"Appaloosa" - A Buddy Cop Western

As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

Technically this is the second western I’ve written about this month, but Tombstone was just a late post. So Appaloosa is the official western post for July. It’s been a while since I watched this movie. In fact, I’m pretty sure this is one of those DVDs that I watched when I first bought it and have not seen since. My memories of this film were that it was a traditional western, which I like, but it also had some non-traditional elements to it, as well. This is the best of both worlds for me. I tend to like the weirder westerns more, but I still enjoy a straightforward film. Appaloosa is both, although the non-traditional elements are what make it stand out.

Traditional western, buddy comedy, or love triangle (or square or pentagon)?

When looking at Appaloosa broadly it is very much a classic western. Two lawmen for hire (Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen) are tasked by the town leaders of Appaloosa to deal with a renegade rancher (Jeremy Irons) who murdered the previous peacekeepers of the town. The arrival of a woman (Renee Zellweger) complicates things for all involved. And it’s all presented in a traditional way, with a focus on realism. The locations, costumes, music, etc. all feel very common for the genre. That’s not to say they are generic. It’s all very well done; it’s just what you’d expect. The gun fights are a bit different as they’re presented in a more realistic manner than most typical westerns. 

The characters make Appaloosa a bit different from most westerns. While Ed Harris’s character is considered an honest, straightforward man, he is still quite complex. He just talks about it. Harris and Mortensen talk about how they’re going to handle typical western problems, but they also talk about their feelings. For whatever reason, I love this kind of stuff in a western (hence my love for The Sisters Brothers). I like the gunplay in this movie, but my favorite scenes are of Harris and Mortensen discussing relationships. At one point Mortensen has to tell Harris that Zellweger did kiss him, but he didn’t kiss her back. That’s funny to me not only for the absurdity of such a discussion as they prepare for a shootout, but also because of the matter-of-fact banter the two have. 

The pairing of Harris and Mortensen is the highlight of the film. Many of their scenes are intentionally funny. The film is truly a buddy cop comedy set in the Old West. It’s made that much funnier because of how nonchalant they are about killing people. It’s just part of the job for them, so it’s not something they really think about. Harris is more concerned with what Mortensen told Zellweger about him...or about which curtain fabrics he should choose for his new house...or how to properly use the word “sequester” (which he uses a second time later in the movie for a funny, subtle callback). 

The cause of most their funny conversations is Zellweger, who gives a funny performance, as well. At first, her appearance seems fairly normal in the film. She is a love interest for Harris who is kidnapped later on. It’s typical damsel in distress stuff until Harris and Mortensen see her running around naked with her supposed captor. It turns out Zellweger is a survivor, and she will latch on to the strongest person she can find for her own safety. She gets with Harris immediately when she sees that he’s the leader of the duo, but then makes a movie on Mortensen when she feels Harris is too distracted, then hooks up with her captor since he now has the power, then appears to be getting close to Irons once he’s pardoned and taking over the town. Hence, the “love pentagon” mentioned in the topic title. (Also, Love Pentagon would be a good band or porno name.) To dismiss her as a “whore” would be lazy. It actually makes her a very interesting female character in a western, which is certainly a rarity. She’s using what men want from her to ensure her safety. Now, one could argue about how promptly she moves on to her captor, but desperate times call for desperate measures. 

Her actions lead to some of the funniest moments of the film, as she explains herself to Harris. Zellweger’s tone is perfect in these moments. She infuses every line with a sense of “what did you expect me to do?” that cracks me up. And the anger in her face when she turns on Mortensen in desperation is hilarious, especially when Mortensen calmly denies her claims and Harris believes him over her. 

I’m aware that writing about these conversations and character moments don’t do the film justice, but that’s what makes Appaloosa special. It’s different, but in small ways. Perhaps it’s just my odd taste, but those little quirks are why I own this movie yet I don’t have a single John Wayne movie in my collection. 

Why do I own this?

All of the above, but I had really forgotten how interesting this movie is, so I’m glad it’s in my collection. And I’ll definitely watch it again when I go through another western kick.

Random thoughts

According to IMDb trivia, this was meant to be the first film in a series that followed Mortensen and Harris. I love the idea, but how would that work? The ending seemed pretty definitive. Although it would be funny if there was a sequel in which Harris tracked down Mortensen because Zellweger left him for whoever took Irons’s place. 

This was clearly a passion project of Ed Harris’s since this is only his second directorial effort (after Pollock) and his only writing credit. Westerns tend to bring that out in actors. John C Reilly purchased the rights to The Sisters Brothers in the hopes of one day making it, and Kurt Russell essentially took over production to make sure Tombstone got made. I think these actors grew up with westerns and always dreamed of making a great one and realized they had to make it happen on their own since Hollywood has largely abandoned the genre.

Jeremy Irons is great, but I always have a hard time watching him with an American accent. It's not bad; it's just that his voice doesn't lend itself to an American accent. Does that make sense? Maybe it's just me.

I'm not crazy about that opening narration… I'm not against narration in general, it's just that most of the shit Viggo says could be revealed naturally through dialogue and actions throughout the film. He certainly doesn't need to keep mentioning his 8 gauge. We become well aware of that gun throughout the movie.

"Put your little contraptions away." That has to be the first time a penis had been called a contraption.

The suddenness of the violence early on is great. Definitely makes you realize anything and happen in a moment's notice in the film.

Timothy Spall is the go-to "flustered man in a 1800s setting" with this and The Last Samurai.

Ed Harris's first interaction with Zellweger is so damn strange. I don't like seeing Ed Harris smitten…

"Killing's sometimes a sorta side-thing that happens."

Do NOT ask Ed Harris about his sex life or he will nearly beat to death the nearest bystander.

I definitely don't like seeing "giddy after a night of banging" Ed Harris.

I love the look on Viggo's face when he hands the spyglass to Harris to see Zellweger gallivanting around naked with her supposed kidnapper.

"Chews her food good...but apparently she'll fuck anything that ain't gelded."

You have to appreciate a movie that involves Chester A. Arthur in a plot point.

I like the ending and the sacrifice Viggo makes, but that ending narration almost ruins it. It just spells out things you already know. It would have been much more powerful if it simply ended in silence. I get the desire to end on a poetic note, but there is such a thing as visual poetry too.

I was not expecting (and had completely forgotten) the Tom Petty song over the end credits. It's not bad or anything, but, like a lot of little things with this movie, it was unexpected.

..

"Gravity" Might Make You Puke...in a Good Way.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, written by Cuarón and Jonás Cuarón, starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and Ed Harris - Rated PG-13

 

This might not look like much of anything, but this is a Darth Vader.  That's him hurtling through space after the Death Star blew up.  Thought it was fitting...



Writer-director Alfonso Cuarón caught my attention with Children of Men, my favorite film of 2006. That criminally under-watched film was science fiction at its best: realistic, suspenseful, and meaningful. Also, I was beyond impressed with Cuarón’s complicated long takes. These takes, which go on for minutes with intricate stunt work happening throughout, are not just gimmicks; they immerse you in the film. You almost have to hold your breath as you watch a film like that, which makes Cuarón the perfect director for a film like Gravity.

Gravity, one of the most effective films I’ve seen in recent memory, is a great vehicle for Cuarón because it’s basically a survival story set in outer space. And the best way to present a survival story is to make the audience feel like they are part of it.

Without giving away too many details (not that the previews haven’t set the film up anyway), Gravity is about newbie astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and her disastrous first mission working on the Hubble Telescope. The film is a series of (nearly literally) breathtaking and often beautiful events as Ryan tries to survive.

The experience of the film overshadows any story, but that doesn’t mean it’s an ineffective or trivial plot.  The film is about more than just survival.  As with most serious sci-fi films, there are undertones and themes at work.  The most dominant theme of Gravity involves rebirth after a tragedy.  There is also religious imagery scattered throughout, so the film leaves you with something to think about after you watch it, which is much more important than simply looking and sounding pretty.

Themes about survival, religion, and moving on are great, but it is important to actually care about the characters, too.  Gravity, through minimal background information and great performances, makes you care about the two main characters even though we only know them as they go through an extreme situation.  Even though most of the film is about getting problem after problem solved, I still found myself connected with Sandra Bullock’s character.  She is identifiable to the audience because she is new to space.  She is not all that calm and collected at the beginning, much like most of us would be if on our first trip.  More than that, Bullock is a likable presence.  She’s never annoying, and her reactions to the disaster around her felt real.  This is not the loud performance that won her an Oscar for The Blind Side.  It is simply her best performance.

George Clooney is the only other character that we get to see (or hear) for more than a few seconds.  While he’s not breaking new ground, there’s no one better to play the cool, collected astronaut who treats the dire circumstances with a matter-of-fact certainty.  He’s basically just being George Clooney in space, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It was also great to hear Ed Harris as the voice of NASA command.  It brought back memories of Apollo 13, and Ed Harris just sounds like someone who should be working the radio at NASA.

Now on to what is getting Gravity all of its praise: the experience.  First off, this is one amazing film, visually speaking.  Cuarón has said that roughly ninety percent of the film is computer-generated, which is remarkable.  I’m not saying you’ll ever think this was actually shot in outer space; you might forget that every now and then, though.  At no point did I feel like I was watching some overly animated action film.  When things explode or break apart, it is incredibly detailed.  The fact that hardly anything goes “BOOM” adds to the beauty of it.  Since the film takes place in outer space, which has no oxygen through which sound can travel, the film has to rely on great visuals, slight vibration noise, and a musical score.  It all comes together to create perfectly tense moments.

Gravity is more about making you feel like you’re there than it is about making you say, “Wow.”  I watched it in IMAX 3D, and I feel confident saying that is the optimal way to see this.  The 3D actually matters in this film, as a sense of distance and depth is integral to the struggle.  (And just when I had given up on 3D…curse you, Cuarón!)  But the large screen, dizzying camera movements, lack of gravity, and the 3D can be a recipe for an upset stomach.  I heard someone a few rows away fight off vomiting for a few minutes, and I felt my stomach do a flip or two during some scenes.  Normally, that would be a red flag (and I’m sure it still is for many people), but that reaction is not accidental.  When that person near me started to retch, it was during a moment in which Sandra Bullock’s character was fighting the same urge.  If that’s not placing you in the film, I don’t know what is.  There are certainly more pleasant ways to involve the audience, but it’s still effective.  (For the record, the person was fine, and it sounded like dry heaves more than anything.)  None of this is to say that the film cannot be enjoyed in regular theaters.  Any sci-fi fan should check this out however they can.  It’s just that the IMAX experience is pretty extreme.  A truly tense film will be tense no matter the screen size or 3D.

Any film that attempts to put you through a harrowing experience and accomplishes that gets my highest marks.  I always feel stupid when I praise a film this highly, though.  The cruel internet film culture demands that anything that is critically or publicly acclaimed (or both, as is the case with Gravity) must be nitpicked to the point that a person must be ignorant to flat out love a movie.  I still have a love of film, despite the toxic online environment surrounding the culture.  A lot of the vitriol is from fans of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Apparently, you can’t love a film set in space unless you also make it clear that it sucks compared to 2001.  I like Kubrick’s film, and I still find it to be a beautiful and impressive experience.  Is Gravity better?  I don’t know.  It’s different, that’s for sure.  They are not attempting to do the same thing, so I find the comparison moot.  As for the technical side of the films, both are impressive, and I imagine both will influence film for years to come.  2001 influenced so many filmmakers that I find it hard to imagine Gravity will have the same effect, but who cares?  I just need to stay away from the IMDb boards…

Regardless of all that, the impressive work of Cuarón is hard to deny.  It’s unfortunate that he chose a project so time consuming, but it was worth the wait.  I just hope he makes something a little simpler next time so I’ll have a new film to watch in less than five years.  All of his work has paid off, though.  If it wasn’t clear by now, Cuarón has definitely solidified his role as a premiere director, and he should be mentioned quite often during the upcoming awards season.

Cuarón deserves so much praise because he has made a film that is harrowing, breathtaking (breath-holding, I should say), sickening, and entertaining.  Gravity will put you through an experience, and you’ll be glad you went through it.

Michael Bay's Surprising and Darkly Funny Return to the 90s

Directed by Michael Bay, written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, starring Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Mackie, Dwayne Johnson, Ed Harris, and Tony Shalhoub - Rated R

 

 

This is a comedy the Kurgan would like, which says all kinds of messed up things about me...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s been a long time since director Michael Bay made a film that didn’t involve giant fighting robots, and it’s about time. Nothing against the Transformers movies, but I’ve always felt that Bay could’ve stopped after the first film and just produced the next few. Instead Bay stayed on for the whole trilogy, and he’s even starting up a new Transformers movie for his next directing job. So Pain & Gain, unfortunately, is only a pit stop for Bay between robot movies.

 

I say “unfortunately” because Pain & Gain is an entertaining and interesting film from a director who had become quite predictable over the years, and it would be nice if this became the norm for Bay. The film, based on one of those true stories that prove reality is indeed stranger than fiction, is dark comedy at its best: disturbing.

 

Reviewing a comedy is tricky, and I’ve actually come to the point that I will not even review most comedies because it’s all about the viewer’s sense of humor. But Pain & Gain is more than just a comedy. The true story angle sets it apart.

 

Pain & Gain is based on the series of articles of the same name written by Miami Times reporter Pete Collins. Of course, true stories get changed as characters are merged, dates change, and events are altered. But screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely stay surprisingly faithful to the basic outline of the events. If you’re a stickler for the details, just read the articles online; it’s a fascinating read and, at times, even crazier than the movie’s version of events.

 

The too crazy to believe true story is a very dark, twisted series of events. (Stop reading now if you don’t want the story slightly spoiled.) In the mid-90s a personal trainer/scam artist named Daniel Lugo, along with assorted friends and acquaintances, kidnapped a local Miami businessman and forced him to sign over all of his wealth. Emboldened by this first “success” the group tries again with disastrous results. That doesn’t sound all that crazy until you come across the finer points in the story. Some of the actions of the people involved defy belief. Police officers ignore blatant evidence of the kidnapping, a man survives being blown up and ran over, body parts are barbecued out in the open, etc. And that’s all stuff that actually happened. Toss in some movie-only craziness involving a sex toy warehouse, cocaine, and a severed toe and you’re in for some wacky moments.

 

That could be a problem for some viewers. Not only is this a grisly story, but it’s also told for laughs. Actual people died. When you keep that in mind, it’s hard to laugh. Maybe I’m a terrible person, but I found Pain & Gain quite funny, even more so as things got dark and twisted in the end. As a dark comedy, this film is a success…for people with my sense of humor, anyway. That said, dark comedies are extremely hit and miss depending on the viewer, so I can understand why some people might hate it.

 

It might also rub people the wrong way because Daniel Lugo, played by Mark Wahlberg, is treated almost like the hero of the film. He’s a guy who just wants the American dream, which, to him, means being buff and rich. He has the buff part down, but the rich part is something he has to take. I did have issues with this guy being treated as the protagonist at first. Then I remembered Scarface and many other gangster films in which the audience is kind of expected to root for the “bad guy.” It’s just that this bad guy is based on a real terrible person. The American dream aspect of the movie makes up for that, however. Scarface spawned an entire subculture that glorifies a twisted idea of the American dream. To be fair, that’s not the point of Scarface, but many fans of that film have failed to notice. With Pain & Gain, there is no mistaking that Daniel Lugo is an idiot and someone to be ridiculed. He is a sociopath whose actions make clear that the American dream can be quite dangerous if interpreted a certain way. Will everyone walk away from the film with that message? No, but I doubt that you’ll hear people quoting Lugo as often as people quote Tony Montana.

 

Daniel Lugo may not go down as one of cinema’s great antiheros, but that doesn’t mean Wahlberg does a bad job. He’s perfect for the role of a muscle-bound optimist. He carries the film with ease, but his cohorts provide the most fun. Anthony Mackie cracked me up constantly with his fast rants about getting buff. And Dwayne Johnson was the best part of the film because of his meltdown in the second half. He seems to be in a completely different movie than the rest of the cast the last hour, and it’s hilarious. The rest of the cast is superb, as well, with Ed Harris, Tony Shalhoub, Rob Corddry, and Rebel Wilson making appearances. Even Ken Jeong, who I find nearly unbearable these days, had me laughing as an obnoxious self-help guru.

 

Add Michael Bay’s direction to these proceedings and you’re left with the most surprisingly enjoyable film of the year thus far. Bay could’ve destroyed this movie easily if he had turned it into an action fest, but he didn’t. Instead, he basically made his version of Tony Scott’s Domino. The similarities between the two films are hard to ignore. Both are based on unbelievable true stories in the mid-90s and are helmed by directors who often let style get in the way of substance. Bay has made the better film because Pain & Gain takes the more comedic tone. Domino attempted to be relatively serious, and it was all too crazy to care that much about. Pain & Gain has a story that could be taken very seriously, but it would be very hard not to laugh at some of the true moments. Thankfully, Bay and company embraced that. Does he still whip the camera around too often and employ too much slow-mo? Yeah, but trust me, the action and plot are much easier to follow in this film than in his previous Transformers work.

 

Despite my eventual enjoyment, I was on the fence about Pain & Gain the first hour or so. There were far too many characters with voice-over. The anachronistic bits, like the Taco Bell box, a wireless videogame controller, etc. took me out of it. It just seemed to be a mess of a film. Somehow in that last hour it all made sense. It’s still a mess of a film, but the characters are train-wrecks, so how could the plot not get messy? The true story is convoluted, so why wouldn’t the movie be as well? The messiness of it is what got me laughing consistently by the end of the film. It was equal parts hilarity and befuddlement. That’s entertainment to me. Just try not to dwell on the fact that most of the stuff in this movie actually happened.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

While I am quite tired of Bay's now obligatory camera-doing-a-360-through-two-rooms gimmick, I laughed a lot at the absurdity of the two vastly different actions taking place.  On one side, Marky Mark is killing a guy.  On the other, The Rock is putting on a push-up display while C&C Music Factory blares. 

 

Speaking of The Rock, shouldn't he have been limping a bit more since he was missing a toe?  Or is coke that powerful?  Or is it simply that The Rock is that powerful?

 

The anachronisms bothered me, but I still dug some of the 90s elements of the movie.  The car phones, the above-mentioned music, etc.  Although, for the most part, this film felt like it took place in present day.