intrigued by the sense of honorable purpose conveyed by such an approach to life and death. 13 Assassins uses this idea to motivate the titular group.

But the movie is far from merely being a somber existential meditation. It starts off not unlike a Seven Samurai "let's get the band together" scenario. A middle-aged samurai, Shinzaemon, is tasked with the mission of killing the psychotic, sadistic, and homicidal Lord Matsudaira before he ascends to an esteemed place at the side of the shogun. So Shinzaemon, played with masterful gravitas and humanity by Koji Yakusho, rounds up whomever he can find to attempt what amounts to a suicide mission. The dozen fellows who join the band do so for various reasons, but they all add something to the group.

Do not get on the wrong side of this haggard-looking group.
They're just itching to give their skills and lives up for a
noble purpose.

The assault on Matsudaira is akin to the final 90 minutes of Seven Samurai, but condensed and thrown into a blood-soaked typhoon. In short, it's amazing. There is a slow-build throughout the movie, in terms of the duels and stand-offs. There are some outstanding showdowns, with steely-eyed swordsman squaring off. During the final half hour, though, it's a blizzard of violence, as Shinzaemon's band uses every scrap of cunning and trickery, as well as their considerable individual fighting skills to mow down their 200 opponents. The direction is outstanding, giving a phenomenal sense of place, purpose, and tension to all of the action.

True to the spirit outlined in Hagakure, the 13 "assassins" charge towards their noble deaths, and it's a phenomenal show.

Dark City (1998)

Director: Alex Proyas

As the title suggests, this is a dark, twisted science fiction mystery tale that I found to be excellent.

Dark City contains many shades of other, earlier artists and works: Franz Kafka, Philip K. Dick, noir in its many forms, and Clive Barker's Hellraiser are some of the most immediate that come to mind. The blending of them, though, is unique and highly engaging.

I'll refrain from writing about the plot, as the slow revelation throughout the movie is a large part of its appeal. All a first-time viewer needs to know is that the protagonist, John Murdoch, awakes in a motel bathtub, with no memories of who he is or how he got there. He very quickly finds himself pursued by shadowy, cloaked figures who possess terrifying supernatural powers. Murdoch, in constant flight, attempts to figure out who and where he is, but every answer raises many more questions about the nature of the reality that he is experiencing.

The story is so creative, and its execution is so brilliant, that I'm simply amazed that this movie isn't better known. My guess is that some of the themes and visuals were a little too bizarre or macabre, and the aesthetic - a pervasive noir darkness - was a bit off-putting to people who didn't know what to make of it. In addition, the film doesn't draw the clearest lines between good and evil, which can often disappoint and confound many viewers.

Another potential source of frustration for many viewers is likely the fact that there are certain larger questions that are not clearly answered. Without giving anything away, I can say that we are never given the grand answer to just how the entire scenario of the movie began. But this is completely fine to me. Ultimately, the way it began is immaterial, and this unanswered question allows us viewers the opportunity to engage in some imaginative speculation, based on the many details offered in the film's look and narrative.

Whatever the reasons for its lack of commercial success, it's a great science fiction movie that has rightfully built up the wider praise that it should have received from the outset. 

Goon (2011)

Director: Michael Dowse

Quick, One-Timer Summary

Doug Glatt is a simple young man living in small town in Massachusetts. He's big. He's strong. He's a bouncer. He's not very bright, but he has a good heart. Doug is generally a pleasant fellow, though he does lament the fact that he doesn't seem to have a real purpose in life.

One night, at a local minor league hockey game, Doug's purpose presents itself. When an unruly player for the visiting team charges into the stands while screaming homophobic slurs, Doug, whose brother is gay, absolutely destroys the vulgarian with his bare hands. This earns him a walk-on tryout from the local team's coach. Though Doug can barely skate, he becomes just proficient enough to stay upright and become a first-class "hockey goon" - a player whose sole purpose is to fight in defense of the more skilled players on his team.

Though Doug's a complete teddy bear off the ice, woe be to
any player whom he sizes up for a Biblical beat-down.

Doug's prodigious fighting prowess soon earns him a promotion to a more legitimate farm team, where he's tasked with serving as enforcer for an immensely talented but selfish and skittish young French Canadian named Xavier Laflamme. Doug overcomes the doubts of his teammates and earns their respect as an earnest, supportive comrade.

In the final game of the season, Doug's team is in a must-win game against a rival that features the most respected and legendary goon in the minor league hockey ranks - Ross "The Boss" Rhea (Liev Schreiber), a narrow-eyed, chain-smoking, savvy, calm, and tough-as-pig-iron veteran who knocks people out in the manner that most humans discard a used tissue. Doug's stand-off with Rhea is a dream scenario for every hockey fan with bloodlust in his or her heart.

Did I Like It?

Right off the stick - no, Goon is not as good as Slap Shot. But man, it's not that far off.

This was the second time that I watched this movie, and I love it. Though it can be a little uneven in just how stupid Doug is portrayed, it does nearly everything that it sets out to do very well.

The greatness that is Slap Shot and Goon are due to their focal subject matter - the unnecessary and idiotic yet often entertaining violence ingrained at many levels of hockey. Let's face it: most of these guys are not Rhodes Scholars. They play hockey. Some of them fight a lot on the ice. Nearly all of them curse a ton. And very few of them are aware of just how funny they can be - often unintentionally. Where Slap Shot gave us the ultimate comedic panoramic of minor league hockey culture, Goon gives us an oddly endearing and hilarious character study.

Doug is a great character, and Seann William Scott was a perfect casting choice. Doug is the textbook case of a man whose heart is vastly larger than his brain. The fact that he's an absolute tank whose fists are, as his gloriously vulgar best buddy Pat puts it, "bigger than my uncle's f****n' prostate," gives the story a soulful element that even a hands-down classic like Slap Shot is missing. You pull for Doug in the same way you pull for Rocky Balboa. Sure, Doug's not fighting for the heavyweight title, but his battles are just as epic in their way.

Featuring one of the best build-ups ever in sports film,
we're treated to the final confrontation between veteran
and rookie warriors - Rhea versus Glatt.

So enough with the mushy stuff. How are the fights? They're bloody awesome. If you enjoyed the thrill of seeing Mickey "The One-Punch Machine Gun" O'Neil do his thing in the ring in Snatch, you'll love what Doug does to the obnoxious ruffians on opposing teams. I'm probably revealing a bit of my own bloodlust here, but I find the thrashings that Doug dishes out wonderfully entertaining. And the elder statesman of goonery - Ross "The Boss" Rhea - is played to perfection by Liev Schreiber. Rhea's self-awareness of his station in the hockey world is a nice counter-point to Doug's innocence.

But there's an interesting revelation about the fights: there is, among certain practitioners of goonery, a kind of code that nearly borders on chivalric rules of engagement. At the beginning of one hockey match in the film, before the puck even drops, an opposing player and fellow enforcer (played by former real-life NHL enforcer Geroges Laraque) calmly turns to Doug and asks, "You wanna go?" Doug replies, "Okay, yeah." The instigator gives an earnest, "Good luck, man." The two punch the hell out of each other for a while, get separated, and the opposing player nods his head and offers Doug a "Good fight, man." Doug responds with a simple, "Thank you." There is a certain old-world charm about the entire exercise in ritualized violence.

So here's where I overthink it and almost doubt myself. Could Goon be a satire, perhaps even unintentional, for United States militarism? Or could it be seen a misplaced but humorous apology to excuse bloody violence? Are we supposed to think that Doug's lone stand-out talent - pummeling people into pulp - has merit as long as his heart's in the right place? Maybe so. Maybe not. Either way, there is something a bit deeper to be explored when one considers what, if any, greater message is being conveyed.

Whatever the case, I can't help but return to one simple axiom when I watch a movie like Goon: It's more important to be kind than to be intelligent. Doug is admittedly far from intelligent, but he has more than enough heart to go around, and he just wants comrades who need him and whom he can defend. These themes make Goon a bit more than just a solid sports comedy, and worth your time if you've no strong objection to some fairly graphic hockey violence. 

Film #102: City of God (2002)

Original Portuguese Language Title: Cidade de Deus

Directors: Katia Lund; Fernando Meirelles

Original Release Country: Brazil

Times Previously Seen: once (about eight years ago)

Rapid-Fire Summary

A couple of kids grow up in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. One wants to take photos; the other wants to be the ultimate gangster. Much sweating and pot-smoking throughout.

Extended Summary

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the 1960s. In government-built project housing outside of Rio de Janeiro, the impoverished of the region struggle to make a living. Among them are many restless youths, some of whom have resorted to crime. A particularly noted group, called the “Tender Trio,” are reasonably successful crooks, robbing gas trucks or any other valuables that they can steal from the wealthier class. A boy known as “Rocket”, the younger brother of the Trio member “Goose,” sees his brother and his companions rise to some modest power and local fame, though he admits that he hasn’t the courage to be a hoodlum, for fear of being shot.

Despite his very young age, "Li'l Dice" proves his proclivity for homicidal sadism frighteningly early.

One day, another very young, tough, and aggressive neighborhood boy known as “L’il Dice” teams up with the Trio. He feeds them the idea of robbing a motel filled with prostitutes and their clients. The Trio enact Dice’s plan, but force him to remain on lookout. When the police are called, the Trio flee, unable to find Dice. Unknown to them, Dice had sneaked into the motel before the cops arrived on the scene, where he killed several people in a homicidal mania. L’il Dice, despite being only around 10 years old, is already a bona fide psychopath.

The mass murders at the motel result in some changes. The Tender Trio disband, with one member becoming a clergyman, one being lethally shot by Li’l Dice, and Rocket’s brother Goose being killed by police as he attempted to flee the neighborhood with his girlfriend.

Several years pass. Rocket and his friends are now teenagers, though they are still living in the slums, which have grown more massive, convoluted, and packed with desperate people. Drugs are a large part of life for many people, either as users or dealers. Rocket is merely a user of marijuana, though he knows many of the main dealers in the area. Mostly, Rocket still has the more modest aspirations of becoming a photographer and finding a girlfriend.

In the middle of the bustling and chaotic slum, Li’l Dice sees opportunity. With his long-time right-hand man and best friend, Benny, by his side, Li’l Dice sees a local shaman for his blessing. Li’l Dice adopts the new name of “Li’l Ze” and mounts his takeover of all of the drug trade in the neighborhood. Within a single 24 hour period, Ze kills four of the five drug bosses in the area, taking over all operations. The only one left is the dealer known as “Carrot,” who is left to control a small part of the neighborhood.

With deadly alacrity, Li'l Ze amasses a crew of other desperate young thugs and takes over the slum's drug operations. His rise and following speak to the brutal poverty of the neighborhood.

For a time, the neighborhood is relatively peaceful. Drug use is prevalent, but crime is extremely low, being totally controlled and repressed by Ze and his crew. Things seem to be running like clockwork for the homicidal Ze and the oddly affable Benny. Benny, though, is not really a gangster at heart, as much as he has profited from the trade. He and his girlfriend decide to leave the drug business behind. At Benny’s farewell party, Ze starts an argument with his friend, angrily trying to convince him to stay with him. On the periphery, an assassin sent by Carrot takes a shot at Ze, but hits and kills Benny instead. All of a sudden, the relative peace of the neighborhood is on very shaky ground.

A short time after, Ze and his crew assault a local citizen, “Knockout Ned,” and rape his girlfriend in front of him. Even more, Ze and his crew go back to Ned’s house to confront him. There, they end up killing a few more of Ned’s family members. Ned, a former soldier and generally likable guy, joins up with Carrot and mounts an all-out war on Ze.

As all of these events unfold, Rocket is able to see it happening, as he has remained friends with Benny and acquaintances with many of the other central figures. As the feud between Ze and Ned erupts into an all-out war zone, Rocket simply tries to stay out of the way, and he continues to pursue a job as a photographer. He even manages to get a job delivering newspapers, trying to learn what he can from from the photo department.

One fateful day, Ze and his crew are lamenting the fact that Knockout Ned seems to get more publicity than them. They pull Rocket off the streets and have him take several photos of them, all brandishing their weapons. Through a mishap, the photos get developed and used by the main newspaper in the area. Rocket is terrified, thinking that Ze and his crew will kill him because of the public exposure that the photo will bring on. However, Rocket doesn’t realize that this is just what Ze and his boys wanted.

Knockout Ned, the once-peace-loving citizen of the slum who is all but forced into mounting an all-out war against the psychotic Li'l Ze. Among all of the tragedies in the tale, Ned's might just be the saddest.

Shortly after the newspaper story, another massive firefight breaks out in broad daylight in the middle of the slums, with Rocket right in the middle of the carnage, taking photos of everything. Knockout Ned is killed. Li’l Ze is captured, but bribes the police to let him go. Immediately after being freed, however, Ze is lethally and brutally gunned down by a pack of pre-pubescent boys whom he had terrorized a year prior. Witnessing it all and cataloging it with his camera is Rocket.

From his photo reporting of the drug war in City of God, Rocket gains an internship with the paper. He hopes that this will be his way out of the slums, which show signs of further impending terror, despite the death of Ze and the other powerful gangsters who have now been put down. The pack of kids who killed Li’l Ze are already plotting the deaths of other perceived enemies in the neighborhood, heralding further chaos and bloody violence.

My Take on the Film (Done after this most recent viewing, before any research)

City of God is one of the best, most unique gangster movies I’ve ever seen. And I really like a good gangster movie.

What we have with this movie is a kind of Goodfellas tale set in the sweaty, scuzzy slums of Rio de Janeiro. Seeing the rise and fall of Li’l Ze through the eyes of the harmless Rocket is equal parts compelling and horrifying. There’s often something genuinely interesting about watching a character’s ascent and descent, no matter whether they are eminently lovable or thoroughly repellent (If you read my summary above, you know which category Li’l Ze falls into).

Our narrator and moral center in the story, Rocket. The gentle young man's presence adds one of the many unique elements to this tale of gang violence.

However, it’s not just the rise-and-fall formula that makes this film great. There is such a novel blend of elements that it really defies any direct comparisons. Yes, it’s like Goodfellas, but it’s very different from it, as well. Yes, it’s like Once Upon a Time in America, but it’s very different from it, as well. You can go on and on like this, with every great gangster film and how City of God bears some similarities, but incomplete ones.

The most obvious unique element is the narration and perspective of Rocket. Usually, if a gangster tale has a narrator, it is someone who is “inside” the action – either a crook such as Henry Hill in Goodfellas or a police officer such as Donnie Broscoe in that eponymous film. Rocket, though, provides us with a rather average, admittedly unheroic onlooker who seems to report all, without every really judging. The fact that he’s eminently likable and gentle makes him the perfect teller of this otherwise brutally violent story.

The characters and acting are absolutely amazing. From the affable Rocket and Bennie, to the psychotic Li’l Dice/Ze, to the tormented Knockout Ned, every character commands your interest. They’re either funny, friendly, quirky, or just plain frightening. Even when the friendships or relationships might seem a bit strange, such as that between Li’l Ze and Bennie, the actors sell them so well that you completely buy into them. The range required by some of the parts was well-met by all of the Brazilian actors who played them, all of whom I know only from this film.

The young Li'l Dice (later 'Ze') and his right-hand man, Benny. Every actor, including the young kids, brings such life to his or her role that it's impossible not to feel the authenticity behind the story.

Another one of the rather special elements of the movie is the setting. Sure, there have been gangster movies set in run-down areas of the world, such as the projects of 1930s and 1940s New York City in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America. But those places were often thoroughly stark, grim, dominating places that overpowered all the denizens within. In City of God, the titular slum neighborhood has a very distinct look and feel, compared to other gangster films, especially in the beginning. Yes, the homes are project housing, and yes, they eventually become a dank maze of interconnected shantytowns. And yet, there are several scenes in which Rocket and some of his friends go a little ways outside of the slum and go to the beach. And the beach is beautiful enough to make you find religion. This grand contrast between the natural beauty so close at hand just makes the oppressive poverty and violence of the City that much more palpable.

If I had to gripe about the film, only two minor things come to mind. One is that the filming style employed is very often the hand-held “guerrilla” style of cinematography, mixed with some very fast editing cuts. The effect can be rather dizzying at times; something that I’m not a big fan of. However, this really didn’t detract from my enjoying the movie much at all.

The only other “gripe” is almost not a gripe at all so much as an unfortunate fact – I don’t speak Portuguese. As such, I’m sure that I often missed some of the humor conveyed through certain characters’ choices of words or tones. Usually, the greatest gangster films feature outstanding dialogue. The Godfather, Goodfellas, Miller’s Crossing, and even the classic White Heat all have some of the most memorable give-and-take exchanges in film history. When a film isn’t in a language I understand, I always feel like I miss out on a little something.

Subtitles are fine and good, and the tranlations for City of God seem to be excellent, conveying plenty of the humor and intensity. Still, there's never any beating being able to understand the original language.

Just one caveat to those thinking about seeing this movie for the first time – it is quite violent, though not in any gratuitous way. I feel about the violence in this movie the way that I do about any historically-based crime film – it’s actually necessary to show it so that we viewers can see the true, horrifying results of the real-life actions in the film. Still, if you don’t have the stomach for it, you may just want to pass on this one. If, however, such things don’t turn you off of these kinds of films, do yourself and favor and watch it soon.

Upon Further Review (Some additional thoughts after a bit of research)

Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be a wealth of information about the facts upon which City of God is based. There are a few interesting tidbits, though.

One is that the film is based on the 1997 novel of the same name. The author, Paulo Lins, used his own experiences in the real-life City of God favela and the real gangsters of the time and place to craft the tale. The book is a novel; as such, it takes creative license with some of the facts. Still, many of the people and events are real. This is evidenced by some of the actual news footage that is shown during the closing credits of the film.

Matheus Nacthergaele, portrayer of "Carrot," and the only actor in the film with any known experience. He's great, but the performances by all of the locals are amazing.

It’s interesting to note that aside from the actor who played Carrot, all of the players were complete amateurs. Many of them, in fact, were denizens of either the real City of God or one of the other favelas around Rio. Considering this, it’s amazing that the performances were so organic and natural.

A final disturbing point related to the inspiration for The Runts – the group of pre-pubescent kids who kill Li’l Ze and end the movie by talking through a list of other people who they want to kill. Apparently, this final scene was based on a real group putting together a very real hit list while on the set of the movie. For safety purposes, the film crews decided to dedicate some funds to moving the actors out of City of God. This was to prevent them from being victimized by The Runts, and to give them a better opportunity at life.

That’s a wrap. 101 shows down; 4 to go.

Coming Soon: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Little dudes mixing it up with big dudes, who mix it up with some even bigger dudes. All in a dream-world of magic!! And oh yeah – talking trees. That’s pretty cool.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

Film # 91: Unforgiven (1992)

Director: Clint Eastwood

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: around five or six

Rapid-Fire Summary

In the small town of Big Whiskey, Montana, in 1881, a cowhand becomes enraged at a prostitute named Delilah over a minor insult and slashes her face. Despite calls from Delilah’s fellow prostitutes that the cowhand and his companion be hanged, the sheriff, “Little Bill” (Gene Hackman) merely demands that the two boys pay the proprietor of the saloon/cathouse in the form of horses. The furious prostitutes then secretly pool their money and start spreading word of a bounty for anyone who kills the two cowboys.

To the south, in Kansas, a brash young man calling himself “The Schofield Kid” finds the middle-aged farmer William Munny and asks him to partner up to kill the cowboys for the bounty. The Kid has heard from that Munny was once a fearless and vicious killer who would make a perfect partner for such a dark deed. Munny, now a widower who has forsworn his previously murderous life and with two young children to support, at first refuses The Kid. With his farm failing, though, he changes his mind. He convinces one of his old partners, Ned (Morgan Freeman), to join him on this final killing in order to have a new start for his children.

Will Munny, a brutal killer in the past, now struggles on his farm with his two your children.

Back in Big Whiskey, Little Bill has now heard of the bounty put out and brutally beats and casts out the first bounty hunter who drifts into town to inquire after it – the noted gunman “English” Bob (Richard Harris). When the Kid, Will, and Ned come into town some days after, Will is himself beaten by Little Bill, while Ned and The Kid escape. The three rally themselves and set out after the first of the two cowboys, undeterred by Little Bill’s edict against assassins. When they find the cowboy, however, Ned is unable to bring himself to kill him. Will instead takes Ned’s rifle and shoots the cowboy dead. Ned, realizing that he no longer has what it takes to kill a man, parts ways with Will and The Kid, with Will promising to bring Ned his share of the bounty after the job is finished.

Will and The Kid then find the second cowboy, who actually cut up Delilah, holed up at the ranch he works on. The Kid kills the cowboy and the two make a narrow escape. When Will and The Kid return to just outside of Big Whiskey to collect the bounty, however, they discover that Ned has been captured, tortured, and killed. Suddenly overcome by a dark cloud of vengeance, Will plies himself with alcohol and rides into town alone. Calmly walking into the saloon where Ned’s corpse is prominently displayed outside, Will coldly kills six men, including the saloon owner, four deputies, and Little Bill himself. Though plenty of the townspeople are still alive to stop Will from leaving, they are all too terrified of the killer to even make the attempt.

Will, in Skinny's saloon as he slays all those he feels are responsible for Ned's death. During these moments, all traces of the quiet, tortured farmer have been burned away.

We are told in the end that Will returned to his farm and used his bounty money to move himself and his children away, possible to California where he “prospered in dry goods.”

My Take on the Film (Done after this most recent viewing):

Unforgiven is, in my mind, the greatest Western film. There are others that are more exciting and entertaining, but this one has by far the most depth and arguably the greatest acting.

Clint Eastwood’s masterpiece probably couldn’t have been made much earlier than it was. Being a deconstruction of the mythical West and Western stories, it required all of the popular lore that preceded it, both in literature and film. Eastwood set out tell a story that took a dark and realistic look into the souls of truly dangerous men in the old West, and he did it with expert precision.

At the heart of the film are all of the popular notions of the “Wild West” gunslinger. The mythology around that time and place has been the inspiration for countless tales of adventure for well over a century. The archetypal “deadly guman” has long been one of the most attractive characters in U.S. narrative. Unforgiven gives voice to this attraction through the character Beauchamp, a bumbling fiction writer who at first is following around English Bob as his biographer. His stories of Bob cast him as a noble warrior whose skills with a pistol make him a modern-day knight. Once Bob is thrashed and imprisoned by Little Bill, however, the myth starts to fall apart.

English Bob, left, and his biographer, Beauchamp. It is initially through these two characters that the myths of honorable gunfighters are taken apart.

It is during the scenes between Little Bill and Beauchamp, with English Bob watching from his cell, that we start to get at the reality of killers. With his first-hand knowledge of Bob, Little Bill tears apart Beauchamp’s notions of his idol. We soon see that Bob, though a truly dangerous gunman, is actually a vicious murderer unworthy of any admiration.

But the deconstruction of English Bob is only a prelude. It is with the tale of Will Munny that the truly disturbing truths about gunfighters emerge. With incredible pacing, Munny’s regression from penitent farmer back to unrepentant killer is as captivating as it is terrifying. For most of the film, Munny’s murderous past is merely hinted at, through stories told by other characters such as The Schofield Kid and even Will’s riding partner, Ned. As each bloody story is revealed, Munny tries to assure Ned and himself that he, “ain’t like that no more.” Watching him cling to the new self into which his dead wife molded him is like watching a time bomb trying to diffuse itself.

During his arrival at Bog Whiskey, Munny is still tortured and ill. It's almost as if his modern, peaceful self is slowly coming apart under the burden of trying to keep his homicidal nature at bay.

Any doubt about Munny is removed about halfway through the film, upon the death of the first cowboy. When Ned is unable to pull the trigger, Munny reverts to form. Without blinking, he takes the rifle from Ned’s uncertain hands, takes aim, and kills the young man. It is now clear that, while Ned truly has left his homicidal past behind him, Munny still possesses a true murderer's instinct. As if the contrast between Ned and Munny isn’t enough, is becomes all the more clear when Munny allow The Kid, eager for a kill, to execute the second cowboy later. After the deed is done, The Kid shakily admits that, contrary to his prior boasting, it was his first kill. The Kid is all too aware of the difference between himself and Munny, stating, “I ain’t like you Will.” Will’s response is right at the heart of the film – “It’s a hell of a thing, killin’ a man. You take away everything he’s got and everything he’s ever gonna have.” The Kid then swears off guns and killing for the rest of his life.

It is then, in the final ten minutes of the movie, that we see the true horror of William Munny. After he is told of Ned’s death, a terrifying transformation takes place. For most of the story, Will has been the picture of anguished restraint. He has refused to take a drop of alcohol and has only killed the two cowboys condemned by the bounty. However, when he learns that his friend has been tortured, killed, and put on display, his previous decade of temperance thoroughly vanishes. A cold fire alights in his eyes, his teeth clench, and he grabs a whiskey bottle and methodically starts to drink. By the time he enters the saloon at nightfall, he is Vengeance personified. In front of the group of puzzled and uncertain deputies and other town residents, he brutally shoots the saloon owner, Skinny. Even then, the deputies are clearly too frightened to try and bring down Munny. Even when they do gather their wits and try to square off against him, Munny is too calm under fire to be brought down. By doing little more than keeping his composure, he proceeds to shoot the five men remaining with weapons in their hands. The writer Beauchamp, who has been cowering in a corner and witnesses everything, then tries to question Munny on his “strategy.” Munny debunks any notion of skill or strategy by simple saying, “I was lucky…I’ve always been lucky when it comes to killin’ folks.” With this line, there is nothing left to be lauded in Munny’s actions, not even any kind of “skill.” Like English Bob, he is a mass murderer, though an uncommonly effective one.

Munny's execution of Little Bill. It may be one of the coldest, most haunting killings in all of film. 

Following the rapid departure of Beauchamp, Munny then steps up to Little Bill, who has been wounded but is not dead. Little Bill looks up at Will Munny, and instead of begging or pleading, simply says, “I don’t deserve to die like this.” Munny stares him in the face and delivers perhaps the most haunting line of the film when he proclaims, “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” At this moment, Munny is no longer even a spirit of vengeance. He is death itself. Unfeeling. Unthinking. Uncaring of right or wrong.

Those final lines, and others like them in the film, are what set Unforgiven apart. The only other Western I know of that even came close to taking such a hard look at the makeup of the Western gunfighter was The Searchers, with John Wayne. However, The Searchers still had a solid dose of romantic hokum blended into it, and it’s not nearly as even in execution as Unforgiven. Clint Eastwood directed this movie as well as anything he’s ever done, encompassing all of the things that make Western films great, while adding unprecedented philosophical depth.

The story and characters are undoubtedly what make the movie great, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least briefly mention its other merits. The cinematography is incredible, with all of the gorgeous wide-angle shots that you could hope for in a sweeping Western. Even more is the acting. Clint Eastwood does a fine enough job, and it helped that the character Will Munny didn’t call for any spectacular range of emotions (not Eastwood’s forte). The standout performances are Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman, the latter of whom justifiably raked in a ton of awards for his turn as Little Bill. But even the smaller roles are all played perfectly, from Richard Harris as English Bob right down to the lowly prostitutes and townspeople.

Little Bill, in front of the townspeople of Big Whiskey. Just as important to the tone of the movie, the smaller roles all convey very realistic reactions to violence and death - rage, frustration, and fear.

When I think about Unforgiven as a whole, one thing I often come back to is the notion of freedom. For fans of Western tales, it is often the sense of freedom that is most appealing. The wide-open spaces of the old West have always been thought of as places where a person is free from the restrictions and expectations of “civilized” society. We often assume that this is essentially a positive thing, as it allows a person to be whoever they want to be or discover who they really are. This is a beautiful idea, if you assume that the person you really are is one to be loved and admired. But what if who you really are is someone as terrifying as William Munny? What if, in spite of your every effort to escape it in the quiet, isolated, wind-swept plains of Kansas, you are something that frightens yourself to your very soul? I don’t know if this is one of the intended themes of the film, but it is one that stays with me.

Additional Note: I came across the news that there is currently under production a remake of Unforgiven, set in feudal Japan and starring Ken Watanabe as the "Will Munny" character. Normally, I would be disgusted at the thought of a remake of Unforgiven; however, I can see the potential for a samurai setting to be very successful. I hope they can pull it off.

That’s a wrap. 91 shows down, 14 to go.

Coming Soon: Leolo (1992)

Don’t know anything about this one, but I’m guessing it doesn’t involve Clint Eastwood, ruminations on murder, or and Englishman getting his ass whipped. You never know, though…

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

Film #73: The Godfather, Part II (1974)

*This is, of course, the second of the Godfather series, which are considered one “film” by the fellows who put together the TIME magazine list of “100 great movies”. Here’s my review of the first movie, done a few months ago.

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: three (last time about 6 years ago)

Teaser Summary (No Spoilers)

Long before dying in an orange orchard in the 1940s, Vito Corleone immigrated to the U.S. and became a respected and feared crime lord. Four decades later, his son Michael struggles to maintain and expand the family’s criminal empire.

Extended Summary (Slightly longer plot synopsis, including spoilers. Fair Warning.)

This is a relatively short (used loosely – the movie’s 3 and ½ hours long!) summary. For a much more thorough synopsis, check out this one at the Internet Movie Database website.

Roughly 45 years before the events chronicled in The Godfather, a nine-year old Vito Andolini lives in the town of Corleone, Sicily in 1901. He must flee the country to escape murder at the hands of the local mafia head, Don Ciccio, who has already killed his father, older brother, and mother. A few sympathetic clergy members stash him on a freight ship, and he arrives in America a few months later. At Ellis Island, his named is inadvertently altered to “Vito Corleone”, which is the name he will use for the rest of his life.

A nine-year old Vito arrives at Ellis Island, quietly dealing with all of the chaos and change.

Nearly 20 years pass, and Vito (Robert De Niro) is living in a poor Italian district in New York City. He has a decent job at a grocery store, a loving family, and a small, barely adequate apartment. One day, however, his job is taken from him at the behest of Don Fanucci, the obnoxious, vain, and greedy mafia underboss who has the neighborhood in his grip. The quiet, meditative, and thoughtful Vito gently gives up his job, assuring his employer that there are no hard feelings.

Through a series of events and in order to support his family, Vito takes to crime with his friends, Clemenza and Tessio. The three lead a successful, if relatively small, thievery ring. When Don Fanucci finds out, though, he demands a cut of their action. While Tessio and Clemenza would like to bow to Fanucci’s wishes, Vito convinces them to let him handle it. They agree, and Vito “handles it” by assassinating the despicable Fanucci.

The three friends then continue to slowly build their criminal empire, with Vito as their head. Vito, not only interested in criminal profits, also develops a reputation as a man who will help any friends in need. Thus, he becomes not only feared, but also a highly beloved and respected figure in Italian New York.

Vito Corleone, ascended to successful, deadly, and highly respected crime boss.

Around 25 years later, the events depicted in The Godfather take place, with the mantle of “Don Corleone” passing from Vito to his youngest son, Michael (Al Pacino). The Godfather ends with Michael having his 5 main rivals assassinated and beginning to move the Corleone family to Las Vegas.

Seven years after these events, in 1958, the Corleone family is in Lake Tahoe, celebrating Michael’s son’s first communion with a massive party. As with his sister, Connie’s, wedding to Carlo ten years prior, this grand celebration serves as a front for Michael to conduct family business with other powerful people, including corrupt Senators and mafia bosses who work for him. Michael’s grand scheme is to partner with Hymen Roth, a very wealthy, long-time associate and financial supporter of his father in various illegal activities. They plan to bribe the president of Cuba into letting them open and run their own businesses in the Caribbean country. A monkey wrench exists, however, in the form of Michael’s underling Frank Pantangeli wanting to eliminate a rival New York crime family who is backed by Roth.

That evening, after the party guests have all left, an attempt is made on Michael’s life. In his very bedroom, where his wife Kay (Diane Keaton) is sleeping, a pair of assassins opens fire and riddles the room with bullets. Both Michael and Kay escape, unharmed, but Michael now must guess who sent the would-be murderers.

Over the coming months, Michael travels from Lake Tahoe to Miami and Cuba, speaking with Roth, Pantangeli, and his older brother Fredo, in order to determine who tried to kill him and exactly how they were able to get so close to him and his wife. In the middle of it all, Michael must face Senate questions about his alleged crimes. Pantangeli and his bodyguard, Cicci, have become witnesses to the prosecution, after the former survived an attempt on his life, seemingly ordered by Michael.

Through his own cunning and willpower, Michael learns that it was, in fact, Hymen Roth who ordered both his and Pantangeli’s murders. Not only this, but Roth obtained access to the Tahoe compound from Michael’s own brother, the weak-willed and petty Fredo. Added to this, any designs of the Corleone family in Cuba are crushed when Fidel Castro’s revolutionaries take over the government and oust the president. A final, more devastating and personal blow is given Michael by Kay. Michael had believed that Kay’s recent pregnancy had ended in miscarriage, when in fact it was an abortion. Kay explains to her husband that she has become disgusted at their lives and refuses to bring any more of Michael’s children into the world.

Michael in his fortress-like compound in Reno, dealing with some enemies while creating many more.

Michael resolves each problem in his own ruthless way. Hymen Roth is assassinated in an airport. Frank Pantangeli is coaxed into recanting his testimony against the Corleones, in exchange for assurances that his family will be taken care of. Michael completely shuns Fredo, cutting him off from the family. After their mother passes away, Michael has Fredo killed for his past treachery. As for Kay, she too is cut off from her own two children. The divide is so severe that, upon finding Kay secretly visiting their children, Michael coldly slams a door in her face.

The tale ends with a final flashback to 1941. All of Michael’s immediate family members are alive and happy, and they prepare to eat a surprise birthday meal for their father, Vito. Michael then reveals that he has enlisted in the Marines, much to the disgust and anger of his eldest brother, Santino (James Caan). When Vito arrives, everyone leaves the table to greet Vito. All except for Michael, who merely sits and contemplates his decision.

In 1959 in Lake Tahoe, Michael Corleone, now seventeen years older, sits in a similar thoughtful pose – completely alone.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done before any further research on the film.)

Just as with my re-watching of Part I, this one was a treat, yet again. Part II is a seamless continuation of, and deeper exploration into, the epic and tragic tale of the Corleone crime family. This sequel/prequel combo may still be the only “great” movie that matches or surpasses its classic predecessor.

In watching these two films within about two months of each other, I realize that one is best served by watching them in rapid succession. The two really are one long movie, and should be watched as such. As excellent as Part I is on its own, my appreciation for it is so enhanced by watching Part II that I really can’t imagine watching one and not the other any more.

One of the early scenes of Vito Andolini, just before his mother is brutally gunned down. This camera shot is one of countless that could be stilled and hung on a wall.

On a few counts, it’s difficult to separate the merits of the two. Being created by exactly the same film-makers, based on the same source, using all of the same actors, and filmed a mere two years after Part I, Part II has exactly the same amazing aesthetic appeal. Whether it’s early 20^th century Sicily, 1920s New York, or 1950s Lake Tahoe, Miami, or Cuba, many of the shots are studies in framing and composition. The panoramic shots give you so much to drink in that you can almost forget about the stories and plots unfolding.

Almost.

I assume that Mario Puzo’s book tells the Corleone story in standard chronological order. By choosing to reshuffle the tale and go simultaneously backwards and forwards in time, Coppola did something that I can’t recall seeing in any earlier film. Or at least, not done so effectively. Watching the quiet boy Vito Andolini steadfastly overcome his hardships through his own conviction and willpower is the more enjoyable and entertaining part of the three-and-a-half behemoth that is The Godfather Part II.

Though it is the more pleasing of the two tales, Vito's story serves the greater purpose of casting Michael’s story into very dark relief. By the end, Michael is having to deal with all of the fallout of his own lack of the very thing that made his father a better man – genuine compassion. Michael gets respect from other powerful people because he has always had money and because he is clearly intelligent and capable. His father, however, did not initially have the luxury of financial might to impose his will; what Vito had was real concern for his family and his countrymen, and he had a sense of justice that weak and strong alike would support. As was developing in the latter half of Part I, the intellectual Michael understands these characteristics of his father, but he does not and cannot genuinely feel them.

The tone of the movie is also very much in keeping with Part I. There are intense moments of emotion, fear, and anger, but also moments of levity provided by taking a look at the “gangster lifestyle”, especially the far less polished under-bosses and henchmen. The drunken and obnoxious Frank Pantangeli and his body guard, Cicci, provide as many chuckles as Sonny or Clemenza do in Part I. The reverse is true of the flashback scenes with Vito – his tale contains more humor (we know he’s going to succeed, having seen Part I), but there are certainly moments of tension and bloodshed. Everything is balanced exceptionally well.

Speaking of the violence. It’s interesting to realize that, while there is certainly graphic violence in Parts I and II, alike, I never feel that it is gratuitous in any way. There is never any slow-motion photography, no stylization of it, or any music to try and intensify anything. A murder, even a fictitious one on screen, is intense enough. When I see a murder occur in these movies, my clenched teeth and cold guts tell me that these are the horrors that are part of this type of criminal life. The fact that the victims are often slain by those they know and trust is an even greater horror, and one that should leave a viewer no doubt as to whether the lifestyle is truly glamorous or noble.

One of the more iconic shots - Vito murdering the corpulent Don Fanucci. The unstylized presentation of this  killing gives a cold sense of just how matter-of-fact Vito can be about assassination, when it comes to providing for his family.

The acting is, as you would expect, perfection. All of the returning cast members continue to nail their roles, and I even see a little more depth added to the relationship between Michael and Kay. The newcomers to the Godfather story only enhance it. De Niro is incredible, as expected, but even the smaller roles of Frank Pantangeli and Hymen Roth are played expertly by Michael Gazzo and Lee Strasburg, respectively. As with Part I, even the tiniest of roles seemed to be cast with someone who could add some kind of memorable accent to the picture.

Probably the thing that I gained a better appreciation for upon this viewing came from the end of the movie. I don’t know that I ever fully grasped the comparison that the two movies were making between Vito and Michael, and just how aware Michael is that he does not have his father’s most valuable gifts of character. Nowhere in the movies is this clearer than at the very end, when we shift from Michael in 1941, sitting alone at the family dinner table, to Michael in 1958, having just had his brother killed for treachery. The divide between father and son is now all too clear, and Michael is left alone.

Take 2: Why Film Geeks Love This Movie (Done after a little research.)

As with Part I, the commentary on The Godfather Part II is almost limitless. The handful that I read was mostly unsurprising. The Godfather Part II was a very solid commercial and critical success, raking in 11 Oscar nominations and 6 wins. The reasons for this are the same reasons for Part I’s acclaim.

A few curious notes popped up in what I read, though. The primary one was that a handful of respected film critics, including Roger Ebert, weren’t completely enthralled with this sequel. In Ebert’s original 1974 review here, it’s clear that he recognizes several clear strengths, but he felt that the telling of the dual tales of Vito and Michael was a bit of patchwork job that weakened the picture. He wasn’t completely alone in his assessment. I myself did feel that the shifts, while not very distracting to me, were a tad abrupt at times. Still, I don’t know that there was a better way to tell the story and still provide the interesting parallels and divergences between Michael and his father.

Apparently, the slightly stilted nature of the narrative was not a figment of a few critics’ imaginations. The studio and advance critics’ protestations were enough that Coppola actually was in the process of reediting and restructuring the film so that the two different stories were more self-contained and impacting. However, he couldn’t get it done by the release date, so we were left with the greater number of flashbacks and forwards.

The other major area of interest is just how much reality provided the source material for The Godfather Part II. Even more than Part I, the sequel drew from very real mafia doings in Las Vegas and Cuba. The Senate hearings were based on actual hearings in the 1950s in pursuit of gangster Frank Costello (not to be confused with the character of the same name in Martin Scorsese’s The Departed). Hymen Roth was based on an actual major financier for the mob named Meyer Lansky. It’s a bit frightening to think that so many of these insidious machinations are not just the stuff of make believe. Just who do you think might own that nice hotel you’re staying in? It might not be some kindly hotelier, eh?

Hymen Roth and Michael in Cuba (actually filmed in the Dominican Republic), trying to outmaneuver each other and drop their dirty stakes into the country at the same time.

The final thing that dawned on me in these reading is something that I didn’t find mentioned, specifically. I was left to think about a rather understated comparison that one can make – it involves Don Ciccio, the Sicilian mafia Don in Corleone who brutally murders young Vito’s entire family. When the grown Vito comes to him and exacts his revenge, Don Ciccio is portly, hard of hearing, and, most importantly, he is completely alone except for his paid body guards. It’s hard not to see Michael Corleone as the very same man at the end of the movie. He has killed anyone who is his enemy, leaving him with no one left, for enemies are all that he has created for himself. The true tragedy is that this is exactly what his own father, who wanted Michael to be a great man, despised and sought to overcome.

*A final thought about The Godfather Part III (1990): In brief – if you’re thinking about watching it, don’t get your hopes up. Amazingly, it’s horribly inferior to Parts I and II. The visuals are great, and the plot is halfway decent, but there are some really bizarre shifts of character and laughably atrocious acting by a few “thespians”. The greatest offense was the notoriously bad performance by Sophia Coppola. Watching this third installment might give a bit closure, but realize that there are very good reasons that this one is never included in discussion of the “great series” that the first two films make up.

That’s a wrap. 73 shows down. 32 to go.

Coming Soon: Barry Lyndon (1975)

I don’t meet too many people who know of this movie, but I love it. It can be filed under “lesser-known Kubrick”. If I’m lucky, I’ll get a nice overcast day to kick back and drink in this meditative, visually lush epic.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

Film #65: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Director: Arthur Penn

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: once (about 10 years ago)

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

Restless Texas redneck lovers go on a bank-robbing spree during the Great Depression. “Laws”, emotional highs and lows dog their heels.

Extended Summary (More complete plot synopsis, including spoilers. Fair warning.)

Rural Texas, 1931. The 21-year old Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) is agitated by her dead-end life as a waitress living with her mother in a small town. She spies a handsome, dapper young man outside of her house, casing her mother's car, seemingly to rob it. After running out to stop him, the two strike up a conversation during which the man, Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty), readily admits that he has recently been released from prison for an attempted robbery. Bonnie is skeptical to the point of egging Clyde into robbing a nearby grocery store. When Clyde does just that, Bonnie, rather than flee the armed robber, readily hops into a stolen car with him and drives out of town.

When the pair stop just outside of town, Bonnie is so overcome with excitement that she throws herself at Clyde. Surprisingly, Clyde roughly rebuffs her, claiming that he “ain't no loverboy”. Despite this odd reaction to the beautiful and willing Bonnie's advances, the two see that they have a unique connection with each other. Both are seeking to make names for themselves by breaking away from societies' rules. Clyde plans to rob his way to fortune and fame, and Bonnie is all too happy to join him.

The pair of fugitives size up the next member of their little gang.

The two make a failed attempt to rob a bank that has recently gone out of business, but they soon start to find more success. After picking up a strange and disenfranchised young gas station attendant, C.W. Moss, as their getaway driver, they manage a successful bank robbery. However, Clyde shoots and kills a man during their semi-bungled escape.

Once in a safe hotel room, Clyde offers Bonnie a chance for escape. Realizing that he will now be wanted for murder, he urges Bonnie to return home and avoid any potential capital punishment. Bonnie refuses to leave Clyde, thus reaffirming their bond to one another. The two attempt to consummate their love, but Clyde's impotence prevents it yet again.

The trio of fugitives soon meets up with Clyde's older brother, Buck (Gene Hackman), a fellow ex-con, and Buck's wife, the reserved and rather dim-witted Blanche. The fun-loving and simpler Buck readily joins his younger brother's crime spree, Blanche in tow. Clyde welcomes the company of his brother, but Bonnie soon becomes highly agitated at Buck and Blanche's utter lack of sophistication. While Bonnie has some spark of creativity, even writing poetry, Buck, Blanche and C.W. seem to find the game of checkers the height of mental gymnastics. The tensions begin early and grow steadily.

The gang of 5 continue robbing banks throughout Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and other nearby states, hopping borders in order to avoid capture. They avoid some early attempts at capture as they perfect their thievery. They efficiently loot multiple banks, but never take any money from the more humble farmers and locals. Their legend and fame grows rapidly, as newspapers regularly report the deeds, as well as falsely attributing several robberies to the gang.

The gang grows more confident and skilled in their robberies.

Eventually, the law begins to close in. After C.W. Allows himself to be seen in a little town, the police raid the gang's hotel room. After a furious and bloody shootout, the gang escapes, but not without serious injuries. Buck sustains a horrible head wound, Blanche suffers eye damage, and Clyde is shot in the arm. After camping outside to recover slightly, the gang is once again tracked down and attacked. Bonnie, Clyde, and C.W. Manage to get away, though Bonnie is also wounded in the arm. Buck and Blanche are not so lucky. Buck is shot again and soon dies. Blanche, now completely blind, is taken away by the police.

The injured Bonnie and Clyde are driven to safety by C.W., receiving a little support along the way from impoverished Dust Bowlers who are awestruck by the celebrity thieves. C.W. takes the pair to his father's tiny farm, and the man seems to welcome them. This ostensible kindness is merely a front, though. As Bonnie and Clyde recuperate, C.W.'s father privately berates his son for a fool and eventually informs the Texas Rangers about the two fugitives.

In a simple set-up while Bonnie and Clyde return from buying groceries in town, C.W.'s father pretends at having car trouble. The pair pull over to assist, but do not sense the trap. Before either Bonnie or Clyde can react, let alone surrender, a score of Rangers and lawmen open fire upon them from behind the nearby bushes, riddling the couple and their car with dozens of bullets. The mutilated corpses of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow fall limp onto the ground, ending their renowned spree.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done after this most recent viewing, before any research on the movie.)

Really good movie that holds up exceptionally well.

Bonnie and Clyde may not seem so special to modern, first-time viewer, but with a little awareness of the context, it's not hard to see why it is considered so very influential. Based on my film-watching experience, it created a unique blend of tried-and-true standard film-making conventions with a dash of the novel, leading to entire shifts in the way that crime stories have been told in film.

The story itself is intriguing enough, being based in reality. I personally don't know much about the real Bonnie and Clyde, but I'm eager to do the research for the Part 2. I have to assume that the screenwriters took certain liberties with the dialogue, and even some of the action. What little I do know, however, tells me that the singular personalities and passion of the titular pair of thieves is not a mere fantasy. The bizarre quirks of the two – Bonnie's predilections towards intellectualism and Clyde's sexual impotence, to name the most obvious – give the story a very compelling eccentricity that is lacking in most crime films.

Of course, such unique characters can only be given life by solid acting, and Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty do phenomenally well. While Beatty's Texas accent is a bit inconsistent at times (maybe I can say that only because it's my home state), this is a minor gripe. In all other things, the two actors nail the charm, passion, foolishness, pretentiousness, and rebelliousness that make for intriguing and rounded characters. Being able to pull off such a range of traits can't be easy, but Dunaway and Beatty do just that.

The supporting cast is also quite solid. A young Gene Hackman stands out wonderfully as the loud-mouthed yokel, Buck, and his wife is played to pitch-perfect annoyance by Estelle Parsons. It doesn't take long to see why the more reflective Bonnie takes an instant dislike to the shrieking, mulish Blanche. Even the minor roles by Michael J. Pollard and Gene Wilder (!) make great accents to the film.

The performances and story are certainly strong, but no stronger than quite a few other good crime movies. What sets this one above the rest, I feel, is the direction. Bonnie and Clyde is one of those rare films that wastes nary a second. Every scene, every word, every glance between characters means something and adds to the tale. From the opening shots of a bored Bonnie Parker, pining away in her room, to the final shots of hers and Clyde's lifeless bodies on the ground, this movie is about as tight as they come. There are certainly quiet moments, as well, but even they invite the viewer to pay close attention, as body language and eye movements are telling stories that words aren't. One needs only see a few of Bonnie's eye rolls to see my point.

The quarters get tighter, and Bonnie's patience with her goober gang-mates runs thinner.

Even beyond all of this is the overall story arc and the tone. Bonnie and Clyde might have been the first movie to tell the tale of two criminals in a way that endears them to the audience, and then shoves their bloodied corpses right in your face. The first half of the movie is far heavier on comedy, a lot of which holds up really well, 45 years later. It feels like you're on a fun little escapade with a few young renegades. However, there are allusions of what is to come. After one bank robbery, a farmer whose money Clyde purposefully did not steal, says to a reporter, “That Clyde Barrow done alright by me. I'll be bringin' the Missus to their funeral.” This and other signs remind the viewer of just how this will all end.

Once the “laws”, as Clyde and Buck call them, begin to close in, the humor begins to fade and deadly seriousness takes over. There's a sequence in the film when, at Bonnie's behest, they go out to see her mother and family in a remote rock quarry. The scenes are shot in a washed-out, sepia tone that lends a hazy heaviness to this part of the story. This is totally appropriate, as Bonnie mother senses her daughter's imminent demise and detaches herself with a final, matter-of-fact goodbye.

When the end finally comes, director Arthur Penn puts his ultimate stamp on violent film-making. With a death scene that would be emulated within a scant few years in films such as The Godfather and others, Bonnie and Clyde are mowed down in quick, brutal fashion. In such scenes in earlier films, I can't recall them ever being so shockingly realistic. The likable duo are machine-gunned to death with a scant few seconds. There is no slow-motion or music score to add any semblance of romance or glory to it. There are no death throes or final words from either of the two lovers. One moment they are smiling and alive; the next they are simply no more.

This single frame gives a good sense of just how brutal the finale is. It's lightning-quick and ultimate.

It is the elements in this final scene that set a standard for film violence that many directors misunderstand and misuse today. Someone like Michael Bay seems to think that the violence itself is the artistry and the draw of such things. However, he glamorizes and ultimately anesthetizes people to it through cinematic slight-of-hand. David Cronenberg, on the other hand, follows the Arthur Penn model, in his way. If you watch the death scenes in his recent films A History of Violence or Eastern Promises, you see that these scenes, while few in number, are brutally graphic and shockingly quick. I heard him explain in an interview that this is because he wants the audience to know that violence is not to be polished up for easier consumption, even in a tale of fiction. I think Arthur Penn had this figured out long before his imitators.

Bonnie and Clyde is a revolutionary film, though probably not so obviously a one as other films. It wasn't until I watched it, slept on it, and thought about it for a day that I realize this. I would recommend it virtually anyone who is not completely turned off by rather graphic violence, as the latter half of the film features plenty of it. This aside, it has something for nearly any attentive film-watcher.

Take 2; Or, Why Film Geeks Love This Movie (Done after further research on the film.)

There's almost no end of material that one can lose oneself into when it comes to the Bonnie and Clyde film. Let's start with the real history:

Volumes have been written, so in the interest of time, I went to that oh-so-reliable reference source, wikipedia (hey, I'm running a blog for fun here, not writing a dissertation!). It becomes quite clear that Arthur Penn's movie, as is usually the case with movies, plays extremely fast and loose with the facts. Sure, some of the locales and people's names are correct, and even a few of the general actions are true to fact. Still, a large portion of the true story was molded, shaved, and fashioned into something very different. And this, of course, was the only way that it would work.

The reality of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow is, of course, far less sexy and far more tragic than a Hollywood movie can convey. While true that the two were renegades and had no small affection for each other, the film conveniently leaves out just how many civilians they murdered. Or about Barrow's very troubled younger days, being raped in prison at age 16, essentially channeling his rage to become the personification of the philosophy “Get rich or die trying.” If you read a brief description of Bonnie and Clyde's exploits throughout the Dust Bowl, you become less sympathetic than you probably would be for Beatty's and Dunaway's more affable duo.

The real deal Bonnie and Clyde, goofing around with a shotgun. Unlike the film, in which the duo are unarmed when killed, the originals were loaded for bear and had already taken the lives of multiple civilians and lawmen, alike.

Of course, Arthur Penn's film makes no claims at being a documentary, and so we can view it in a very different way.

Apparently, the going was very rough for the production of the film. A few very talented people were interested, but Warren Beatty landed the production rights. After the film was made, the studio and test audiences apparently hated it, so much so that the studio was planning to only release it in Texas drive-ins. The story goes that Beatty literally begged the studio, on hands and knees, to give it a real chance. They did, to initially lukewarm and even poor reviews. When it was released, the original TIME reviewer called it “sheer, tasteless aimlessness”.

After several months hovering in obscurity, people eventually came around. Once again, Roger Ebert, having only been at the professional film critic gig for less than 6 months, was ahead of the curve. In this more modern 1998 review, he outlines the story of the film with far more detail. He also points out some of the more interesting tones and themes in it, some of which I mentioned in my own “Take 1” above.

In short, the novelty of the movie has resonated right through the succeeding decades, into out very own. For those of us who have grown up with Thelma & Louis or Natural Born Killers as part of the mainstream movie landscape, Bonnie and Clyde may seem rather tame. One only has to realize, however, that this movie was the granddaddy of them. As with Citizen Kane, in inspiring so many imitators in terms of techniques and styles, it's almost hard to see Bonnie and Clyde for just how embedded its innovations are in so many movies that have followed.

I suppose what brought some of it home to me was reading about how many of the early 1967 audiences were shocked, bordering on disgusted. Bonnie and Clyde was seen by many as more violent and sexual than any movie had a right to be.

And you know what? The kids loved it.

Even now, in 2011, some of the scenes have a somewhat uncomfortable promiscuity to them, but maybe that's just that 1960's, grainy look that the film has. Whatever the characters are doing, it always seems to be more illicit when it was filmed in the 1960s and 1970s. Whatever the case, younger viewers were right on board with the maverick tones of sex and violence flying right in the face of the moral majority.

All of this just scratches the surface of the myth-versus-reality angle, the story of the film angle, and any of a number of others. All I really need to do is reiterate that, if you haven't seen this movie, you really should give it a shot. If you do, and you really watch what's being said and done, it's easy to see it for the a truly revolutionary work.

That's a wrap! 65 shows down. 40 to go.

Coming Soon: Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

As much as I love Sergio Leone and his movies, I was surprised that they put a second Western of his on the list, already giving The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly a slot. Whatever the reason, I certainly don't mind setting aside about three hours to watch more long shots, extended close-ups, and bizzaro sound effects, as scuzzy buckaroos try to out-shoot and out-stare each other.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.