The Unnominated: Johnny Got His Gun (dir by Dalton Trumbo)

Posted on August 3, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Though the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences claim that the Oscars honor the best of the year, we all know that there are always worthy films and performances that end up getting overlooked. Sometimes, it’s because the competition too fierce. Sometimes, it’s because the film itself was too controversial. Often, it’s just a case of a film’s quality not being fully recognized until years after its initial released. This series of reviews takes a look at the films and performances that should have been nominated but were, for whatever reason, overlooked. These are the Unnominated.

The 1971 anti-war film, Johnny Got His Gun, tells the story of Joe Bonham (played by Timothy Bottoms). When America enters World War I, Joe enlists in the Army. He leaves behind his small-town life. He leaves behind his patriotic father (Jason Robards) and his loving girlfriend (Kathy Fields). As he leaves, everyone tells him that he is doing the right thing to protect democracy. Joe’s a hero!

Joe expects war to be a glorious affair, one that will make a true man out of him. Instead, he’s hit by an artillery shell while huddled in a muddy trench. Though he survives the explosion, he loses his arms and his legs. He loses his face. He’s taken to a field hospital, where the doctors say that, though he’s alive, he’s incapable of feeling or thinking. He’s left alone in a room and is occasionally checked on by a sympathetic nurse (Diane Varsi).

The doctors are wrong. Joe can think. Even if he can’t see where he is now, he can still remember the life that he once had and the events that led him to the hospital. The film switches back and forth, from the black-and-white imagery of the hospital to the vivid color of Joe’s memories and fantasies. In his mind, Joe remembers his father, who encouraged him to go to war and perhaps was not the all-knowing figure that Joe originally assumed him to be. (The film makes good use of Jason Robards’s natural gravitas. Like Joe, the viewer initially assumes that Robards is correct about everything.) Joe also imagines several conversations with Jesus (a stoned-looking Donald Sutherland), who turns out to be surprisingly mellow and not always particularly helpful. Jesus suggest that Joe may just be naturally unlucky and he also suggests that Joe perhaps keep his distance from him because, sometimes, bad luck can rub off. Joe, meanwhile, wonders if he could be used as a traveling exhibit to portray the futility of war. When Joe finally realizes that a nurse has been checking on him, he tries to figure out a way to send a message to both her and the military that is keeping him alive in his captive state. S.O.S. …. help me….

Johnny Got His Gun is based on a novel by Dalton Trumbo. The novel was first published in 1939, at a time when the debate over whether the the U.S. should get involved in another war in Europe was running high. At the time, Trumbo was a Stalinist who opposed getting involved because Germany and Russia had signed a non-aggression pact. After the Germans invaded Russia in 1941, Trumbo and his publishers suspended reprinting of the book until the war was over with. Needless to say, this was all brought up in the 50s, when Trumbo was one of the more prominent writers to be blacklisted during the Red Scare. On the one hand, Dalton Trumbo does sound like he was more than a bit of a useful idiot for the Stalinists. On the other hand, if you’re going to suspend the printing of your anti-war polemic, it should definitely be because you want to help defeat the Nazis. In the end, what really matters is that Johnny Got His Gun is an undeniably well-written and effective book, one that works because it eschews the vapid sloganeering that one finds in so many works of left-wing literature and instead focuses on the emotions and thoughts of one human being.

The book was later rediscovered by the anti-war protestors of the 60s, which led to Dalton Trumbo directing a film adaptation. The film is a bit uneven. Dalton Trumbo was 65 years old when he directed the film and there are a few moments, especially in the scenes with Sutherland as Jesus, where he seems like he’s trying a bit too hard to duplicate the younger directors who were a part of the anti-war moment. However, the scenes in the military hospital are undeniably moving. The hospital scenes are shot in a noirish black-and-white and they effectively capture the stark horror of Joe’s situation. Left alone in his dark and shadowy room, Joe becomes the perfect symbol for all the war-related horrors that people choose to ignore. He becomes the embodiment of what war does to those who are scarred, both physically and mentally, by it. The scenes where Diane Varsi realizes that Joe is aware of what’s happened to him and that he can still feel are powerful and emotional. In fact, they work so well that it’s hard not to wish that the film could have done away with the fantasies and the flashbacks, despite the fact that Timothy Bottoms gives an appealing performance as the young and idealistic Joe.

Johnny Got His Gun didn’t receive any Oscar nominations. Should it have? The 1971 Best Picture line-up was a strong one, with the exception of Nicholas and Alexandra. Johnny Got His Gun was definitely superior to Nicholas and Alexandra. However, Dirty Harry is definitely superior to Johnny Got His Gun. (For that matter, Two-Lane Blacktop also came out in 1971 as well.) But, even if Johnny Got His Gun didn’t deserve to be one of the five Best Picture nominees, it did deserve some consideration for its cinematography and Diane Varsi’s performance. If the flashbacks and the fantasies were handled a bit more effectively, I would suggest that Jason Robards and Timothy Bottoms were worthy of consideration as well.

In conclusion, I should note that 1971 was a good year for Timothy Bottoms. Not only did he star in this film but he was also the star of The Last Picture Show.

Previous entries in The Unnominated:

Insomnia File No. 55: FTA (dir by Francine Parker)

Posted on August 3, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

What’s an Insomnia File? You know how some times you just can’t get any sleep and, at about three in the morning, you’ll find yourself watching whatever you can find on cable or Netflix? This feature is all about those insomnia-inspired discoveries!

If you were having some trouble getting too sleep last night, you could have taken some sleeping pills and allowed them to knock you out for a day or two. Or you could have logged into Netflix and watched the 1972 anti-war documentary, F.T.A.

The year was 1971 and the United States was bogged down in a deeply unpopular war in Vietnam. While protests continued in North America, the soldiers who were actually serving in Asia started to become increasingly outspoken about their own doubts about whether there was any good reason for the U.S. to be in Vietnam. Often at the risk of being court-martialed, these soldiers started to make their voice heard through underground newspapers and by hanging out at coffeehouses that anti-war protestors had started near military bases. “F.T.A.” became a rallying cry for these anti-war soldiers. A play on the army’s then-slogan of “Fun, Travel, and Adventure,” F.T.A. was also said to stand for, “Fuck the Army.”

F.T.A. also stood for Free Theater Associates, an anti-war vaudeville-style troupe that spent 1971 performing at G.I. Coffeehouses. The show was specifically set up as a parody of Bob Hope’s USO Shows. Each performance featured music, skits, and a reading from Dalton Trumbo’s anti-war novel, Johnny Got His Gun. Headlining the FTA show were actors Donald Sutherland Jane Fonda, comedians Michael Alaimo and Paul Mooney, and musicians Swamp Dogg and Holly Near.

F.T.A. is really two documentaries in one. One documentary features the F.T.A. performances and follows the troupe as they travel to military bases in Hawaii, The Philippines, Okinawa, and Japan. The other documentary features interviews with the anti-war soldiers who came to see the show. They discuss how they feel about the prospect of dying in a war that none of them support and few of them understand. They discuss how clueless the officers are. Black G.I.s discuss the racism within the ranks and wonder why they should die for a country that discriminates against them.

For the most part, the celebrities come across as being dilettantes. With the exception of Swamp Dogg (who is obviously sincere in his concerns for the people that he’s performing for), the F.T.A. performers come across as being a bit too enamored with themselves and a lot of what we see of the F.T.A. Show seems to be more about impressing the activists back home than entertaining the G.I.s. (Many of the skits reminded me of the worst of the Freedom School scenes from Billy Jack.) However, the soldiers themselves are fascinating. The soldiers discuss their anger, fears, and experiences with an honesty and an authenticity that is never less than compelling. If nothing else, this documentary highlights the difference between people who are anti-war because they’ve experienced it firsthand and people who are anti-war because it’s the latest thing to be.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’m a history nerd. Seen today, F.T.A. is an interesting historical document, one that’s all the more fascinating because it’s a Vietnam documentary that was filmed while the war was still being fought. As such, there’s no hindsight or attempts to mold the material into something designed to appeal to those looking back with either nostalgia or disdain. Instead, it’s a time capsule, one that takes you back to a tumultuous time and allows you to experience it for yourself. On that level, it’s a history nerd’s dream.

Previous Insomnia Files:

Blast From The Past: Engagement Party (dir by William Thiele)

Posted on August 3, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Green Stamps were a little bit before my time but they sound like they were fun. From what I’ve been able to pick up, apparently you could get green stamps at any store and then you could exchange them for various goods at the Green Stamps distribution center. Apparently, the more you spent, the more green stamps you received. At least, that’s how I think they worked. As I said at the start of this paragraph, they were a bit before my time.

In fact, just about everything I know about Green Stamps comes from watching Engagement Party, a 30-minute film from 1956, on TCM. In Engagement Party, Carl Landis (Craig Hill) is the son of the owner of Landis Department Store. Soon, Carl will be taking over the family business. Unfortunately, the family business isn’t doing so well and, until Carl can figure out how to turn things around, Carl is reluctant to marry his girlfriend, Ellen (Gloria Talbott).

When Carl first meets Elliott Winston (Leon Ames), a friend of Ellen’s family, he rolls his eyes when Elliott mentions that he works for the people behind Green Stamps. Carl is a frequent eye roller, largely because Carl is a jerk. Carl explains that he considers Green Stamps to be a scam and there’s no way that he would allow them to be distributed in his store. Elliott takes it upon himself to show Carl the error of his ways.

Basically, this is just a 30-minute commercial for Green Stamps but, from a historical point of view, it’s an interesting little time capsule of the world of 1956. To me, the most interesting thing about this short film is the fact that Carl really is just a totally self-righteous jerk. Why would Ellen want to marry someone who simply will not stop talking about how much he hates Green Stamps? Get a life, Carl. To his credit, Elliott Winston can barely seem to hide his intense loathing for Carl. Even when Elliott’s being friendly, you can tell that he just wants to take a swing at him.

For your education and your enjoyment, here is a Blast From The Past….

Icarus File No. 7: Last Days (dir by Gus Van Sant)

Posted on August 3, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

From 2002 to 2005, director Gus Van Sant offered audiences what he called his “Death Trilogy.” 2002’s Gerry followed two friends as they got lost in the desert and it featured what appeared to be a mercy killing. 2003’s Elephant was a mediation on the Columbine High School massacre and it featured several murders. Finally, with 2005’s Last Days, Van Sant ended the trilogy with a film about a suicide.

Michael Pitt plays a world-famous musician who is suffering from depression. Though the character is named Blake, no attempt is made to disguise the fact that he is meant to be Kurt Cobain. When we first see Blake, he has just escaped from a rehab clinic and is walking through a forest. There are no other human beings around and, perhaps not coincidentally, this is the only moment in the film in which Blake seems to be happy. He even sings Home on the Range, shouting the lyrics like a little kid.

When he reaches his home, Blake’s demeanor changes. He walks around the house with a rifle and pretends to shoot the four other people — Luke (Lukas Haas), Scott (Scott Patrick Green), Asia (Asia Argento), and Nicole (Nicole Vicius) — who are sleeping in his house. Later, when those people wake up and attempt to speak to him, Blake is largely unresponsive. When a detective comes to the door and asks if anyone has seen Blake, Blake hides. When a record company exec calls to tell Blake that it’s time for him to tour again and that he’ll be letting down both his band and the label if he doesn’t, Blake hangs up on her.

Who are the people staying in Blake’s house? Luke and Scott are both musicians but apparently neither one of them are in Blake’s band. When Luke asks Blake to help him finish a song, Blake can only mutter a few vague words of encouragement. Scott, meanwhile, appears to be more interested in Blake’s money. Everyone in the film wants something from Blake but Blake wants to be alone. In the one moment when Blake actually gets to work on his own music, his talent is obvious but so is his frustration. With everyone demanding something from him, when will he ever have time to create? With everyone telling him that it is now his job to be a rock star, how will he ever again feel the joy that came from performing just to perform?

As one would expect from a Van Sant film, Last Days is often visually striking, especially in the early forest scenes. In many ways, it feels like a combination of Gerry and Elephant. Like those previous two films, it is fixated on death but stubbornly refuses to provide any answers to any larger, metaphysical questions. Like Elephant, it uses a jumbled timeline to tell its story and scenes are often repeated from a different perspective. However, it eschews Elephant‘s use of an amateur cast and instead, Last Days follows Gerry’s lead of featuring familiar actors like Michael Pitt, Lukas Haas, and Asia Argento. Unfortunately, though, Last Days doesn’t work as well as either one of the two previous entries in the Death Trilogy.

Last Days runs into the same problem that afflicts many films about pop cultural icons. Kurt Cobain has become such a larger-than-life figure and his suicide is viewed as being such a momentous cultural moment that any attempt to portray it on film is going to feel inadequate. No recreation can live up to the mythology. The film itself feels as if it is somewhat intimidated by the task of doing justice to the near religious reverence that many have for Cobain. As enigmatic as Gerry and Elephant were, one could still tell that Van Sant knew where he wanted to take those films. He knew what he wanted to say and he had confidence that at least a few members of the audience would understand as well. With Last Days, Van Sant himself seems to be a bit lost when it comes to whatever it may be that he’s trying to say about Cobain. This leads to a rather embarrassing scene in which Blake’s ghost is seen literally climbing its way towards what I guess would be the immortality of being an icon. One might wonder how Cobain himself would feel about such a sentimental coda to his suicide.

Last Days is a film that I respect, even if I don’t think it really works. It does do a good job of capturing the ennui of depression and one cannot fault Van Sant for his ambition or his willingness to run the risk of alienating the audience by allowing the story to play out at its own slow and deliberate pace. But ultimately, the film cannot compete with the mythology that has sprung up around its subject.

Previous Icarus Files:

Film Review: Gerry (dir by Gus Van Sant)

Posted on August 3, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in 2002, Gerry tells the story of two men named Gerry, played by Matt Damon and Casey Affleck.

When we first see the two Gerrys, they’re in a car and they are driving through the desert. Neither one is speaking but they both have oddly determined looks on their faces. When they pull off to the side of the road, they talk about how they are finally going to hike the wilderness trail and see “the thing” at the end of it. They start to hike. In order to avoid a vacationing family, they step off of the trail. Soon, they are lost in the desert.

The audience doesn’t learn much about either one of the men named Gerry. It’s obvious that they’ve known each other for a while and that they have a close relationship but it’s never stated how they met or what they do with their time when they’re not lost in the desert. Nothing is learned about their family or their jobs or their significant others. Matt Damon’s Gerry seems to be the more confident of the two. Casey Affleck’s Gerry seems to be prone to pessimism. Damon’s Gerry tries to figure out the best way to find the highway. Affleck’s Gerry climbs to the top of a rock and can’t figure out how to get down. It’s tempting to try to use how the men react to being lost as a way to imagine what type of lives the two men lead outside of the desert but in the end, their lives in the real world are no longer important. What’s important is that they are both now lost in the desert, walking under the burning sun and suffering from dehydration.

The film follows Affleck and Damon as they go from being amused at being lost to being desperate to be found. The men go from joking to barely speaking at all. When they first get lost, they climb to the top of a mountain to see if they can spot the path back to the civilization. Soon, though, all they can do is keep walking forward and hope that they stumble across the highway. Interestingly, the more lost the men become, the most beautiful the desert seems. The mountains are often so majestic and strikingly formed that it becomes easier and easier to overlook the two men walking near them.

As we follow the two men, it’s tempting to wonder just why exactly they ended up getting lost. Are they being punished for trying to conquer nature or was it just a case of random bad luck that led to them going in the wrong direction? Is there a greater hand of fate guiding the Gerrys or are they responsible for their own misfortunes? Does the tragedy at the heart of Gerry truly mean anything or is it just one of those things that people try to invest with deeper meaning because otherwise, they would be forced to admit just insignificant their lives are in the grand scheme of things? Is there even a grand scheme of things? These are questions that Gerry asks but doesn’t necessarily question. The film ends with a cut to a blue screen, which is perhaps an homage to Blue, Derek Jarman’s 1993 meditation on life and death. Like Jarman’s film, Gerry is meditation that searches for answers but admits that they may not be out there.

Gerry was directed by Gus Van Sant, an experimental director who also has a side gig directing mainstream studio films. Gerry is a bit of an interesting hybrid. On the one hand, the format is definitely experimental and Van Sant often goes out of his way to alienate the audience. On the other hand, the film itself is an example of the power of old-fashioned movie star charisma. Most people who watch this film will watch because it features Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. Damon and Affleck are the reason why most viewers will be willing to tolerate a 7-minute shot of the two Gerrys stumbling through the desert. Would the viewer still care about the Gerrys if they were played by the two unknowns who Van Sant cast as the school shooters in Elephant?

Gerry may be an enigmatic and visually striking film that is full of intriguing questions that can probably never be answered but, in the end, the film does make one thing very clear. Never underestimate the importance of casting a star.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Winner: Bohemian Rhapsody (dir by Bryan Singer and Dexter Fletcher)

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Can a film be a box office hit and win the most Oscars of the year while also ending the career of the man who was credited as directing it?

If it’s Bohemian Rhapsody, it can.

The story is well-known but it is worth repeating. From the moment that the film went into production in 2017 until it was finally released in November of 2018, the buzz was that Bohemian Rhapsody was going to be a disaster. Despite the fact that he sometimes claimed that directing a biopic about Queen lead singer Freddy Mercury was a bit of a passion project for him, reports from the set indicated that director Bryan Singer was behaving just a little bit erratically. He argued with lead actor Rami Malek. He frequently disappeared from the set. Shooting was delayed for days because no one knew where Singer was. At the same time, with the #MeToo movement at the height of its cultural power, Singer was being accused of being one of Hollywood’s worst abusers. Eventually, 20th Century Fox suspended the production, fired Bryan Singer, and brought in Dexter Fletcher to finish shooting the film. By most accounts, Fletcher did a professional and exemplary job of getting the production back on track but, due to the DGA bylaws, he wasn’t credited with directing the film. Instead, he had to settle for an executive producer credit and the opportunity to direct the Elton John biopic, Rocketman.

As such, no one was expecting much from Bohemian Rhapsody. There were, of course, reports that Rami Malek did an unusually good job as Freddy Mercury. If somehow the film could be saved in editing, Malek might even pick up an Oscar nomination. But everyone knew that Bohemian Rhapsody was going to have to overcome a lot to be a successful film. While everyone appreciated that Dexter Fletcher had finished the film after Singer flaked out, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not Fletcher’s work would mesh with Singer’s vision.

And indeed, the initial reviews were not positive. Malek was praised by most (but certainly not all) critics but the film itself was described as being disjointed and full of clichés. The film’s historical accuracy was criticized, as was its reticence in seriously exploring Mercury’s sexuality. Bohemian Rhapsody‘s editing was also heavily criticized, with the film’s sloppiness felt to be a result of the editor trying to put a coherent story together out of scenes that were filmed by two very different directors.

Here’s the thing, though.

The critics may have dismissed the film but what about the audiences? What about the people who pay money to see a film in a theater on the weekend that it comes out? What about the people who are motivated not by the opinions of film critics but instead by the recommendations of their friends and family? Those people, they didn’t care. They flocked to see Bohemian Rhapsody and, judging by the film’s box office, quite a few people saw it more than once. After all the drama and bad publicity, Bohemian Rhapsody became a huge hit.

It also became an Oscar contender. The film received five Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture of the Year. (Among the films that were not nominated for Best Picture were Eighth Grade, First Reformed, First Man, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, and If Beale Street Could Talk.) Though the award for Best Picture went to Green Book (another film that was more popular with audiences than with critics), Bohemian Rhapsody won the other four awards for which it was nominated. In fact, Bohemian Rhapsody won the most Oscars that year. It won more Oscars than BlackKklansman, Black Panther, A Star is Born, The Favourite, and Roma. Bohemian Rhapsody even won the Oscar for Best Editing.

Even at the time that Bohemian Rhapsody was winning all of those Oscars, people seemed to be rather embarrassed by the film’s success. (Not one winner mentioned Bryan Singer in their speech, though most did take the time to thank Dexter Fletcher.) In the years since, Bohemian Rhapsody has developed a reputation for being one of the worst films to ever be nominated for Best Picture.

So, when I rewatched the film on Hulu, the main question on my mind was, “Is Bohemian Rhapsody as bad as everyone remembers?”

Well …. it’s not great. At the same time, it’s not terrible. It’s one of those films that’s very much in the middle. All those complaints about Bohemian Rhapsody being disjointed were and are valid. The script indulges in just about every rock star biopic cliché and the other members of Queen are portrayed as being ciphers. Perhaps most surprisingly, Rami Malek’s acclaimed, Oscar-winning performance doesn’t hold up particularly well. Malek has the charisma necessary to be a believable rock star but his performance is all on the surface and you never really get any ideas as to what exactly was going on inside of Mercury’s head. This is a biopic that doesn’t seem to be sure what it wants to say about its main subject, other than “Thanks for the music.” And really, there’s nothing wrong with saying “Thanks for the music.” But that could have just as easily been said by re-releasing a Queen concert film. That said, the story moves quickly, the 70s and 80s fashion is enjoyably over the top, and the concert scenes are nicely put together. I’m not really a Queen fan but I know that I’m in the minority and there’s enough Queen music in the film to keep the majority happy. The film, after all, was made for the fans.

So, I guess my opinion is that Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t good enough to justify all of those Oscars but it’s not quite bad enough to justify all of the hate either. The film would probably have a better reputation if it hadn’t won all those Oscars. Without all of those Oscars, it would be remembered as an uneven biopic with some good musical scenes and a lot of enjoyably tacky fashion choices. Instead, it’s destined to forever be remembered as the film that won Best Editing over The Favourite. Sometimes, it’s better to not be nominated.

It will also be remembered as the film that, along with a series of serious sexual misconduct allegations, ended Bryan Singer’s career as a major filmmaker. Singer was briefly attached to direct a new version of Red Sonja but, after the resulting outcry, that project was canceled. As far as I know, he hasn’t been attached to any major films since then. With the X-Men now a part of the MCU, it’s doubtful he’ll be invited to have anything else to do with that franchise. Much as happened with Sam Peckinpah and Convoy, Bohemian Rhapsody was a box office success that made its credited director a pariah in the industry. Dexter Fletcher, meanwhile, was acclaimed for his work as director of Rocketman and he recently directed two of the better episodes of The Offer.

Film Review: Speed (dir by Jan De Bont)

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“Awwwww, Keanu and Sandra are so cute together!”

That was my main thought when I recently rewatched the 1994 film, Speed. There’s a lot of reasons why Speed remains popular 28 years after it was initially released but I think a huge (if underrated) factor is that it’s just a good love story. At this point, everyone knows that the film is about a bus that has been wired to explode if it goes under 50 miles per hour. Most people know that Dennis Hopper plays Howard, the mad bomber, Keanu Reeves plays Jack, the cop who jumps on the bus and tries to figure out how to defuse the bomb, and Sandra Bullock plays Annie, the passenger who takes over driving the bus after the driver is incapacitated. (If you’re fan of the work of John Hughes, you might also know that Speed was the film where Ferris Bueller‘s Alan Ruck broke free of his Cameron typecasting and established himself as a dependable character actor.) Most people remember what the cops do in an attempt to trick Dennis Hopper and, for that matter, they also remember the one mistake that led to Hopper figuring out their ruse.

And yet, even though most viewers will know exactly what is going to happen, the film remains a fun watch because of the chemistry between Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. This was one of Sandra’s first major roles. This was also one of Keanu’s earliest attempts to helm a big budget, major studio action picture. (Director Jan de Bont insisted on casting him after seeing him in the film Point Break. The studio preferred Tom Cruise.) In Speed, both Keanu and Sandra are young, likable, attractive, enthusiastic, and they have smiles that light up the screen. As soon as Sandra takes over driving and Keanu tells her that she cannot allow the bus to slow down under any circumstances, the two of them just seem to belong together. The film’s enduring popularity is about more than just watching a bus try not to go under a certain speed. The popularity of Speed is also about watching the characters played by Keanu and Sandra fall in love.

Who would have guessed it? Well, certainly not whoever put together the film’s original theatrical trailer. Check this out:

As you can see, the original trailer doesn’t feature much of Sandra Bullock. For that matter, it’s not quite as Keanu-centric as you might expect it to be. Instead, the trailer is dominated by things exploding and Dennis Hopper’s over-the-top performance as the bomber. And make no doubt about it, Dennis Hopper is definitely an entertaining part of the film. There’s not a subtle moment to be found in his performance and that makes him the perfect for the role of a man whose response to a cheap retirement present is to go on a bombing spree. That said, the film belongs to Keanu and Sandra.

That said, it would be a mistake to ignore the other people on the bus. One of the things that I like about Speed is that the other passengers on the bus come together to survive their ordeal. They may start out as weary commuters but, by the end of the film, they’ve become a family. They may get annoyed with each other but, when it comes time to climb from one bus to another, they hold on to each other and they hug one another on the other side. The bomber, like all terrorists, thought that he could turn people against each other through his threats and his violence. Instead, the people came together provided one another with comfort and protection. There’s an important lesson there, one that’s even more important in 2022 than it probably was in 1994.

(On a personal note, I’m not usually a public transportation person. However, in high school, I would occasionally catch the DART bus — that’s Dallas Area Rapid Transportation — if it was raining. The buses were often not in particularly good shape. One that I boarded actually had a hole in the floor and, since it was raining, the passengers would have to hold up their feet whenever the bus splashed through a puddle. Personally, I was kind of amused by the weirdness of it all but I think I was the only one. Would the passengers of that bus bonded together to defeat a mad bomber? One can only hope.)

Speed may be a film about a bomb on a bus but, ultimately, it’s also a film about humanity at its best. And that’s why, after all this time, it remains a classic.

International Film Review: Shanghai 13 (dir by Chang Cheh)

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

A Hong Kong-Taiwanese co-production that was first released in 1984, Shanghai 13 takes place during the early days of World War II in Asia, when the conflict was primarily viewed as being between Japan and China. With the help of a thief named Black Hat (Jimmy Wang Yu), a low-level but patriotic Shanghai bureaucrat named Mr. Gao (Chiang Ming) steals a report that details the collaboration between Japan and a puppet regime that has been installed in Northern China. Mr. Gao hopes to take the documents to Hong Kong, where he will be able to safely publish them and reveal just how corrupt the Chinese collaborators are. Needless to say, the collaborators would rather this not happen and they are determined to assassinate Mr. Gao before he boards the last boat to Hong Kong.

Fortunately, Mr. Gao is not alone. The 13 Rascals have been called in to protect Mr. Gao. Who are the 13 Rascals? They are a collection of talented marital artists and they are all patriots, determined to reveal the truth about what is happening in Northern China. The 13 Rascals are played by an ensemble of Hong Kong and Taiwanese film veterans. One appears after another, each getting their chance to show off what they can do while defending Mr. Gao. Many of the rascals lose their lives to protect Mr. Gao but that seems to be the point of the film. No sacrifice is too much when its done to protect the honor of one’s country.

To really understand what’s going on with Shanghai 13, it probably helps to know a bit about not only the Second Sino-Japanese War and the subsequent chain of events that led to the Republic of China relocating its central government to Taiwan. My knowledge of these events is pretty much Wikipedia-level and I’m not going to present myself as being an expert. That said, it’s pretty obvious that Mr. Gao, who is forced to leave his home city by a corrupt and ruthless government, is meant to serve as a stand-in for both Taiwan and Hong Kong (or, at least, Hong Kong before it was transferred to Chinese control). Just as the Rascals will sacrifice their lives to protect Mr. Gao, they would do the same for Taiwan and Hong Kong. The implication, of course, is that the audience should do the same.

Fortunately, if international politics are not your thing, Shanghai 13 can also be enjoyed as just a non-stop action film. Admittedly, the film does get off to a bit of a slow start. (If you’ve ever wanted to see every little detail of how to crack a safe, this is the film for you.) Once the fighting begins, it’s pretty much nonstop and more than a little bloody. Faces are kicked. Bones are shattered. Clawed gloves are worn. One man carries a killer fan and laughs whenever anyone tries to remove it from his hands. The film is full of Hong Kong and Taiwanese stars, all of whom get their chance to show off their moves and the majority of whom also get a dramatic death scene. One man gets impaled a pole and still announces that he would rather die with honor than surrender. (And, needless to say, he drops dead shortly afterwards.) There’s enough slow motion to keep any slo mo of doom enthusiast happy. The final battle takes place in a ship yard and features combatants jumping on top of shipping crates. It’s exciting and weird.

Throughout it all, Mr. Gao stands in the background and watches. Mr. Gao is not a fighter and he can only watch while everyone else in the movie sacrifices their lives so that Mr. Gao can reveal the truth about China’s puppet regime. If this was an American film, I’m sure that the last-standing hero would probably get angry with Mr. Gao, much as Snake Plissken did with the President in Escape From New York. But in Shanghai 13, all that matters is that Mr. Gao is a patriot. He’s a man trying to protect his nation from a corrupt government and, for that reason, 13 people are willing to risk their lives to protect him. We could use more people like the 13 Rascals.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Wes Craven Edition

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

83 years ago today, Wes Craven was born in Cleveland, Ohio. Craven started his career as an academic, teaching high school English. However, realizing that there was more money to be made in the film industry, Craven changed careers. By his own admission, he started his career directing “hardcore, X-rated films” under a pseudonym and it has been rumored that he was a member of the crew of the first “porno chic” film, Deep Throat. Eventually, Craven broke into the mainstream with some of the most influential and often controversial horror films ever made. From being denounced for the original Last House On The Left to changing the face of horror with A Nightmare on Elm Street to becoming something of a revered statesman and a beloved pop cultural institution with the Scream franchise, Wes Craven had a truly fascinating career.

In honor his films and legacy, it’s time for….

4 Shots from 4 Wes Craven Films

The Hills Have Eyes (1977, dir by Wes Craven, DP: Eric Saarinen)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984, dir. by Wes Craven, DP: Jacques Haitkin)

Deadly Friend (1986, dir by Wes Craven, DP: Philip H. Lathrop)

The People Under The Stairs (1991, dir by Wes Craven, DP: Sandi Sissel)

Here’s The Trailer For Devotion

Posted on August 1, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Just to state the obvious, this trailer definitely has a Top Gun feel to it. I imagine that can be said about any film that features aerial combat. Plus, Top Gun: Maverick‘s Glen Powell has a role in this film as well. However, unlike Top Gun, Devotion is based on a true story and it takes place during the Korean War.

Devotion is due to be released in November, which is typically the Oscar season. I have a feeling that, fairly or not, Devotion might be overshadowed by the monster success of Top Gun: Maverick but you never know. Audiences might show their devotion to another film about planes and the pilots who fly them.

Here’s the trailer: