mreid-00151 Reviews

Southern Comfort (1981)

Well Worth a Watch

[7/10 · 17 February 2021]

This film has a fantastic atmosphere and masterful cinematography, the location in the Louisiana bayous is perfect to create the eerie ominous tone which this film has so perfectly adopted. Many other reviewers have compared this to deliverance and I would definitely agree on an atmospheric and general plot level. This film feels like it was made in the early 1970s not the 1980s and fits in well with other films such as White Lightning (1973).

The acting in general is fairly good with the stand out performances being Keith Carradine and Powers Booth, as well as Brian James who some viewers may recognise as Leon from Blade Runner (1982). However some of the characters are a little 2D and could have benefitted from some more development.

This leads to the main issue with this film that is character and story development, the story is fairly predictable, with some notable exceptions and the characters are difficult to care about. Although Walter Hill fervently denied that this film was a metaphor for the Vietnam war I think it is hard to not see parallels which seem somewhat ham-fisted, this may well be by accident but I find that hard to buy and in some instances I think they detract from the film.

To conclude, I really enjoyed this film and is definitely worth a watch, particularly for the cinematography and soundtrack, but it is not without flaw.

Tombstone (1993)

Good, but not THAT good.

[6/10 · 15 February 2021]

I rewatched Tombstone for maybe the fourth time last night, while this is certainly not a bad film it is not what other people make it out to be. The majority of reviews on here comment on Val Kilmer's performance and I can't decry him of that, it really is superb (and I think was the inspiration for Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in Django: Unchained) furthermore Sam Elliot's portrayal of Virgil Earp is by far the most interesting of the Earp brothers and solidifies his position as one of the greatest western actors in history. This film is also one of the most accurate portrayals of western life in the 1880s and any history buff will be thrilled with this depiction.

However, I find the love sub plot tedious and somewhat unnecessary but I understand why they put it in the movie, it makes it accessible to a wider audience and admittedly it does make the Wyatt's failing marriage subplot slightly more interesting. Overall I find this film deeply unsatisfying, the shootouts feel over-choreographed, bloodless and a little boring and everyone is able to fire 500 shots before reloading (I know this is common in movies, but in westerns its never been so overt).

My least favourite aspect of this film though is its ability to make me cringe. Starting with the mirroring of the 3 couples in the glass moving on to the awful 'latin scene' and theatre show and ending with I think we can all agree is one of the worst slow motion "no"s in history.

To conclude, this film is worth a watch but mainly for Kilmer and Elliot the rest of the cast is fairly boring with the exception of powers booth, the story is average at best given that they had one of the most interesting sources of history to work with and the shootouts are underwhelming.

Heartbreak Ridge (1986)

My Greatest Disappointment

[2/10 · 19 January 2021]

As a boy I was raised on my dad's Clint Eastwood DVDs and recommendations. I could nearly quote every line from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or Kelly's Heroes and as I got older I began to appreciate his more mature films like the Outlaw Josey Wales and High Plains Drifter.

One night, when I was about 15, I saw Heartbreak Ridge advertised on the Film Channel for the next day, my anticipation and excitement grew at the prospect of a Clint Eastwood war film I had never even heard about. Eagerly the next night I tuned into what I thought was going to be another movie I would watch 100 times over.

It started off well, the images of Korea and Vietnam, slowly fading into colour and by far the best part of the entire film with grizzly Gunnery Sergeant Highway beating up thugs in the jail cell and wise cracking in court. I thought this was going to be great a real gritty war film about the marines with Eastwood showing what he can do.

Then slowly but surely my expectations were destroyed, bad acting by men who looked younger than I did, certainly they didn't look like marines, countless gags which I quickly tired of,I like humour but it was starting to get in the way of my War film (Every Which Way But Loose was more serious). Then Musical Numbers?!

By the halfway point id seen more singing dancing and barbershop quartet than a badass Clint Eastwood film, the only reason I was still watching was because of Eastwood's performance which as usual was stellar. I hung on until the invasion of Grenada, "finally some action" I thought. No, what I saw belonged in some B-Rate action movie with Chuck Norris or an episode of the A-Team. Gunny Highways Language was more violent than the pathetic excuses of firefights thrown on the screen. It was at this point I turned off the TV. The only Clint Eastwood film I hadn't watched through whole the first time.

About 4 years later I tried watching it again just in case I had missed something, I hadn't, and frankly I wish I hadn't bothered to watch the ending the second time, which felt like something out of Scooby Doo.

This Film, deserves a special place in cinema hell, nearly the only good thing about it is Eastwood. This is also the lowest score I have given any Eastwood Film on IMDB and I will stand by this.

Finally, If you are an Eastwood fan and haven't seen this movie avoid it like the plague, at best I would recommend watching Gunny Highway Clips on YouTube.

We were looking for a few good Films, and this AINT IT.

Pale Rider (1985)

Good but not Eastwood's best.

[6/10 · 19 January 2021]

Pale rider is a film that I have long wrestled with. On the one hand Eastwood gives another stellar performance in his role as the unnamed preacher, and John Russell as Marshall Stockburn is a perfect casting.

The action is well shot and cathartic, particularly the build up of tension in the final shootout leading to the climax. The supernatural/religious element works well and never feels like it is being pushed to hard and taking away from the atmosphere, Eastwood managed this well in 1973's High Plains Drifter too. In addition the landscapes, set and costume design, and general cinematography all look great.

However, I have never felt the same affection to Pale Rider as I have to Eastwood's other westerns. The 'romantic' sub plot between the Preacher and Megan always felt a little off, even when I was younger, both in terms of it being a bit creepy and that it doesn't add much to the film. The tension caused between Sarah falling in love with the preacher I feel does add something to the film, but again seems like someone is trying to shove a Tom Cruise plot into my Clint Eastwood western.

Although the points above are the main reason I don't particularly look forward to watching Pale Rider, there is something about it I don't like which I can't put my finger on, I know that isn't helpful for a review but it is hard to sum up.

To conclude this review, Pale Rider is an interesting movie, particularly the first time you watch it, and although I have grown closer to it as I have got older, I do not have the same satisfied feeling when it finishes as I do with many of Eastwood's other films.

Dragged Across Concrete (2018)

Flawed, but enjoyable.

[7/10 · 19 January 2021]

Firstly this was not the movie I was expecting it to be, when saw the title, premise and two leads, (Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn) I was expecting a fast paced action film with someone getting shot every two minutes. I was pleasantly surprised with what I got instead.

I was initially shocked by the pacing of this film, but by the end I was won over by the extremely effective slow burn and beautiful lighting and composition. The actors were all pretty effective in their roles and I was pleasantly surprised by Vince Vaughn, as I have only really seen him in comedic roles and didn't expect as great a performance as he gives, really the stand out role in the film for me. I read one user's review commenting that Gibson is no Clint Eastwood, however I really can't see any comparison between this role and a role Eastwood played at this age. I see this more as a Charles Bronson role (and not one in a B-rate third sequel directed by Michael Winner) its dark and brooding but you still root for the character even though they are deeply flawed.

As I mentioned before the lighting and composition in this film are excellent, there isn't much fancy camera work, but its not needed for this type of film. All in all the mood and atmosphere of the film were what hit me the most, the themes are fairly obviously displayed but this film somehow really hit me and made me think about what was expressed.

As much as I enjoyed this film, it does have flaws. I think the first act could have been sped up a little bit to cut the film down to two hours and this would have made the final act more rewarding, but I can understand why the director chose to do this. The script certainly isn't Oscar winning but it serves its purpose and isn't terrible. The story is a little weak at times, but again I draw comparison to a Bronson style film, I think the atmosphere and mood make up for the lack in quality of the story, and the violence was made more impactful by its scarcity.

To conclude, this film isn't what I was expecting, and I think the largely negative reviews on here are due to this. However, the film shows great promise for its director and again I really was pleasantly surprised by Vaughn's performance. I really did enjoy it and for those with a love of cinema I think its definitely worth the watch but this isn't your Friday night action flick if that's what you're after.