Followers

This Movie Guy Headline Animator

Showing posts with label Gene Hackman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gene Hackman. Show all posts

Monday, January 30, 2012

Happy Birthday, Gene Hackman!

Today we're celebrating two-time Academy Award-winning actor Gene Hackman's 82nd birthday. Although he has not appeared in a film since 2004's Welcome to Mooseport, Hackman has had quite the storied acting career. His first film appearance came in an uncredited role in the 1961 film Mad Dog Coll, and he continued to appear in television shows and movies throughout the early 1960s. He made his first credited appearance in a theatrically-released feature film in 1964's Lilith but didn't make a major splash until his role as Buck Barrow in 1967's Bonnie and Clyde, for which he earned his first Academy Award nomination. He nabbed his first win four years later for his performance in 1971's The French Connection. Hackman worked consistently throughout his career, appearing in such high-profile films as 1978's Superman, 1986's Hoosiers and 1992's Unforgiven (which gave him his second Oscar). So, to celebrate his birthday, I've listed my five favorite of Gene's performances. I hope you enjoy the videos I've found. Once again, happy birthday, Gene!


5. Lex Luthor
Superman (1978)


***

4. Harry Zimm
Get Shorty (1995)


***

3. Little Bill Daggett
Unforgiven (1992)


***

2. Blind Man
Young Frankenstein (1974)


***

1. Royal Tenenbaum
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Movie Review: BONNIE AND CLYDE

BONNIE AND CLYDE
1967
R



Bonnie and Clyde is a 1967 crime drama directed by Arthur Penn that tells a rather romanticized tale of the real-life bank robbers, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. When Bonnie (Faye Dunaway) catches Clyde (Warren Beatty) trying to steal her mother's car, she learns that he is a small-time thief recently removed from prison. After he knocks over a small market, Bonnie decides to join Clyde and leave her dull existence as a small-town waitress. The two start to work together performing small robberies here and there, but their luck begins to increase after they meet a young gas station attendant named C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), who works as their getaway driver. The group starts to rob banks, and they start to bring in more and more money. Along the way, they bring Clyde's brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons) into their team. The crew continues to raid the countryside, always managing to stay one step ahead of the law that's chasing them. However, as time continues to pass, the bank robbers start to get more and more reckless, letting the coppers get closer and closer to doing them in.

I've always known that Bonnie and Clyde was an iconic film, and because of that, I've always wanted to see it. The film's final scene - if you don't know it, I won't spoil it for you - is one of the more iconic scenes in cinematic history. Aside from that, however, I honestly didn't know much about it going into the film. Still, it's a cinema icon, so I was going to watch it eventually. Thanks to some of my faithful Facebook followers, I had the opportunity to watch it tonight.

The screenplay is actually relatively basic, but it works extremely well. In a way, it's brilliant in its simplicity. We jump straight into the action (in this case, the relationship between Bonnie and Clyde) from the film's first moments, and we never really get a chance to stop and wait. Because it's relatively common knowledge as to the film's finale - or, at least it was for me - the movie worked as a rather interesting build-up to that final climax. There's not a ton of storyline other than the inclusion of different members in the bank-robbing gang, and there's a couple plot devices that work as some twists and turns, but when you know how the film is going to end, it's tough to fall completely into the story presented. Maybe that's just me, but it's how I feel.

The simplicity of the screenplay works so convincingly because the film truly works as more of a character study than anything else. And to be fair, Bonnie and Clyde presents as much over-acting as I've ever seen in a legitimate film. The thing is, I think the over-acting finds a way to work within the constructs of this particular film. Normally, I'd be berating performances like this, but for whatever reason, the actors in Bonnie and Clyde just click. Beatty and Dunaway are fantastic as our leads and both garnered Academy Award nominations for their performances. Yes, they're over-the-top, but the whole film is a little bit over-the-top, and that's why they fit seamlessly into the constructs. Some of the supporting characters also deliver some classic bits of over-acting, the most blatant of which is Estelle Parsons who actually nabbed an Academy Award for her role in the film. I'm really not sure what else to say about the acting. I just felt like it was over-the-top, but for whatever reason it worked for this particular movie.

Is Bonnie and Clyde the most amazing movie I've ever seen? Of course not. Is it an entertaining piece of film? Absolutely. It's definitely worth giving a watch if you've got a chance to do so. I know this hasn't been one of my better reviews, but I'm at a little bit of a loss for words at the moment. I think that my ratings below the picture give enough information about my praise for the film, considering the fact that I'm sure this review probably sounds a bit convoluted. Bonnie and Clyde is a very good film that borders on greatness, and it definitely deserves its spot in cinema lore.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Movie Review: GET SHORTY

GET SHORTY
1995
R



Get Shorty is a 1995 comedy crime thriller directed by Barry Sonnenfeld. It centers around the making of a movie in Hollywood. Chili Palmer (John Travolta), a Miami-based loan shark, is sent by his boss, Ray "Bones" Baroni (Dennis Farina) to find a dry cleaner owner who owes him $300,000. Chili's search takes him to Los Angeles, where he decides to spend a little time dabbling in his real passion: filmmaking. After breaking into the home of Hollywood starlet Karen Flores (Rene Russo), Chili meets low-budget film kingpin Harry Zimm (Gene Hackman) and pitches a movie based on his recent experiences. The two decide to go into business together, which leads Chili towards learning the ins and outs of Hollywood finances and bribery. He meets Harry's other major financier, a local drug runner named Bo (Delroy Lindo), who is also trying to break into the Hollywood producing scene. He and Chili begin to court Harry with a number of offers in an attempt to sway him towards their bill for finances. However, Chili also has to deal with the job he was assigned, and when Ray Bones makes his way to L.A., Chili finds himself in a bit of a pickle.

I've known about this flick for quite a while but just never took the time to sit down and watch it. I think it really came into my consciousness when its sequel, 2005's Be Cool, was released, but I vaguely remember hearing about it back when it first came out. Granted, I was only seven, but that's a little irrelevant. However, it was mentioned in Steven Jay Schneider's 101 Gangster Films You Must See Before You Die, so I figured now was as good a time as any to give it a viewing.

The first thing I think you'll notice is just how fresh the film's dialogue is. Now, it's not that the dialogue is anything stunning, but it fits the constructs of the movie so well that it automatically makes everything believable. You can say what you want about John Travolta - especially after the tumultuous couple of years he's had recently - but as soon as Chili Palmer starts talking, you'll be absolutely hooked. Now, if you've seen my explanation of my grading system, you'll know that a big chunk of a film's final score comes down to acting as well as the movie's screenplay. I didn't go into detail about what it takes to have a good screenplay (but I really should have), but I'll give a basic rundown here. For me, a great screenplay comes down to two pieces: the film's story and the film's dialogue. You can have a brilliantly-crafted story, but if your characters' dialogue isn't believable, your final score is going to suffer. The same goes for the opposite. However, Get Shorty hits on both pistons, grabbing hold and never once letting go. We have a great storyline that comes full circle (in more ways than one), and the dialogue is so crisp and refreshing that I couldn't help but believe that the actors had transformed into the characters themselves.

That being said, a brilliant screenplay is nothing without execution. Here's an analogy: in football, a coach can call a brilliant play, but if the star player falls down, it's going to look like a bonehead call. The same goes for movies. A screenwriter can craft something absolutely beautiful or original, but if the actors can't bring their game up to that level, it's going to come out a little bit stale. Fortunately for Sonnenfeld, Get Shorty was blessed with an all-star cast that rises to the occasion. I've already mentioned Travolta who was absolutely fantastic. In fact, he nabbed a Golden Globe win for this role back in the day. However, the great acting doesn't end with him. Each actor plays his or her part to near-perfection. Special mention should be given to the always-fantastic Hackman because he doesn't disappoint here either. It should also be noted that Danny DeVito also gives a strong supporting performance, and James Gandolfini is good for a laugh here and there. Even Bette Midler joins the mix for a couple of scenes.

Although the movie does run a little bit too long (there were definitely some scenes that could've been edited a little bit), Get Shorty is still a fascinating watch and a heck of a good time. Try to pay close attention to the dialogue. It's so strong, and if you're able to catch it all, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Movie Review: SUPERMAN

SUPERMAN
1978
PG


You can watch the trailer here

I realize that this is one of those movies that I probably should have seen ages ago, and in retrospect, I think I've seen bits and pieces over the years. However, I had not seen the entire film, so it was probably a good thing I put it onto my NetFlix queue. As usual, I have a few things I would like to say about the movie. The film was directed by Richard Donner.

Let's start with the story. By now (meaning 2010), everyone and their mother knows the basic story of Superman: he was born on the planet Krypton and sent to Earth by his parents as his home planet exploded. Once on Earth, he was taken in by a small-town farming couple who raised him into a young man. Upon the death of his surrogate father, he made his way north to the Arctic where he witnessed the construction of the Fortress of Solitude, where he would learn many of the secrets of his heritage. Upon reaching full adulthood, he entered the real world as Clark Kent, aspiring journalist. Taking up a job at the Daily Planet in Metropolis, Kent continued life, balancing his day job with his alter-ego, Superman.

You can fill in the pieces where need be, but that's the basic gist of it. In this particular film, Superman takes on Lex Luthor (played well by Gene Hackman, who's given much too little screentime), who's planning to sink the western coast of California. I don't have any major qualms with the screenplay, but I don't think it was spectacular by any means. The first hour of the film, which shows the demise of Krypton and Kent's beginnings on Earth, prove to be the film's most intriguing pieces. Once "Superman" actually appears, everything loses a little bit of luster. Don't get me wrong, it's still entirely entertaining, but it goes from a movie with a hefty amount of drama to a somewhat goofy action flick. This would be totally fine if things didn't seem to go perfectly for Superman. Everything seemed a little too gift-wrapped as it happened; I would've liked to see a little bit more negativity thrown his way.

The acting is fine all-around. As I previously said, Hackman did a very good job as the evil genius plotting against the world, but his screentime left something to be desired. Maybe I'm just a little used to the 21st-century influence on superhero flicks where the bad guy spends a lot of time as the center of attention. The late Christopher Reeve is good as Superman/Clark Kent, and Ned Beatty provides a couple of laughs. If anybody's gonna take the acting cake this time around, it's Marlon Brando as the ill-fated Jor-El. His small role in the beginning of the film lays the groundwork for Superman's upbringing, and his presence on the screen is unmatched by anyone else in the movie. He is the godfather, after all.

The movie does have a couple things going for it. The special effects, although cheesy by 21st-century standards, were probably state of the art back in 1978. Aside from the obvious green-screen (well, probably blue-screen back then) effects with the flying, the rest of the effects are actually pretty well-done. However, the one major selling point for Superman is definitely the musical score. John Williams, who in the three years prior to this film had scored both Jaws and the original Star Wars film, continued his role of classic scores this time around. It may not be as memorable as the other two films I just mentioned, but it fits the Superman saga perfectly.

Although I have my grievances with the screenplay, Superman still set the standard for the superhero genre. It's only been in recent years that that bar has begun to be re-set, but this one should always be able to stand the test of time.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
Thumb... Up