Book review - "Ready When You Are, Mr. Coppola, Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Crowe" by Jerry Ziesmer

 Memoir of an assistant director has some decent moments but needed an edit. Too much Apocalypse Now and schedules not enough personalities. Fun sketches of Sly Stallone (nutty but endearing), Cameron Crowe (all positive), Tom Cruise (hyper), Robert Redford (charming but a c*nt), Babs (into everything), Peter Bogdanovich (didn't expect Illegally Yours to be made), Otto Preminger (a bully who was a pussycat).

Most memorable bit is fact Ziesmer's son killed himself. I did like him schmoozing extras on The Way We Were. I guess it's interesting how they did Superbowl in Black Sunday.  

Book review - "Sonny Boy" by Al Pacino (2024)

 Fun. Actor-y. Rambles. I listened to the audio book. Helped a lot. He's a man child. A creature of Greenwich Village. Thought nothing of playing gay characters in the 70s. Loves the process. Keeps dating actors (good taste: Diane Keaton, Beverly d'Angelo, Tuesday Weld, Marte Keller, Jill Clayburgh, Kathleen Quinlan). Hopeless with money. As in, a kid. Bumbles through life. Loves his craft.

Some great stories like Diane Keaton going to Pacino's accountant after he was broke "don't you know who this man is? He's an idiot! A child!" Pacino going to the Oscars stoned.

Leaves out stuff, like Lyndall Hobbs.

Enjoyable read.

Al Pacino Top Ten

 1) The Godfather - yes, I know, easy choie

2) Dog Day Afternoon - ditto - he's still very good

3)Cruising - I gotta say, he commits

4) Heat -I used to find this hammy now I find it great

5) Dick Tracy - over the top fun

6) Carlito's Way - the film is still underrated, it's terrific

7) Donnie Brasco - this is a very good movie

8) Glengarry Glenn Ross - Pacino had such a 90s hot streak (cf the 2000s)

9) Any Given Sunday - not belivable as a footbal player but lots of fun

10) Scarface - sure why not

Unmade Ryan O'Neal

 A series of films that sound pretty good

1) Out of Africa, based on the famous book, from director Nic Roeg with Julie Christie - this could've been fantastic, different from the Pollack version but with Julie Christie... wow

2) The Champ, a remake of the 1932 film, directed by Franco Zefferelli - O'Neal was going to do this but quit when the director wouldn't let his son co star - big mistake, he did Oliver's Story instead, bigger mistake

3) The Bodyguard - same Lawrence Kasdan script, with Diana Ross, and John Boorman directing - would've been amazing... possibly, if the director didn't rewrite all the popularity out of it.

4) The Thorn Birds, based on the best selling novel with Arthur Hiller directing - an utterly, utterly perfect film for O'Neal, who stepped in when first choice Robert Redford pulled out... I think it fell over when Warner Bros decided to not make a movie out of it... it became a fabulously successful mini series with Richard Chamberlain... 

5) First Blood - Morrell's novel was optioned constantly from 1972 with Richard Brooks, and Martin Ritt among those seriously interested in doing it - potential stars included Al Pacino, Steve McQueen, Robert de Niro. Clint Eastwood, John Travolta, Powers Boothe... and Ryan O'Neal apparently. That's what he said in his memoirs - that Freddie Fields offered him the part but O'Neal turned it down because he didn't want to leave Farrah Fawcett at the time, which puts it in the early 1980s.

Movie review - "The Irishman" (2019) *** (re-watching)

 Thoughts:

- it's boring mostly

- lots of old man acting

- Joe Pesci steals the film - restrained, powerful, intense, he's great

- I liked the younger support 

- what's it about? The friendship between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro isn't real. De Niro is his lacky. He's Pesci's lacky. 

- maybe you could interpret this as the story of a man who is full fo crap and a fantasist a la King of Comedy - that would've been really interesting and you can see it here a little but you have to squint

 - you could also see it as the inability of servants to have proper friendships with their masters, but again you have to squint

- de Niro is a great actor but he's so Italian it's kind of silly he's in a film called the Irishman, he never seems Irish - it didn't matter in Goodfellas I felt it mattered here

- Anna Pacquin has seven words of dialogue and later de Niro complains he won't walk to her - that is genuinely hilarious

- other female "roles" include: wives who smoke and that's it, a daughter who cries and that's about it, a daughte who got married - there's a scene between de Niro and a blonde daughter which isn't bad but might mean more if we'd spent more time

- it repeats story beats constantly eg there's two scenes of Pesci telling de Niro they have to kill Pacino  - or scenes that could've been cut - there's so much that could've been cut

- for all it's flaws it's clearly made  by people with talent and has memorable moments like the build up to the murder of Hoffa, de Niro talking about Hoffa to a nice nurse who has no idea who Hoffa is, old Pesci being wistful in prison about killing Pacino - I enjoyed the last half hour but that was in part because of relief the film was over

Movie review - "Scarface" (1983) ***1/2

 Beloved by rappers, gangster and film bros. It's a bold movie to be sure full of set pieces: Al Pacino's opening interrogration, the murder of the ex Castro officer in the camp, the chainsaw murder sequence, the climax.

It has a record for swearing and acutally doesn't need the swearing, or at least that uch. It needed the violence to be what it is. It's also the bright bold colours, the fashion, the music score, the sets. Brian De Palma excels at operatic style pices of which this is one.

Oliver Stone and De Palma match wonderfully - their politics were in synch I feel with its satire on capitalism and so on. Both liked to go "big" so they do.

The acting is terrific. Pacino at his full hammy best, Steven Bauer as the sleek and sexy George Raft type (what a lost star), Michelle Pfeiffer as the zoned out trophy, Mary Stuart Mastrantonio as the frizzy haired sister lusted after by Pacino, Harry Yulin as a slimy cop, F Murray Abraham fabulous as a crime guy, Robert Loggia maybe a little accent-y as a drug lord, Paul Shenar is electric as the Bolivian drug lord.  The girl who flirts with Bauer outside the apartment prior to the chainsaw scene mysteriously vanished after filming. Richard Belzer plays a comic. Lana Clarkson has a small part.

The middle section is a little dull. The female characters are about as well defined as you'd expect from Oliver Stone (rich girl turned whore, poor girl turned whore, whore, whining mother).  The scenes with Pfeiffer lack any sort of detph. She's not into him at all there's no connection - so when she leaves it means nothing. (Pfeiffer is very effective).

Also Pacino's character is such a psycho that after a while nothing he does has impact. He shoots everyone - drug dealers, his boss, another boss, his boss' helper. So when he shoots Bauer it feels nothing. I guess he doesn't kill the poitical guy when that guy is with his wife and kid. But it's such a fabulous performance.

Still the ending is fun with Pacino in front of a massive pile of cocaine as the drug lord's gunman storm the mansion and MSM tormenting him in underwear over his incestuous love while firing a gun.

Movie review - "Carlito's Way" (1993) **** (warning spoilers)

 Brian De Palma at his peak, an excellent cohesive gangster melodrama with Al Pacino as a Bogart/Cagney type, out of prison and just tryin' to go straight. There's a shifty lawyer (Sean Penn), a young punk (John Leguizmo) who he sets free and lives to regret it, colourful sidekicks (Luiz Guizman).

This doesn't get the love of Scarface but it's extremely well made. De Palma's directrion is confidence and secure - things like the final chase scene were Pacino is trying to go to the train station a la Cablanca with Guizman as Dooley Wilson and Penelope Ann Miller as Ingrid Bergman, you can feel the director having the time of his life.

Plot wise the film probably relies on Sean Penn's character being dodgy too much. I mean he pulls the big betrayal of Pacino, getting him in trouble, then also betraying him... Pacino really is a dill to no turn evidence and look after his woman. I wish a little more complexity was in his relationship with Penn.

Miller is likeable, with a memorable nude scene (it's true). Viggo Mortensen turns up. Pacino plays a super hero - tough, loyal, won't dog, sticks by his mates, is a hero in a gun fight, catnip to the ladies (the black waitress wants him), the biggest dick on the block... just overly loyal. But because we know from the opening scene he's going to die the whole film has a powerful undercurrent.

One of De Palma's best.

Book review - "Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli: The Epic Story of the Making of The Godfather " by Mark Seal

 I knew all the stories but it was fun to read anyway because the making of this film is a classic story, full of colorful characters (Bob Evans, Coppola, Charlie Bludhorn, Puzo, Brando, Caan, various mafiosos - Al Ruddy is among the least colourful) and genuine conflict (mafia opposition, Evans vs Coppola). The sections on dealing with cinematographers and designers are particularly strong.

Movie review - "Revolution" (1985) **

 Hugh Hudson's feature directing career was comet like - Chariots of Fire, Greystoke then this. He made other films of course but none seemed to register. The account of the making of this is in the brilliant My Indecision is Final. It's a classic director-not-good-at-narrative film: stunning vistas, sweeping shots of extras, stunningly good period recreation. The costumes, sets and dirt all feel so real.

The dialogue is minimised as if worried about reaction to how characters talk. Pacino copped it but his accent is no weirder than others in the movie.

The plot involves Al Pacino and his son - the latter enlists in the Revolutionary army so Pacino joins up to keep him alive. That's not a bad idea for a movie. But Hudson can never put it together as a cohesive emotional story.

There are moments - arriving on a boat in the war torn town, enlisting, the British troops in a line marching to attack, English officers chasing captured American prisoners like hounds while wearing face paint, Natassa Kinski yelling at her family for wearing face paint.

Connective tissue seems to be missing - Kinski walks around looking at the injured, then she's in a field looking at the injured Pacino and his son, then she'd back in town and sees Pacino again. Kinski walks around a lot looking for Pacino. Pacino is captured basically by the American army then seems free then is captured by the British then seems to get free. He finds his son who was still captured then is free. Somehow he and Kinski fell in love.

Richard O'Brien is a mean Britisher. I think Donald Sutherland is rooting these drummer boys is that right? Kids die. There's bloody stumps. Corpses. Groaning. Nihilism.

I think at heart this should've been a gritty low budget film like The 317th Platoon. But Hudson can't resist big sweeping vistas either. This sunk him. Apparently the recut fixes some problems but it's impossible to imagine it improved it too much.

Book review - "Heat 2" by Michael Mann and Meg Gardiner (2022)

 Interesting. Some great scenes. Reads like a Michael Mann script at time - in terms of big print. Characterbios. Not a lot of interior monologue. We don't get to know much about any of the others in the gang - the driver, Tom Sizemore, the other guy... just Val Kilmer and some de Niro and Pacino.

There's a convenient horrible villain who spans time and characters a version of Waingro. Some thrilling sequences - tracking him down in Chicago, and then in Mexico, and then in LA. Actually that is very repetitive. No bank robbing.

Chris/Kilmer goes to Paraguay. That's cool. Lots of research about electronics - a hangover from another script?

It clearly uses research from other Mann scripts (esp 2006 Miami Vice, Blackhat).. without going into spoilers I'd say it's entertaining and worth a read, I'm not sure it would make a great movie (how would you cast it? de-aging tech?) esp as it lacks a core central relationship like the one between Pacino and de Niro in the 1995 film (Pacino/Hanna and de Niro/McCauley were in love with each other, Pacino/Hanna and Kilmer/Chris doesn't have the same resonance) and the plotting over-relies on a super duper convenient Waingro-type character, but there's some very exciting sequences and I would totally be interested in reading novels of Thief, The Keep, Jericho Mile and yep I'll say it Blackhat...

Movie review - "House of Gucci" (2021) ****

 Grand old school melodrama. A modern day Bette Davis film. Lady Gaga is a star - she can act with her face without dialogue, she's open to the camera, emotive. Sure she's a bit hammy but it suits the part and she's matched in ham stakes by other actors: Al Pacino, Adam Driver, Salma Hayek (great to see her), Jared Leto, Jeremy Irons. Jack Huston scores heavily merely by being still and watchful.

Looks gorgeous with clothes and what not. Ex ad man Ridley Scott is at home showing male and female beauty.

Just a good old ripping yarn, well told, not dragged out over nine episodes.

Movie review - "Dick Tracy" (1990) ***

 I'm of the movie going generation for whom Warren Beatty really doesn't mean that much. Sorry, just being blunt. When Ishtar and this came out it wasn't as though there was Beatty fever.

There's much to admire here. The gorgeous production design. The tone. The story is effective. The colourful characters. The world. The costumes. The acting. The music.

Warren Beatty's direction is maybe a little off. Or it could be him. Or maybe me. I felt it needed someone harder - Beatty had soft elements about him. It should have been Clint Eastwood (who turned it down) or maybe Robert de Niro. I bought Beatty as a shy lover not so much the tough guy.

I agree with the screenwriter who worked on this who said John Landis would've been a more suitable director. I agree. Walter Hill's version would've been interesting - a Warriors style take.

Al Pacino's haminess suits it. Fun to see people like Dick Van Dyke, Dustin Hoffman and James Caan. Sondheim's tunes are perfect.

Movie review - "The Irishman" (2019) ***

The trailer didn't look great but I allowed myself to be caught up in the hype of people in twitter. It's not a bad movie, of course... but when it starts with a tracking shot through a nursing home with some 50s pop tune I couldn't help thinking "haven't we seen this already?"

And yeah we kind of have. 

There's a lot of loving period detail, an excellent actors and moments of people being shot. But a lot of the time I was going "so what?" He was a war veteran and takes that attitude into working for the mob... Jimmy Hoffa is corrupt... his kids didn't like him...

The de-aging technology is interesting. It's very well acted and directed. The killings are effective, particularly the death of Hoffa. It gets better as it goes on and focuses on the leads being old men. Nice to see Joe Pesci being still. The movie is absolutely fine. Maybe it'll stay with me.

Book review - "My Indecision is Final" by Jake Eberts and Terry Illot

A classic business biography - I can't think of any look at a film production company that's as comprehensive. I meant it goes into a lot of detail about film financing - a lot. But I didnt mind that.

Goldcrest Films was a true shooting comet of the British film scene. It had incredible luck out of the gate, not just with Chariots of Fire and Gandhi but also side investments like The Howling and Escape from New York. But like many a fresh production company once it established a formula that worked - only invest in products from experienced responsible filmmakers, do British stories based on something - they departed from that formula, investing in a lot of first time filmmakers, getting lost in the wilds of television, over expanding.

This book is part memoir from co founder Jake Eberts so is very sympathetic to Eberts but not without criticism. It also tries to be fair to James Lee - which is why Lee ultimately comes out of it so badly.

The best bits of the book are in the second half when they make Absolute Beginners, The Mission and Revolution and you know it's going to end badly. It's gripping, watching-people-jump-off-a-cliff stuff.

There are plenty of lively personalities - David Puttnam, Hugh "perfectionist" Hudson, Dickie Attenborough, James Lee. Some talented, some simply mediocre white men who think the world owes them a living.

I've got to say while Absolute Beginners shouldn't have been made, at least not for anything other than a low budget, I'm glad it was made. 

And no one seems to watch Gandhi any more.

A grand book.

Movie review - "Cruising" (1980) ***

A real end of the 70s movie - writers often can't resist the synergy of Sorcerer coming out the same time as Star Wars but William Friedkin still had enough cache to make this with what I assume was pretty much total freedom. Like Sorcerer its reputation continues to rise.

This copped it  at the time because it was about a gay serial killer and there weren't many gay characters on screen. In recent years it's been more appreciated as a period piece and people seem less touchy about the subject matter - possibly because it's a period piece, that time has passed... but also because there are a lot more gay characters on screen now. (Not saying things still don't have a way to go, just pointing out it's more than it was.)

It's a remarkably frank piece with cop Al Pacino going undercover in leather bars to find a serial killer. The scenes in bars are quite full on - not the nice dancing in Police Academy films but lots of sex,people standing around watching others having sex, rock and roll dancing, drugs. It's a sealed world- indeed one of the club managers instantly spots Pacino for a cop and tells him to leave! But by the end of the film he's got his act down pat - he seems to know exactly what to say. You can read this film a number of ways - one of those ways is a heroes journey where Pacino learns how to have sex with guys.

It doesn't spell out that he has sex with guys but it is implied. It affects his sex life with Karen Allen, he seems to know all the lingo at the end, when the police come in to rescue him he's all tied up and tells the cops that they're too soon.

It's a confronting film in a lot of ways. We get to spend a little time with some of the victims before they're killed, so we get to know and like them, and are with them as they get killed, which isn't fun.

There's lots of loose ends which I know Friedkin will say are deliberately ambiguous but personally I think is just sloppy screenwriting from someone who wasn't a professional screenwriter - they don't resolve the cops who force gays to have sex with them (Paul Sorvino just finds out the gays are telling the truth), they don't resolve if there's another serial killer, or explain who that tall black man in a thong is who comes in during the interrogation (apparently the cops would do that to make any complaint about police brutality seem silly - why not include a line to cover that?). There are hints of Pacino having a poor relationship with his dad which aren't chased up. Pacino learns the saying of the killer "I'm here you're here" even though it was misheard by others and we never find out why.

Pacino is frustratingly passive a lot of the time. He spends a lot of time hanging out, not really doing much detecting. The big breakthrough - the fingerprint on a movie machine - comes through other cops. He spends a lot of time chasing a suspect who we know isn't the killer because he doesn't look like the person who the killer is - because we've seen enough of the killer. I get this happens in investigations it just feels like a waste of time to watch. He does some detecting at the end but that seems to be mostly stalking this guy and breaking into his apartment.

One friend thought the ending implied that the evil spirit of the killer might have passed in Pacino, like The Exorcist - which does make sense, even though it's not clear, but is a case of a filmmaker ripping off their own successful work.

Personally I don't think he's the serial killer at the end. Why would he kill the playwright? The playwright was his friend - serial killers tend not to kill their friends. Also the playwright was a different look to the other victims. And the boyfriend does have a good motivation.

I did like the depiction of the  homophobia of the time - matter of fact and horrible: cops coercing drag queens into performing sex acts, serial killers of gay men only getting eight years, cops beating up a gay to get a confession.

Some excellent performances, including Pacino, Paul Sorvino as a cop (interesting limp), James Remar as a flamboyant dancer (he's good!), Ed O'Neil. Powers Boothe pops up with a funny scene as a salesman.

An interesting, challenging film. Spielberg was going to direct it at one stage!

Script review - "Francis and the Godfather" (warning: spoilers)

Fun script, a little roughly written in places and at times felt like a collection of anecdotes rather than a cohesive story, but I guess how else would you do it? It's also entertaining.

The character of Coppola is a little sketchy and passive but there are entertaining turns from Evans, Brando, Pacino, James Caan. The script is a little mean on Ryan O'Neal and Stanley Jaffe. I love the way they co op the film's climax.

Movie review - "Heat" (1995) ****1/2 (re-viewing)

-->

Some random thoughts from re-watching this film

1) Al Pacino's hair is really outstanding

2) I've never eaten ham as finely cut as Pacino's performance in this film. Not a criticism. It's really outstanding ham.

3) Surely one of the best endings of all time.

4) I always totally forget Natalie Portman is in this film and has quite a meaty role.

5) The Dennis Haysbert subplot is brilliant and really holds up.

6) There are few more thankless support parts than the roles of Al Pacino's support crew. Unlike Bobby de Niro's three dimensional awesome crew, the non-Al cops just spit forth exposition and ask Al questions. If they weren't cast with Village People diversity (black man, Indian, white guy with moustache) I'd have trouble telling them apart. There's some random young guy who hangs out the back who looks like he's there on work experience.

7) The Waingro subplot is by necessity really dark and unpleasant but it still remains not-fun to watch.

8) So much stunningly good acting from everyone - I don't think Val Kilmer was ever better...

9) Al Pacino takes a hell of a risk shooting at Tom Sizemore. Usually when this happens in real life the kid ends up dead.

I've seen this film maybe ten times now. I do fast forward through some bits now. But what a masterpiece.

Movie review - "The Godfather Part 3" (1990) ***

The fascinating thing about this movie is that for every really bad thing there's a really good one to counter balance it: Sofia Coppola's amateurish performance (though she does look the part) vs Andy Garcia's electric one; Talia Shire's brilliant reinvention as a Lucretia Borgia type matriarch of the Corleones vs Diane Keaton's flat, permed Kay; George Hamilton's unexpectedly good turn as a lawyer vs wasting the role of Michael Corleone's son; some delightfully dodgy priests vs the insulting concept of the Mafia trying to save the life of the new Pope; the stunning production design vs editing which keeps chopping up scenes.

I disagree with Coppola's assertion in that the first two films told the story - there was much to be had from the saga of Michael Corleone's third act: the fate of him, the kids, his family, was inherently dramatic. And this film kind of has it - Michael wanting to go legitimate but being tempted back to the old ways; uncertainty over the loyalty of Vincent; worried about his kids and soul.

There are plenty of great moments and performances - the action sequences are done well, including an interesting assassination via helicopter through the roofs, and a revenge shooting at a parade; the finale was satisfying; support players like Hamilton, Eli Wallach, Mario Donatone (a genuinely scary assassin) and Joe Mantegna work well.

It does feel as though Coppola and Puzo could never quite get the drama right - it needed the extra conflict that would have been provided by Tom Hagen, or Michael's son, having a bigger role. Also the Vatican stuff, while kind of interesting, ultimately isn't that effective dramatically because it doesn't really involve the Corleones - it's not like the plan to take over Cuba in Part 2 where they had so much money involved - this is like a casual investment. Michael's son being an opera singer is dull. John Savage does nothing as a priest. I wish they'd just redone King Lear, which has a great structure for something like this. Still, it is worth watching.

Movie review - "Serpico" (1973) ***

Many excellent things about this famous crime drama - Al Pacino's performance in the title role, a superb array of New York actors playing cops, the whole gritty feel of it, Lumet's brisk direction, Pacino's groovy hairstyles and costumes; it's a movie for grown ups.

Other things aren't as good - the film goes for too long and for much of the time the action felt repetitive; the female roles are negligible (in common with much classic 70s cinema) - naggers or bimbos; the only character we got to know well was Serpico; the music is overblown. Still, much of it holds up well.

Movie review - "The Godfather" (1972) ***** (another viewing)

Maybe this has been overpraised but it remains a stunning achievement. Is there an epic more perfectly cast? Pretty much every role is perfect - from Brando and Pacino at the top (risky castings at the time), to James Caan and Robert Duvall (both Coppola favourites), down to the little kid playing with Brando when the latter dies of a heart attack, and the old man singing at the wedding.

The key to the success of this piece is its universality - everyone knows a family business where they're worried about staying current, where there's a hot head and a dopey son, and a daughter who marries a no good, and the young one who turns out to be smarted than any of them. Coppola focuses on family rituals - weddings, funerals, christenings, buying presents, cooking meals, courtships, wedding nights.

Full of so many touches - people singing at the wedding, Pacino's hand being still after facing an assassin, the sunken eyes of Pacino, the relative sprightliness of Marlon Brando's Godfather in the early bit of the film, Caan beating up his brother in law as water spurted around and his final death, Clemenza showing Michael how to cook. It's amazing.