On "The Magnificent Seven" and Movie Remakes

As the title of this post and the picture above will tell you, we saw "The Magnificent Seven" this afternoon, and I have to say that we both liked it, and The Grandstander gives it three stars on his always reliable scale.  This movie is, of course, and remake of the 1960 classic western that was directed by John Sturges and starred, among others, Yul Brenner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn.  This version was directed by Antoine Fuqua and stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, and Ethan Hawk.

You may know the story.  A small western town is held as a virtual hostage to evil mine owner, played perfectly by Peter Sarsgaard.  A beautiful young woman (Haley Bennett), widowed when her husband was killed by the vile Sarsgaard, appeals to bounty hunter Washington, who then puts together his "magnificent seven" to save the town.  It's a familiar theme that has been told countless times ever since Hollywood began churning out  westerns.  That doesn't mean that it can't be an appealing story.  This one is beautifully filmed, and there is lots of action in it.  And violence.  Lots of people die in this one.

And how can you not like Denzel Washington.  He's terrific.  This will not make anyone's Ten Best List for 2016, but it is pretty good entertainment, and worth seeing.

Oh, and I am not going to give a spoiler here, but make sure you are in the theater as the closing credits begin.  Fuqua and the current film makers give a special sort of tribute to the original movie, and I loved it.

********

Discussing a movie like this becomes tricky sometimes because it is a remake of what many consider to be a classic.  Why does Hollywood do this, people often ask.  Why take something that everyone loves and mess with it?  And can a remake possibly be better than the original?

Well, this summer a remake of 1959's epic "Ben-Hur" was released and if you blinked, you missed it.  It bombed big time with the critics and audiences, and it was gone after a week in the theaters.  "Magnificent Seven" seems to have been given a better fate, critics may not be in love with it, but most liked it, and it grossed $34.7 million in it's first week of release.

My own feeling is that a remake should be judged on its own merits.  I saw the original "Magnificent Seven", but it has been so long that I honestly can't make a comparison to this new version.  So, I went into this one today with pretty much of an open mind. 

Some remakes are bad.  Director Gus van Sant, in a massive ego trip, remade Hitchcock's "Psycho" a few years back, and it was awful.  Never should have seen the light of day.  On the other hand, a few years back, a remake of the John Wayne Oscar winner "True Grit" was made that starred Jeff Bridges.  Was it as good, or better than the original?  Who knows, but I liked them both.

Sometimes a different spin can be put on a movie and a great improvement can be realized.    In 1931, a movie version of the Charles MacArthur-Ben Hecht play. "The Front Page" was made that starred Pat O'Brien and Adolph Menjou.  It is a fairly well regarded movie, although I confess that I can't remember ever seeing it.  In 1940, however, Howard Hawks did a remake of the movie, but made one of the reporters a female, cast Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as the leads, and renamed it "His Girl Friday", and that movie is an undisputed classic.  In 1974, one of the great directors of all time, Billy Wilder, took another stab at "The Front Page", and it became one of Wilder's more forgettable movies.  It starred Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, and Carol Burnett.  My memory of that version was that Wilder felt the need to have Lemmon and Matthau used the f-word way, way too often.  Not a good movie.

One of the more charming romantic comedies of the last twenty years or so was "You've Got  Mail" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.  Great movie, and most people who saw it didn't realize that it had been done in 1940  as "The Shop Around the Corner" with James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan.  That one shows up often on TCM fairly often, and both versions of this story are delightful.

Denzel Washington seems to be making a career of doing remakes.  "Magnificent Seven" is the third one he has done.  The first was a remake of "The Manchurian Candidate", and it was completely forgettable.  The original with Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury is one of the great political thrillers of all time.  All the new version proved was that this was one instance where it was losing proposition to mess with the original.  In 2009, Washington also did a remake of 1974's "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three", which starred Walter Matthau.  All I remember about the '09 version was a lot more cursing.  I'll never watch it again, but I'll watch the Matthau version every time it is shown on TCM.  It looks like he will do better with the "Magnificent Seven" than he will do with those other two.

(This has spawned a lot of gags, by the way about what Washington will do next.  Rick Blaine, Charles Foster Kane, Rhett Butler?  My friend Al Cotton has suggested he play Kevin McCallister in a "Home Alone" remake.)

I suppose that there are lots of reasons to do remakes.  Studios think that they can make money.  Sometimes they are pure vanity projects for actors or directors.  Sometimes a director thinks he can say something "different" with the material, and sometimes, the film maker may even be right about that.  In all instances, the movie going public will be the final judge of whether or not it was a good idea to remake a movie.

And, of course, one of the great by-products of all of these remakes is that it might send the audience back to look at the originals.  As for me, I am going to see where I can rent, buy, or stream the 1960 "Magnificent Seven" (which itself was a remake of a Japanese classic movie, "The Seven Samurai) sooner, rather than later.

Movie Review: "Muder On The Orient Express" (no spoilers)

One of the big movies of the season opening today is a new version of Agatha Christie's classic mystery thriller, "Murder On The Orient Express".  This version was was directed by and stars Kenneth Branagh as detective Hercule Poirot.

Before getting into the subject of remakes, let me concentrate on this movie.  As indicated in the title, there will be no spoilers.

The story, and there may be some of you out there who are not familiar is this:  Poirot finds himself boarding, at the last minute, the Istanbul-to-Calais Orient Express for a three day train ride across Europe.  Because of the last minute nature of his boarding, he is squeezed in among an assortment of passengers all brought together, seemingly at random, for this particular train ride.  During the second night of the trip two things occur.  An avalanche takes place and stalls the train in the somewhere middle of the Balkans, and one of the passengers is brutally murdered.  A railroad official implores Poirot to investigate and solve this mystery before the tracks are cleared so that the police officials can be presented both a victim and a perpetrator.  The killer had to be someone on the Calais Coach, but who  among them could have wanted this guy, Mr. Ratchett, dead? 

Such is the tale of one of Christie's most renowned novels, and Branagh tells the story in a stylish and very entertaining manner.  I'm not going to say any more about the mystery and its solution.  See the movie yourself and enjoy it.

Like the Sidney Lumet version of the story from 1974, this one has the requisite all-star cast that includes in addition to Branagh, Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Josh Gad, Leslie Odom, Jr., Willem Dafoe and others.  Going in, I wasn't sure that I was going to like Branagh as Poirot, but he was quite good as it turned out.  Also good in their roles were Depp (is he ever not good?) and Pfeiffer.  The movie is also beautifully filmed and  gorgeous to look at.  A very entertaining hour and fifty-four minutes, and it gets a solid Three Stars from The Grandstander.

Now, when I checked in on Facebook that I was seeing this movie today, I got a number of comments along the lines of "I saw the Albert Finney version in 1974, so I'm not going to bother with this one" or "Why bother remaking this one" or "Why should I see this one when I saw the other one. Isn't it the same story?"

The subject of remakes is one that I have written about before 

http://grandstander.blogspot.com/search?q=Magnificent+Seven

and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.  In the case of MOTOE, I had read that the Agatha Christie estate was in full support of the making of this movie because it might expose new generations of readers to Christie's works, generations of moviegoers and readers who would have no inclination to look up and watch a forty year old movie. Fair enough.

I grant you that a lot of remakes have been ill-advised and just plain bad (see what I had to say about that in the post linked above), but some of them can be quite good and can stand on their on merits alongside and even improve upon the originals.  As far as "Murder On The Orient Express" is concerned, I can say that I liked both this one and Lumet's 1974 version equally.  It's a good story, and the studios and the film makers did not skimp in making sure that they gave the public a quality production.  And isn't conversations of who was better, Albert Finney or Kenneth Branagh, Lauren Bacall or Michelle Pfeiffer, Richard Widmark or Johnny Depp, Ingrid Bergman or Penelope Cruz (for the record, I'll vote for Branagh, Depp and Bergman and call it a draw between Bacall and Pfeiffer) all part of the fun, kind of like arguing about Willie, Mickey, and The Duke?

Movie goers can decide how they want to spend their money, of course, but I hope that you not rule this version of "Murder On The Orient Express" out simply because you saw the same story done forty-three years ago.  That was a good movie, but so is this one. 

Oh, true Christie-philes will have noted that the door was left open just a crack at the end of this one for additional Branagh-as-Poirot films.  Not sure if that is what Branagh wants, but the opportunity is certainly there.

Again, Three Stars from The Grandstander.

THIS Is Why You Do Movie Remakes

A few weeks ago, after seeing the movie "In The Heights" I made the comment on Facebook that seeing a great musical such as this had really put me in the mood and anxious to see the new version of "West Side Story" from director Steven Spielberg that will be released later this year. 

Well, as you might expect, this produced a whole bunch of comments along the lines of "I'll NEVER go see a remake of such a classic movie" or "Why are they doing this?" or "How can someone even THINK of tampering with such a classic?"  It was almost as if someone was painting a Groucho Marx mustache on the Mona Lisa.

I have written on the topic of movie remakes many times, most notably HERE and and on West Side Story specifically in this past post so I will not go chapter and verse today, but let me recount one incident from my vacation last week that brought home yet another reason WHY it is not necessarily a mortal sin to remake a classic movie.

In discussing "In The Heights" with our nieces Jennifer and Jill, both of whom are in the neighborhood of fifty years of age, and Jen's son Zach, 25, who is living in Los Angeles and working on a behind the cameras career in the film industry, Marilyn and I brought up Spielberg's upcoming "West Side Story."  None of them, it turns out, had ever seen the 1961 Academy Award winning "West Side Story"!  Oh, they know the story and many of the songs, but they had never seen this classic film, but they are planning on seeing the new version of this movie.

So there you have it.  A remake of a classic film exposes new generations of viewers to a classic piece, not only of American filmmaking, but of American theater.  And at our urging, each of them said that the release of this version will prompt them, either before or after, to see the 1961 version.  That alone is a good reason to remake a Classic.  Of course, the new version of such a film needs to be well done and of high quality, too, and with Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner working with such quality source material, who can doubt that 2021's "West Side Story" will be of high quality?

Those who dismiss it out of hand and refuse to see it, could be depriving themselves of a wonderful experience.

Movie Review - "Jurassic World"

One of the plot points (insofar as this movie actually has a plot) is that the "Jurassic Park" of twenty-some years ago has become old and tired, and the owners of the Park need to keep coming up with something newer, bigger, scarier.  Something that will increase the WOW Factor of the park so that tourists will keep coming to the place and paying for "eight dollar sodas" (an actual quote from the movie).  One critic I heard on the radio said that in this regard, this movie is a perfect metaphor for Hollywood itself, with its penchant for sequels, remakes, and reboots.  Pretty clever.

You have to look at this movie in context.  Let's face it, "Citizen Kane" it ain't, nor was it intended to be so by the film makers.  It was produced to churn huge ticket sales and make money, and it appears to be doing so.  In reviewing and watching it, keep that in mind.  If it's "cinematic art" that you want, skip this and rent a Fellini movie. 

The characters in this movie are stereotyped beyond belief.

The leading man is Chris Pratt who plays Owen, and ex-Navy guy who has some sort of job at the Park training (if that's the right word for it) some of the prehistoric beasts.  He warns everyone continually that these are "living creatures" and of the dangers of messing with nature and trying to play God.  None of these objections, apparently, stop him from accepting a paycheck form the place.  He also has a history and a head-butting failed romance with.....

Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays Clair, the hard-driven and determined Career Woman who manages (we never know her exact title) the Park with a totally focused view of the "bottom line" and the profit margins.  Her two nephews, whom she claims to adore but whom she hasn't seen in years visit Jurassic World, but Aunt Clair palms them off on some other functionary because she is just too busy.  She also spends much of the movie running through the jungle in a white skirt and jacket and high heels.

She is also, I just learned, the daughter of actor/director Ron Howard, and she is quite lovely.

Yep, this is the white suit she wears throughout the movie!

Also in the cast is Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays Hoskins, some sort of government, para-military contract who is at the park to see if these animals being developed can be used for military purposes.  "Just think if we had these babies at Tora Bora" he says at one point.  His character  screams "Villain" so loudly that it's surprising that the director didn't give him a handlebar mustache that he could twirl.

Within moments of the appearances of these characters you immediately know that  (A) the two nephews are going to get into one major heap of trouble within the walls of the Park, (B) Clair and Owen are going to experience major amounts of tension, but are probably going to end up together, and (C) it is going to end very badly for Hoskins.

So, having said all that, you think I am going to say don't waste your time and money on this one, and to that I say "Hell No!"  This is a summer popcorn movie and in that context, it is great fun.  I haven't even mentioned the dinosaurs yet.  They are fabulous!  The special effects that produced these creatures are amazing, and much better than what was seen in the original Spielberg "Jurassic Park" movie from 1993.  Hollywood continues to up the ante where the Wow Factor is concerned.  And pay the extra bucks to see it in 3-D.  I did, and it was amazing.  I will also tell you that there was one moment in the movie when I literally jumped in my seat.

Hey, it's summertime, and this is the perfect movie for it.  You won't be hearing it's name much on Academy Award night (maybe for some special effects stuff), but that doesn't mean you won't be entertained by it.

Movie Review - "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"

Those of you who know me know that I am no big fan of the science fiction genre.  I saw the original "Star Wars" - once - when it came out in 1977, and have yet to see any of the couple of dozen sequels/prequels that have been made since, and I have yet to see a Star Trek movie, and that streak will no doubt remain in tact for me going forward.  However, I have to say that ever since I saw Charlton Heston tell those damn dirty apes to get their stinkin' paws of of him, and then sink to his knees at the sight of the Statue of Liberty, I have taken a liking to all of the sequels, remakes, and reboots of the Planet of the Apes movie franchise.

So, with that in mind, I took myself out to the multi-plex to see the latest installment, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", and I was not disappointed.  At the heart of the story, it's not much different than movies we have seen before involving conflict between Cowboys vs. Indians, Ranchers vs. Sodbusters, North vs. South, or Alien vs. Humans.  In this one, human survivors of a deadly "Simian Flu", which wiped out most of mankind ten years earlier, struggle to regain a power source deep in the Muir Woods north of San Francisco that is now controlled a vast colony of apes.

What is so good about this movie is the "acting" of the apes, both the human actors in ape make-up and costume, particular Andy Serkis as Caesar, and the thousand of CGI apes that fill the screen.  Simply an amazing bit of movie making.  Not a lot of recognizable actors in this one with the exception of Jason Clarke, who was in the terrific "Zero Dark Thirty", Keri Russell, once the teen sweetheart of TV's "Felicity" and now a murderous KGB
 Agent in "The Americans", and Gary Oldham, who once played Lee Harvey Oswald.  I will say this - the movie does sort of telegraph very quickly who the "good guys" and "bad guys", both human and ape, will be, but what the hell, it's still a fun movie to see.

Oh, and when this one ended, there is no doubt that there will be yet another sequel to this one, probably in 2016, and, yes, I will no doubt be there on opening weekend.

If you pay attention to such things, the Summer. 2014 movie releases have generated weak box office results for the movie studios, and Hollywood is banking big time on "Dawn..." to be a big winner this weekend and beyond to pull in the big bucks from the ticket buyers.  It is the only major release of this weekend, so it virtually has the field all to itself.  It will be interesting to see how the receipts are when all the dough is counted.

Also of interest is a trailer that was shown prior to the movie today.  It is for a movie called "The Judge" that stars Robert Downey, Jr., Robert Duval, Vera Farmiga, and Billy Bob Thornton.  It is scheduled to open in October, and it looks very promising based on the previews.  Then again, every movie looks promising based on the trailer, but I am going to be watching for this one.

"A Star Is Born"

With the arrival of Fall, Hollywood begins unleashing the movies that are deemed to be Oscar worthy, and perhaps the first such biggie arrived this week, Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born".

It is a familiar story: Established Star meets Young Up And Coming Talent and takes her under his wing, and they fall deeply in love.  Soon, Young Up And Coming Talent surpasses Established Star whose booze and drug consumption causes his career to crash and burn since he cannot live in the shadows of the Young Up And Coming Talent who has now become an Established Star herself.

In this version, Cooper plays Jackson Maine, the mega rock and roll star, who stumbles into a drag bar one night in desperate need of just one more drink.  There he sees Ally, played by Lady Gaga, performing.  He takes a shine to her, buys her a drink, listens to her sing in a parking lot, falls for her, takes her under his wing, they fall in love....., and, well, you get the idea.

Cooper and Lady Gaga

Cooper is quite a talent.  In addition to starring in this one, he produced it, co-wrote it, and directed it.  He learned to play the guitar for this role and does all of his own playing and singing.  He also wrote many of the songs that are in it.  He is an amazingly talented guy.

However, the real star of this one is Lady Gaga.   In the beginning of this one, she is stripped bare of the "Gaga" persona that we all know.  Don't get me wrong, she is not unattractive, but she is far from the glamorous star that we have come to know over the last half dozen years or so.

Stefani Germanotta, aka Lady Gaga

She is vulnerable and insecure about her looks, yet also confident in her ability to write and sing songs, and when she sings, wow!  Lady Gaga is indeed in possession of a once-in-a-generation musical voice, and does that ever come through loud and clear in this movie.  Oh, and she wrote many of the songs that she sings in this film.  She can also act.  She has dabbled in movies a little before this, but "A Star Is Born" is going to add the title of "Movie Star" to her already impressive resume.  Simply put, I loved her in this one.

Three interesting supporting roles in this one.  Sam Elliot, the voice that sold a million Dodge Rams, plays Cooper's older brother.   Ally's father is played by foul mouthed comedian Andrew Dice Clay.  Clay also had a role in Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine" (2013).  As he was in that movie, he is quite good in this one.  Finally, Ally's friend Ramon is played by Anthony Ramos, the young man who played the dual role of John Laurens/Phillip Hamilton in the original Broadway production of "Hamilton".

I mentioned in the beginning that this is a familiar story, and that leads us to the subject of remakes.  This story was first told by Hollywood in 1932 in a George Cukor directed movie called "What Price Hollywood".  I had never heard of this movie until Arch Campbell mentioned it on his movie podcast a few weeks ago. It was remade in 1937 as "A Star Is Born".  Directed by William Wellman and starring Janet Gaynor and Frederic March, and it won an Oscar for writing.  In 1954, Cukor took another crack at this one, added music and cast Judy Garland and James Mason, both of whom received Oscar nominations, in the leads.  In 1977, it was back again with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson, and it won an Oscar for Streisand and Paul Williams for Best Original Song.  

And now, forty-one years later, we are seeing it again, and the questions are once again asked, Why does Hollywood keep making remakes of movies, and SHOULD they even try?  I have talked about this subject in this forum on many previous occasions.  As to WHY, well, obviously, somebody thinks that such projects will make money for the studios, so there's that.  As to SHOULD they keep  remaking such movies, my answer is:  Yes, IF the remade film can tell the story in a different way and get the same message across, and, more importantly, IF the newer version of the story is actually a good movie.

In the case of 2018's "A Star Is Born", Cooper succeeds on both fronts, and if the movie does absolutely nothing else, it gives us Lady Gaga.  There is more to the movie than that, of course, but she alone is a reason to see this one.

Three and one-half Stars from The Grandstander.

Quickie Critical Commentaries

On this, our 19th day of self-isolation (with the exception of doctor visits and trips to the grocery store), I offer for your consideration, three movies and a novel......

"Snowpiercer" (2013).  This movie was directed by  Korean filmmaker  Bong Joon Ho.  After he swept the Oscars this year with his movie "Parasite" (which I enjoyed, btw), and upon the high recommendation of my pal Alan, I sought this one out on Amazon Prime, and watched it last night.  

After a cataclysmic event causes the earth to freeze and all life to become extinct, only a handful of humans survive and do so while residing on some sort of super train that endlessly circles the now frozen earth.  While I can appreciate the filmmaking - depiction of the train and the apocalyptic remains of Planet Earth are pretty neat - this just isn't my kind of movie.  I watched it on our downstairs TV while Mrs. Grandstander remained upstairs.  When it was over and I came back upstairs, she said "From what I could hear that sounded awful."  Pretty much so, I had to agree.

There were some names in the cast - Octavia Spencer and Ed Harris to name two, and the star was Chris Evans, who has gone on to make a name for himself in all those Captain America / Avengers movies.  In this one, he seemed to be trying to do nothing more than make himself a look-alike for U2's The Edge.

Two Stars from The Grandstander.

The next two movies are oldies and came to me courtesy of Turner Classic Movies and my DVR.

Based on and Agatha Christie play and novelette, "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957) was directed by the great Billy Wilder and starred Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, and Elsa Lanchester.  Laughton plays distinguished English barrister Sir Wilfred Roberts who is being urged to retire for health reasons. Lanchester is the nurse who is constantly nagging him to slow down, take a nap, get his shots, and stop smoking cigars and drinking brandy, all of which Laughton delightfully ignores.  He is drawn into one last case defending American ex-GI Power against a murder charge, and Dietrich plays his wife, who may or may not be devoted to him.  It's a terrific courtroom drama with a fabulous Christie twist.  Its as nominated for six Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director (Wilder), Best Actor (Laughton), and Best Sporting Actress (Lanchester).  It did not win any Oscars, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable and fun to watch.

Three and One-Half Stars from The Grandstander.

Based on a novel by John Godey, "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" (1974) was directed by Joseph Sargent and starred Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, and Jerry Stiller.  It is the story of a ruthless gang of four bandits, led by Shaw, who hijack a New York City subway train and hold it and seventeen passengers for $1 million ransom, and, oh yeah, if the money isn't delivered in one hour, they're going to start killing the hostages.   Matthau is great as the Transit Authority police lieutenant  who must negotiate with head hijacker Shaw.  Matthau plays the dramatic tough guy cop while still being, well, Walter Matthau, and he's great.  He even wears an Irish tweed hat similar to the one I bought for myself when we were in Ireland last year!  Also great in small parts of this movie were actors Lee Wallace, Doris Roberts, and Tony Roberts as the Mayor of New York, his wife, and the Deputy Mayor.

This is always a movie that is brought up when the subject of Remakes of Movies is discussed.  In 2009, someone in Hollywood thought that this movie should be redone, and it was, with Denzel Washington and John Travolta in the Matthau and Shaw roles.  Some remakes of movies are good ("Murder on the Orient Express" comes to mind), some put a different twist on a story that makes it delightful ("His Girl Friday" and "The Front Page), and others are flat out awful.  The 2009 version of Pelham One Two Three was one of them.  My own memory of the remake was the constant and incessant cursing that took place it.  It was terrible.

Stick with the 1974 Walter Matthau version.  It gets Four Stars from The Grandstander.

And for you readers out there....

Alison Thomas is the gorgeous, somewhat snotty, and affluent 18 year old daughter of a Westchester, NY family on a Christmas vacation on the Caribbean island of Saint X (a fictional place for the purposes of this recently released novel).  On the last night of the trip, Alison goes missing, and a few days later, her dead body is recovered.  Two Saint X natives who worked for the high end resort where the Thomases stayed are held and then released for lack of evidence.  

How does such an event affect the lives of those upon whom it touches?  That is the story of this novel. 

The story quickly flashes forward eighteen years, when Claire Thomas, the younger sister who was seven years old when Alison was killed, is now 25, lives and works in New York, and goes by her middle name, Emily, hops into a NYC cab and sees that her driver is Clive, one of the then young men who was arrested for and then released after the death of Alison.  Thus begins the crux of the story as Emily tracks down and develops a relationship of sorts with Clive in an effort to find out THE TRUTH behind her older sister's death.  She also needs to learn just exactly who her sister Alison was, and why her death has shaped who she, Emily, has become.

The story is then told through both Emily's and, to a lesser extent, Clive's point of view, and author Alexis Schaitkin also offers snippets of points of view from some of the people who are a part of this story....the Saint X police chief, a news reporter, other vacationers at the resort at the time of the death,  and a host of others.  It's as really clever device, I thought.  I also thought that the opening chapters, where Schaitkin describes the island and the people who inhabit it, both natives and vacationers, and what lies just below the shiny veneers of these tropical paradises, we're brilliant.  It was what hooked me from the get-go on this book.

The story also touches upon other topics - white privilege and  tabloid journalism, among others - but the most intriguing is the existential question of timing of little events in a person's life when a seemingly minor decision can effect the entire course not only of that person's life, but the lives of countless others with whom they come in contact.  It was those little moments that caused this book to stay with me after I finished it.

There were parts of the story that dragged on a bit too long for me, and might have been a bit superfluous, but I still liked the book and would recommend "Saint X"  to anyone.

Three Stars from The Grandstander.

"West Side Story" (2021)

Ever since it became known that director Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner were planning a remake of the 1961 Oscar winning film classic "West Side Story", I have been anxiously awaiting the release of this new version.  The COVID pandemic delayed its scheduled 2020 release to 2021, and today, I got to see it on a big screen in a dark movie theater.  It was wonderful.

Let's get the subject of remaking classic movies out of the way first.  I have written on this topic many times, and I think i made my feelings best known in this post from September, 2016.  Read it now to get my full opinion if you're interested, but in short, I have no problem with remakes if they are done right and with quality.  The presence of Speilberg and Kushner on the project assured, or should assure, movie lovers of that.

On to the movie.

Speilberg has kept "West Side Story" as a period piece, set in late 1950's era New York City as urban renewal is busting up neighborhoods in the name of  Robert Moses' idea of "progress."  You probably all know the story...gang/turf warfare between second and third generation Americans of Eastern European descent, the Jets, and first generation Puerto Rican immigrants, the Sharks....former Jets leader Tony falls in love with Maria, the sister of Sharks leader Bernardo...current Jet leadership wants Tony to come back to the gang to rumble with the Sharks and drive them out for good...Bernardo wants the Sharks to rumble to stake their claim to the neighborhood and, more specifically, to personally beat the shit out of Tony for daring to fall for his sister...tragedy ensues.  

Yes, Bill Shakespeare did this first back in the 17th century when he wrote "Romeo and Juliet", Arthur Laurents, Leonard Bernstein, and Stephen Sondheim took it to Broadway in 1957, and Robert Wise put it on screen in 1961.  All were brilliant, and Speilberg's 2021 version is AT LEAST as good, and probably better than the '61 film version.  It is sure to reap many Oscar nominations, and I hope that Speilberg can snag another Oscar for his mantel for directing his first musical film.

A nod to the actors in the lead roles:

Tony - Ansel Elgort

Maria - Rachel Zegler

Anita - Ariana DuBose

Bernardo -  David Alvarez

Riff - Mike Faist

Valentine - Rita Moreno

Elgort, Alvarez, and Faist all present  greater "street cred" as gang bangers than did Richard Beymer, George Chakiris, and Russ Tamblyn in the 1961 version. I can never be negative toward Natalie Wood, but I will give the nod to Zegler in this version because (a) she is authentically Latina, and (b) she did her own singing, unlike Wood in the prior film.  I will call it a draw between DuBose and the sixty years younger Rita Moreno as Anita.  And bringing the now 90 year old Moreno to play the owner of the drug store (she's Doc's widow in this version) was a master stroke by Spielberg.  She is tremendous.  Could she be the first person to receive an Oscar for playing different roles in two versions of the same movie?

Some other specific observations....

• The magnificent Bernstein/Sondheim music is still there.  Nothing taken out, nothing added.  If you tell me that these are the greatest lyrics ever written for a musical, I won't argue with you.
• Kushner gave Tony a back story.  We now know why he is working a steady job and trying to stay away from the gang life.
• The staging of "Tonight" as performed by Tony and Maria had me in tears.  Literally.  Lots of reasons for that, not the least of which were Zegler's and Elgort's singing and that it is just a beautiful song when heard in the context of the show.
• The dancing in this version was less balletic and more muscular (my God but that sounds pretentious on my part doesn't it?) than in the 1961 movie.  Made it more believable to me.  Particularly, the opening number, "When You're A Jet", and "Cool."
• Speilberg took "America" off of the rooftops and put it into the streets, and it was fabulous.  Led by DuBose and Alvarez, it was probably the best dance number in the show.

• The staging of the dance number in the gym, where Tony and Maria first meet, is almost identical to the original version, but you somehow feel closer to the action in this one.
• A fabulous presentation of "Tonight Quintet", maybe my favorite number in the play/movie, when the Jets, the Sharks, Anita, Tony, and Maria all sing about what is about to happen "tonight."
• The issues addressed in this show - immigration, prejudice, intolerance - are as relevant in 2021 as they were in 1957 and 1961, maybe even more so, and this version addresses those issues, but it doesn't bang you over the head with a hammer (as Hollywood sometimes tends to do) in doing so.
• A note to "Hamilton" fans.  Ariana DuBose played the role of The Bullet in the original Broadway production and the film version of  "Hamilton" that can be currently seen on the Disney+ streaming service.

I will tell you that if you refuse to see this movie because "there is no reason to remake" classic movies, you are being foolish and depriving yiouself of something really special.  If you do see it, and cannot bring yourself to admit that it is AT LEAST as good as, and perhaps even better than, the 1961 film, you just may have no soul.

"West Side Story" is the best movie that I have seen in 2021.  A full Four Stars from The Grandstander.

 

Old Movie Time - "The Lady Vanishes" (1979)

Back on March 7, you may recall, I wrote about how I was prompted to watch Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 spy thriller "The Lady Vanishes."  If you don't remember, then allow me to refresh your memory:

https://grandstander.blogspot.com/2020/03/old-movie-time-lady-vanishes-1938.html

Anyway, when searching out information to write about the movie, I learned that "The Lady Vanishes" has been remade a couple of times. In 2013, it was done as a made for TV movie in Great Britain, but the version that interested me was another British version that was made in 1979.  I was able to find it on Amazon Prime, and last night I watched it.

This version was made by a British director named Anthony Page and it starred Cybill Shepherd, Elliott Gould, and Angela Lansbury as the three leads.  I have confessed on these pages that I had a major crush on Cybill Shepherd since my college days.  I still do have that crush, although it is not a "major" as it was back in those days (and yes, my wife is well aware of this).  So I was predisposed to like this one, and I did.  In this version, Shepherd is a "madcap American heiress" and Gould is an American photographer for LIFE Magazine, and Lansbury is the Lady that Vanishes, but other than that, this story pretty much follows the Hitchcock original almost scene for scene.  It included the straight from central casting Brit characters of Caldicott and Charters, and in an a "who-is-that-guy?" moment, the character of Dr. Hartz was played by Herbert Lom, the guy who played Chief Inspector Dreyfuss in all of the Peter Sellers Pink Panther movies.  I won't restate the plot here; you can check that out in the linked article above.

Miss Shepherd certainly not disappoint.  She played the entire movie on a full length, backless gown that was at times breathtaking.   

She was 29 years old at the time this was made, and she was indeed beautiful.  And she did an excellent job playing "madcap."   Miss Shepherd will never be confused with Meryl Streep, but she pulled off this role with some comic timing that was pretty damn good.

Of course, a movie like this brings up the always controversial topic of Remakes of Movies, especially a remake of a "Classic Alfred Hitchcock" film, no less.  Just yesterday, I wrote of how a 2009 remake of the 1974 thriller "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" was an abomination.  1979's "The Lady Vanishes" is certainly not that.  It is a bit frothier than the original, and it is in color, not black and white (which my friend Dan will appreciate), but it is fast paced and entertaining, and it might serve another important purpose: It might prompt the viewer to seek out and watch the Hitchcock original, and that is never a bad thing.

So, all in all, I rate this at Two and One-half Stars on The Grandstander's always reliable scale.

"West Side Story" Thoughts

This past Friday evening we watched the great movie "West Side Story" on TCM.  Now I happen to love "West Side Story". I have seen the movie countless times and have seen at least one professional stage production of this classic and, dare I say, groundbreaking American musical.  However, when watching it the other night, I found that it might be, well, I hesitate to use the word "dated", but a person under the age of thirty who is seeing this for the first time in 2018 might not take to it quite like theater audiences did in 1957 and movie audiences did in 1961.

You all know the story, but if you don't its original source material is William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", which was written and first staged in England back in 1597.  The setting is the west side of New York City and it involves juvenile gangs and delinquency, specifically turf warfare between white American kids (the Jets) and Puerto Rican kids (the Sharks) who have emigrated to America.  Trouble is always percolating between the rival Sharks and Jets, but it comes to a head when Tony, the former leader of the Jets who has left the gang to move onto adult things, falls in love with Maria, the younger sister of Sharks leader, Bernardo.  Trouble and tragedy ensue and are played out to the terrific score of Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein and fabulous choreography throughout.

The themes are timeless, but when you think of hard ass gang bangers here in 2018, you don't think of Richard Beymer, Russ Tamblyn, George Chakiris and the rest of the cast doing ballet type movements and rousing dance numbers on the streets and rooftops of New York City.

 Beymer with Natalie Wood

Oscar winner Chakiris (center)

 Rita Moreno, another Oscar winner

 Tamblyn (L) and the Jets

When you're a Jet,

You're a Jet all the way....

What I am leading up to here (finally) is the fact that serious discussions are taking place in Hollywood to do a re-make of "West Side Story". Now I know that this will bring out screams and anguish along the lines of "How could they possibly think that remaking this Oscar winning classic is a good idea?  Why this verges on sacrilege!!!"

I have written on the subject of remakes before, and while I agree that some things just shouldn't be done ("Casablanca", for example), if a remake is done well and is good, and if it has something new to say or a different spin to put on a work, why not?  The names associated with this proposed remake of "West Side Story" are director Stephen Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner.  These are heavy hitters, folks, and their association with the project pretty much guarantees that this will not be a schlocky, fly-by-night production.  No one is talking about changing any of these wonderful songs, either, so I, for one, will look forward to seeing how Spielberg and Kushner will present this classic story.

Sports Movies

One of my Christmas gifts this past year was a book called "The Ultimate Book of Sports Movies" by a couple of Philly area sportswriters, Ray Didinger and Glen Macnow. If you like sports, and if you like movies, the book is a lot of fun and I highly recommend it.

(Aside to Bill Montrose (and others): this is the kind of book that would not lend itself to a Kindle. It is a big book, lots of pictures; it is the kind of book that you can just pick up and open to any spot and read and enjoy.)

The authors rate the "100 greatest sports films of all time." By nature, their list is very subjective, and subject to argument and disagreement, which is what makes it such a fun book.

They include a lot of interesting sidebar articles like "Worst Sports Sequels and Remakes" (Caddyshack II, The Longest Yard, and several of the Rocky sequels); "Actors as Athletes" (Good - Kevin Costner, Burt Reynolds. Bad - Tony Perkins, William Bendix); "Athletes Who Could Act" (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Brown, Woody Strode); "Athletes Who Could Not Act" (Dennis Rodman, Joe Namath, O.J. Simpson). Lots of good stuff like this.

You probably want to know what rates with the authors. Herewith, their Top Ten:

1. Rocky
2. Hoosiers
3. Raging Bull
4. The Natural
5. Bull Durham
6. Slap Shot
7. The Longest Yard (1974 version)
8. The Hustler
9. Caddyshack
10. North Dallas Forty

Myself, I might put Hoosiers ahead of Rocky, but I can't argue the case against Rocky as #1 too strongly. I would put Bull Durham, Field of Dreams (#11), Pride of the Yankees (#13), and Eight Men Out (#41) ahead of The Natural in terms of baseball movies only. I'm delighted to see Caddyshack in the Top Ten. I am also prompted to rent Slap Shot, and North Dallas Forty, which I have never seen, to see if they deserve their ranking.

Concerning Pride of the Yankees, it's old, it's black & white, and the producers made the movie emphasizing the love story rather than the baseball story, but if you can watch that without a tear in the eye or a lump in the throat, I'm not sure I want to know you.

Do you agree with the authors? Do you agree with The Grandstander? Whether you do or you don't, that's what makes this such a fun topic and fun book. I expect that their will be several comments on this topic.