Film Review: WINNING (1969, James Goldstone)

Stars: 4 of 5.
Running Time: 104 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Robert Wagner, Clu Gulager.
Tag-line: "Winning is...EVERYTHING."
Best one-liner: "I don't need any sugar in his gas tank 'cause I'm gonna beat that son-of-a-bitch anyway! "

I'm not going to go as far as to call this a 'lost masterpiece,' but this is a surprisingly solid little forgotten film. WINNING is dripping with avant-garde late 60's style; the racing scenes in particular are somehow reminiscent of John Frankenheimer's SECONDS, the unorthodox editing and visuals bring to mind the works of John Boorman (1968's POINT BLANK) or Nicolas Roeg (1970's PERFORMANCE). And as it turns out, surprisingly, this isn't really a racing movie. That's just the backdrop and our point of entry for a family/relationship drama (with a touch of the Cassavetes influence) centering around real-life couple Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. While I can't say I was sold 100% on the script, the volatile combination of Newman and Woodward's acting abilities and their natural chemistry carry it rather far, way further than the material has any right to go.

Then we also get the ever-mind-blowing Clu Gulager in a supporting role as Newman's hearing-impaired mechanic.

Clu is pretty understated here, but he does quite a lot with a pretty much throwaway role, in terms of exuding pathos, wearing a hearing aid, and making bizarre facial expressions when he works on car engines. In all, this is a three-star movie that gains it's fourth from being visually impressive, possessing some unexpected weight, and having the soothing presence of film legend Clu Gulager.

-Sean Gill

Late Christmas Gifts: For Your Consideration

See also: FIREWALKER Review
Hopefully forthcoming: GOING BANANAS Review. I wish to see for myself if "the monkey is so funny."

-Sean Gill

Film Review: MACSHAYNE: WINNER TAKES ALL (1994, E.W. Swackhamer)

Stars: 3 of 5.
Running Time: 100 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Kenny Rogers, Terry O' Quinn (John Locke on TV's LOST and THE STEPFATHER), Barry Newman (THE LIMEY and VANISHING POINT), Wendy Phillips (TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL, BIG LOVE, and MACSHAYNE: THE FINAL ROLL OF THE DIE).
Tag-line: "Kenny Rogers is MacShayne. A man who knows when to hold 'em, and knows when to fold 'em."
Best one-liner: "MacShayne!"


"If you wanna continue to blame me for what happened with you and your wife, go ahead. If it makes you feel better. But you need to stop thinking that everyone out here is a cheat and a liar. You know, Andy, I wasn't the only one she came on to. SHE WENT FOR EVERYTHING THAT MOVED. And in your heart, you know that. Did you ever start to think that you might be better off without her?"

Damn! That MacShayne doles out the harsh truths! Kenny Rogers IS MacShayne, and this film is directed by tv-movie maestro E.W. Swackhamer. I imagine this movie was conceived by a TV-screenwriter (in actuality, Michael Gleason, creator of REMINGTON STEELE) who fell asleep one night with the T.V. on. First, OCEAN'S 11 was on. It was followed by a DR. QUINN, MEDICINE WOMAN and WALKER, TEXAS RANGER marathon. The screenwriter subconsciously absorbed some of this material. Groggy and bleary-eyed the next morning, he had the compulsion to write. And this is what he wrote- it's exactly what you would imagine. But there's some good stuff going on. There's a MIDI-synth-heavy soundtrack with lots of 'Western zest' flavor, there's VANISHING POINT's Barry Newman and LOST's Terry O'Quinn (both imbuing their roles with WAY more pathos than was required; Terry making his villain, like THE STEPFATHER, frustrated and sympathetic),

There's really awkward transitions and montage sequences that beg a return to film school, and there's a fantastic moralizing scene where MacShayne foils Terry O'Quinn's evil plans by raising the self-esteem of one of his cogs via an anonymous phone call ("Sheldon, you are doing a wonderful job."). And then it all ends on a freeze frame.


The instant you underestimate MacShayne, talk about how lame he is, and how you're gonna beat him at cards- BOOM! There he is, looking all self-satisfied. And then you're like 'Why you look so self-satisfied, MacShayne?" And he's like, "Cause I foiled your plans." And then you look behind your shoulder and damned if your plans aren't foiled.

Three stars of zany TV movie fun and kiddie-level Mamet. If you like it, be sure to check out MACSHAYNE: THE FINAL ROLL OF THE DICE.

-Sean Gill

Film Review: COPYING BEETHOVEN (2006, Agnieszka Holland)

Stars: 5 of 5.
Running Time: 104 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, Steven J. Rivele and Christopher Wilkinson (the writers of ALI and NIXON).
Tag-line: "He was the greatest composer of his time. One last performance would define his genius."
Best one-liner: "God whispers into the ears of some men, but he shouts into mine!"

Remember the YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES? Indy would be visiting Africa for just one day, and next thing you know he's hanging out with Teddy Roosevelt on safari and inspiring Albert Schweitzer to start practicing medicine. COPYING BEETHOVEN is a lot like that. The screenplay is laughable. Probably the only historically accurate thing in this movie is Ed Harris' wig. But you shouldn't care. I didn't come here for a fact-based history lesson. I came here to see Ed Harris act like a fuckin' lunatic.

And I was not disappointed. Given the multitude of negative reviews, I was expecting something really lackluster and boring, but damn, was I in for the shock of a lifetime.

Harris plants an intense kiss atop the head of director Agnieszka Holland as Diane Kruger looks on.

Harris is brilliant. No hyperbole can do justice to what it is exactly that he does. He is intense.

He is committed. I feel like he out-commits Harvey Keitel, and I thought those words would never pass through my lips. Harris' Beethoven rocks at arm-wrestling, walks around half-naked, moons people when they mention the "Moonlight Sonata," hates cats, horrifies old ladies, pours water on his neighbors, beats up sickly old men, makes fart noises with his mouth to mock people, smashes a young dandy's life's work, and happens to be the greatest musical genius of the 19th Century. Basically if the thought of a totally crazed Ed Harris holding a horn to his ear and saying "Eh? Whaaat? WHAAAT?!" for 104 minutes appeals to you, then you have found your Holy Grail. I have.

-Sean Gill

Film Review: THE SUBSTITUTE (1996, Robert Mandel)

Stars: 4 of 5.
Running Time: 114 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Tom Berenger, Ernie Hudson, William Forsythe, Luis Guzman, Diane Venora, Marc Anthony, Cliff de Young, and the director, Robert Mandel, directed one of the best episodes of LOST ever, "Deus ex Machina."
Tag-line: " He has a lesson to teach. And nobody's going to have a problem with it."
Best one-liner: The educational setting lends itself perfectly for scads of one-liners. I really can't choose one. If I had to choose two, they'd be: "Shh. No talking in the library," and "You don't teach history anymore, Smith. You ARE history!"

You think Tom Berenger is scared of war? Think again. Dude made a meal out of WILLEM DAFOE in 'Nam during 'Platoon.' You think Berenger is afraid of a karate-choppin' Ernie Hudson? Hell, no. The last time Ernie kicked bum, he was playin' second fiddle bustin' ghosts to Dan 'Big Enchilada' Aykroyd. You think Berenger is scared by a bunch of drug-runnin' high school kids with guns? It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but no. He's not scared of 'em. In fact he's SO not scared-of 'em, that he decides to take over their class, smack 'em around a little bit. Take their weapons and knock 'em in the head with a crushed-up soda can.





All's going well until something happens that DOES scare Berenger. And that's when he starts gettin' through to them. They bond over similar scars from 'Nam and drive-bys, respectively. One of the kids slowly raises his hand and asks, "Yo, Mr. Smith, you lose any homeboys?" Berenger wistfully replies: 'Yeah, Jerome...I lost a few homeboys." And it is brilliant. Unfortunately, the movie then swerves into some more familiar action territory, but for a moment there, for the briefest of moments, I think I saw Berenger scared. As he says, "I noticed something strange was happening...I looked back, and they were listening to me..."

-Sean Gill

Film Review: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008, Danny Boyle)

Stars: 3 of 5.
Running Time: 120 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor
Tag-line: "What does it take to find a lost love? A. Money. B. Luck. C. Smarts. D. Destiny."
Awards: Eight Oscars including Best Picture, Audience Award Austin Film Festival, Best British Independent Film at the British Independent Film Awards, Golden Frog at Camerimage, Audience Award at Chicago International, Nominated for 4 Golden Globes, Best Director from Los Angeles Film Critics, Best Film from the National Board of Review, Nominated for 2 SAG awards, Best Director Southeastern Film Critics Association, People's Choice Award at Toronto International, and it's a frontrunner for many forthcoming awards.

Danny Boyle continues his examination of vast sums of money being bestowed upon unlikely individuals, but unlike some of his previous efforts, like SHALLOW GRAVE or MILLIONS, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE focuses on the process of obtaining it and the backstory that made it possible, rather using the money as a point of departure. Despite an "it is written" framework (with a seriously stacked deck), Dev Patel's Jamal is a Boyle hero that earns his destiny through experience, not chance. SLUMDOG is a very enjoyable and endlessly sincere film, I just find it odd exactly how much award season buzz it seems to be generating. I feel as if people are too afraid to mention that it has more in common with Tony Scott's DOMINO than Boyle's own masterpiece, SHALLOW GRAVE. And it's not that I don't 'get it.' I liked the movie. I understand that Jamal's life has been one long sprint from the start just to survive- to keep his head above water (or feces, in one memorable scene). But is all the shaky cam, whacky frame rate, filters upon filters, pulsating over and underexposure, hovering micro zooms, and vaguely tacky techno really necessary? Boyle's always been a filmmaker with style, but this is over the top.

In the spirit of the film in question, let's play a game. It's called: "which of the following frames come from SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and which came from Tony Scott movies?" This should be simple for all you SLUMDOG apologists. Shit, I'll even start out with an easy one:

A.


B.


C.


D.


E.


F.


And you know what? Now you've pissed me off. I'm not even gonna tell you now. Alright, fine, SLUMDOG is A., D., and E. And I didn't even have access to the most egregious, over-the-top shots. Scott's MAN ON FIRE was crucified for less. And Enya-esque wailing to accompany slow-motion sequences of emotional import? Hmm. That was kind of okay in LORD OF THE RINGS, but that was seven years ago. In SLUMDOG, its use made my hair curl. It's also pretty fair to say that about everyone is familiar with the rules to WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE. So it's insulting, when, to rachet up tension and stack the deck even further, characters insist that our hero should "just give it up and take the money- he's crazy not to!" when he still has two life-lines left. But on to the good. It's exceptionally well-acted (I especially enjoyed Anil Kapoor as the sleazy host), and its heart is in the right place. That's certainly enough to make me like it, but before you stick it on the end of the year list, ask yourself what, if anything, makes this different than a feel-good Tony Scott flick?

-Sean Gill

Film Review: THE THIRD MIRACLE (1999, Agnieszka Holland)

Stars: 4 of 5.
Running Time: 118 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Ed Harris, Anne Heche, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Barbara Sukowa (Fassbinder and von Trier alum), Michael Rispoli.
Tag-line: "Everyone needs to believe in something."

MYTH: Ed Harris only plays intense characters. FACT: Ed Harris only plays REALLY INTENSE characters. THE THIRD MIRACLE is the second of three collaborations between Ed Harris and Polish director Agnieszka Holland, the first being TO KILL A PRIEST, and the most recent being COPYING BEETHOVEN. Agnieszka is at her best when she's writing her own screenplays, and unfortunately, that's not the case here. This is a cliche-ridden, highly predictable script of a period piece that never really seems like one. But the acting...ah, the acting. Ed Harris, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Michael Rispoli, Barbara Sukowa, and even Anne Heche (who really looks like she could be Sukowa's daughter) deliver nuanced performances with a serious degree of commitment to the roles. They're unleashed on the subpar script and manage to transform it into a pretty solid movie. Ed plays a REALLY INTENSE priest trying to judge the veracity of a possible saint's miracles.

In the course of his investigation, he talks smack to an archbishop and follows it up with a smarmy grin, tastes the blood flowing from a statue, makes out with Anne Heche, reaches up to the heavens in despair, physically restrains an unruly prostitute, and basically does everything a priestly Ed Harris should. Again, I never thought I'd say this, but Harris is giving Keitel a serious run for his money for the mantle of 'most intense working actor.' Four REALLY INTENSE stars. Try not to burst a blood vessel, Ed.

Side note: Check out Ed's eyes in the poster art- it almost looks like a prefiguration of Ed's scarred, intense eye in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. Unfortunately, Ed does not have the crazy eye in this film, though I shudder to think how great the film would have been if he had.

-Sean Gill

Film Review: FLESHBURN (1984, George Gage)

Stars: 1 of 5.
Running Time: 90 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Sonny Landham, Karen Carlson.
Tag-line: " A new kind of revenge!"
Best one-liner: [while holding rabbits] "Let's go back to camp and skin these babies, and pretty soon we'll have some shoes!"
Based on the Novel: "Fear in a Handful of Dust."

There are two types of bad 80's movies: those that had no choice but to be bad from the start, like STAR CRYSTAL; and those that should have been awesome, like FLESHBURN. And there is no more heinous an affront than a bad movie that should have been awesome. The pitch: wild-eyed Native American 80's Action supporting player Sonny Landham (48 HRS., ACTION JACKSON, SOUTHERN COMFORT, etc.) gets to star as a Vietnam Vet accused of witchcraft and confined to a mental institution, he breaks out and seeks revenge. I wasn't deluded enough to expect a ROLLING THUNDER, but damn, I expected at least an EYE OF THE TIGER or a BILLY JACK. The cover depicts a shirtless Landham holding a gun in the desert as his Rambo bandana flutters in the wind.

Sonny is a former adult film star, he tried to run for governor of Kentucky, and he had a bodyguard on the set of PREDATOR––not for his own protection, but to protect others from him. Maybe some rednecks will say some racial slurs, Sonny will simmer, and then rightful asses will be kicked. Maybe some flesh will even be burned. This should be effin' amazing. Instead, it's an abominable failure with completely unlikable characters. It's not even an action movie. Sonny kidnaps some doctors who testified against him (and loses our sympathy in the process), and makes them fend for themselves in the desert.

This is the most intense action sequence in the film and also the reason why it sometimes is categorized under the subgenre 'male bondage' (seriously). Note that no flesh has been burned, merely some fake blood has been drizzled haphazardly.

That's the movie. It's about the doctors fending in the desert. Occasionally we cut back to Sonny on the hillside, playing with falcons, Native American memorabilia, or maracas. This movie is highly self-important, also, and thus offensive. Science vs. faith has never been handled so hamfistedly. There's an exceptionally weak resolution, and the visuals are despicably ugly. Shrubs obscure the actors' faces most of the time. What an energy drainer.