Blow Out (1981)

Introduction:

I’ve been trying to catch up on the filmography of Brian De Palma. The guy knows how to craft a great thriller, and his visual style is always enjoyable. One movie I always hear about is this flick from 1981 featuring John Travolta. As I’m looking over the cast list I wonder if he pitched this right after he did Carrie. But no he did a few movies in between. The concept sounded intriguing so I was looking forward to this one.

Summary:

Jack (John Travolta) is a sound designer for low budget horror flicks. One night he is out capturing some sounds for his latest project when he witnesses a car accident. He rushes over to help and saves a young woman, Sally (Nancy Allen) from drowning in the submerged car. But a powerful senator dies.  Jack is questioned and some mysterious folks ask him to forget the whole incident and Sally.

But Jack feels that something is wrong. He goes over his recording and starts to piece together the sounds. It becomes more and more apparent that what appeared to be a simple tire Blow Out may have been caused by a gunshot. As he delves deeper into the investigation a mysterious man, Burke (John Lithgow) begins his own operation, and he’s starting to see Jack and Sally as real problems. Is Jack just paranoid or is there a conspiracy going on that may end up with him as the victim of the next accident?

Good Points:

• An interesting set up for a solid thrill maker
• Travolta and Allen have great chemistry
• Some excellently crafted scenes and build-ups

Bad Points:

• Travolta gets a little too Saturday Night Fever at times
• Once you see Lithgow in the film, you pretty much know how his character will play out
• The ending is a throwback to 1970s thrillers and doesn’t quite feel right

Overall:

This is a movie that is well crafted and maybe if I was in a different mood I would have enjoyed it a bit more. I really like the idea of a sound man capturing this key moment in an accident and realizing it might be murder. But I think the similar concept in The Conversation handled the whole thing a bit better. Travolta’s performance is a bit uneven at times, but his chemistry with Allen is what makes it all work. I’m not a huge fan of the ending, but the ride to get to it was fun enough. Worth checking out if you are in the mood for a 70s style thriller with a dash of DePalma’s style.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Enjoying the content, click an ad before you go.

Passion (2012)

Introduction:

What happens when The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo meets the meanest of the Mean Girls? Well if Brian De Palma is at the helm then you can at expect some sexy thrills, a few dark laughs and some wonderful camera work. Unless Mr. De Palma wasn’t up for the task. Was this a passion project or just a snooze at the wheel?

Summary:

Christine Stanford (Rachel McAdams) is the star of her company. She can tangle with the big boys, swim with the sharks and always walk away with the deal. Isabelle James (Noomi Rapace) is the up and coming exec, full of bright ideas and energy to make her mark. But one of her bright ideas has just netted a huge client, some major money – and Christine takes all the credit and rewards. At first Isabelle is offended and disturbed by this, but then uses it as a teaching tool.

When she attempts to get back at Christine, she finds herself seriously outmatched. Isabelle endures a very public humiliation, and starts to crack. But just how far will Isabelle go to make sure Christine never does the same thing to anyone else? Is this game of revenge based on cold ego or is it all a serious crime of Passion?

Good Points:

• De Palma’s mastery of visual style is in full display
• Has some fun and unexpected twists
• The cast is having a blast in the parts

Bad Points:

• May be too stylized for those looking for a serious grim thriller
• None of the characters end up being very likable
• May seem a bit tame compared to some of De Palma’s earlier work

Overall:

This film is like a throwback to the 1990s thriller genre, with wicked women, sexy situations and plot twists that are unbelievable but fun. De Palma makes it all work with some wonderful cinematography and editing. He keeps the viewer guessing a number of times as the story progresses. It is a nifty thriller for an evening viewing, and one that reminds you how much fun this genre can be.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Untouchables (1987)

Introduction:

Brian De Palma returns to the world of gangsters. This time he travels back to the Prohibition era, instead of revisiting the world of Scarface. With David Mamet on board for the script and Sean Connery bringing some class to the cast you'd think the buzz would be about the film. Instead all anyone on TV could talk about was how much weight Robert De Niro gained for the part. Kinda missed the point there folks. Thing is, you may not notice his chubbiness with all the bullets and blood flying.

Summary:

Prohibition rages throughout the United States, and gangsters like Al Capone (Robert De Niro) are making a killing, and killing anyone that gets in their way. Things have gotten so bad in Chicago that a special unit is formed to take down Capone. The leader of that team is Eliot Ness (Kevin Coster) a man with a strong sense of justice and a desire to uphold the law. Unfortunately Ness is thwarted the rampant corruption in the police force, and finds himself at a loss. So he creates a band of incorruptible, untouchable men who will strike Capone where it hurts.

There’s Jim Malone (Sean Connery) a beat cop whose world-weary experience guides the team. Sharpshooter George Stone (Andy Garcia) is the youngest member of the team. Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) may be an accountant, but his research into Capone’s finances may provide the key to bringing down the gangster. But arrayed against them are a bunch of Tommy guns, exploding children and a wicked henchman played by Billy Drago. Will Eliot Ness and his Untouchables be able to clean up Chicago?

Good Points:

• Some great dialogue and entertaining performances
• De Palma’s brisk pace and visual flourishes keep things interesting
• Balances the action with human drama

Bad Points:

• Some of the acting choices are… interesting
• The visual flourishes will rub some folks the wrong way
• This is one violent movie and bloody movie

Overall:

This is one of those movies I loved in my youth. I loved the energy to it, and the way De Palma filmed the Prohibition era. I was wondering if I would still enjoy it so many years later. Some of the shine has worn away, but the movie is solidly entertaining. Some of the dialogue is still very quotable. Some of the visual sequences are still impressive. And while Connery’s accent seems a bit silly to me these days, his performance gives the movie a nice heart. I enjoyed revisiting this one.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Introduction:

Although people like to complain how Hollywood has no new ideas these days, the problem was actually alive and well back in the 1990s. That was the decade that brought us films based on Saturday Night Live characters and The Beverly Hillbillies movie. But there was some good that came out of it. Tom Cruise wanted an action vehicle to star in and he picked the old 60s espionage series Mission: Impossible. It started a film franchise, but does the first film hold up?

Summary:

It was just an ordinary impossible mission for Jim Phelps (Jon Voight instead of Peter Graves in the role) and his crew. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is Phelps right hand man and leading the team in the field. But before you can say double-cross, everyone on the team is killed and Ethan is the prime suspect. With the rest of the IMF (Impossible Mission Force) hunting him down, Ethan turns to a set of disavowed agents to help clear his name.

The cat and mouse game begins, as Ethan goes underground recruiting his new team, while dealing with an arms dealer, breaking into the IMF headquarters and getting in and out of all kinds of scrapes. Can Ethan trust anyone on his ragtag crew, or is this one Mission: Impossible that he won’t survive? The impressive cast includes: Emmanuelle Beart, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave and Emiio Estevez.

Good Points:

• A twisty story just made to build suspense
• Solid casting helps the whole thing flow
• De Palmas visual style is a perfect fit

Bad Points:

• For some folks the story is a bit too twisty
• Those looking for action will be disappointed
• I didn’t need to see Jon Voight’s cheeks vibrating across my screen

Overall:

One of the many spy films of the 1990s, but one that holds up well to repeat watching. DePalma’s sure handed direction keeps the movie suspenseful and exciting. You can’t turn your brain off if you want to follow the plot, but it’s not nearly as complicated as some folks complained. Cruise makes the character of Hunt compelling and watchable. It’s easy to see why this launched a franchise.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review. 

Mission: Impossible Reviews

• Mission: Impossible
• Mission: Impossible 2
• Mission: Impossible 3
• Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
• Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

The Black Dahlia (2006)

Introduction:

It’s a murder mystery that has plagued Hollywood since 1947, and countless books and television series have explored the brutal and mysterious death of Elizabeth Short, known as The Black Dahlia. Is there anything new to say? Well director Brian De Palma must have thought so. He took James Ellroy’s novel and brought it to the screen.

Summary:

Bucky (Josh Hartnett) and Lee (Aaron Eckhart) are two ambitious cops who have different approaches to enforcing the law. Lee is much more aggressive, going for the throat. Bucky is more willing to let things unfold, to make sure they are catching the right criminal. But all that gets turned on its head when they are put in charge of finding the killer of Elizabeth Short (Mia Krishner).

Soon, the dead girl becomes an obsession for both cops and leads them down very different but destructive paths. Lee’s girlfriend Kay (Scarlett Johansson) is afraid for both men. And Bucky gets entangled with the sultry and unstable Madeleine Linscott (Hilary Swank). It becomes very obvious that anyone involved in the case of The Black Dahlia is going to end up with a touch of madness.

Good Points:

• Some great style to the filming and production
• Wonderful noir score by Mark Isham
• Not afraid to get seedy and dark

Bad Points:

• Wow is Josh Hartnett miscast
• Should be called “Bucky’s Screwed Up Life”
• Extremely disjointed

Overall:

The focus of the film is on Bucky and his life as a cop. Yes the Black Dahlia case plays into this and provides the climax (with a solution for this unsolved case), but the bulk of the film is watching him self-destruct. Not a bad thing, if the actor had been up to the task. But Josh Harnett never connects with the viewer. Combined with a severely edited final product and De Palma’s very stylized vision the end result is a bit of a mess. Noir fans may find something to like, but mostly it’s a misfire.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 2

Music: 4

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.