Book review - " Cimino:The Deer Hunter, Heaven’s Gate, and the Price of a Vision" (2022) by Charles Elton

 I'm surprised it took someone so long to do a book on Cimino, I thought he'd be a natural, but I guess he was uncommunicative and lived a long time (thus better able to sue). Elton tackled the job with admirable enthusiasm, with his best "get" being he contacted Joan Corelli but also a close friend when Cimino was transitioning and Steven Bach's exec partner at UA (who slags off Bach a lot, not unexpectedly - but it doesn't discount Bach's version).

Elton makes a lot of minor errors, mostly about the history of Hollywood - he's prone to saying things were "unprecedented" when they weren't, and stuff like Something's Got to Give was completely shut down when Fox filmed it as Move Over Darling. I think he's also a little too forgiving of going over budget - the "well David Lean did it" argument.  

It's not definitive but it's really good and Cimino is such a fascinating character.

Movie review - "The Sunchaser" (1996) ** (warning: spoilers)

 Michael Cimino's last feature film as director is one no one remembers, not really. It escaped with a whimper, not a bang, doesn't even have a decent controversy associated with it. Woody Harrelson, who shows a likable tendency to work with all sorts of directors, plays the lead - a cancer doctor. He's kidnapped by teen gangster Jon Seda who wants Native American meidcal treatment which is interesting. Seda's performance gets on the nerves after a while - lots of yelling.

Alexandra Tydings is a generic leggy type as Harrelson's wife, perhaps put in the film as Harrelson's beard since the film has Harrelson essentially fall in love with Seda. This is raised in the film and ferociously refuted.

This movie is reminiscent of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot - two men on the lam - although it's different in that Harrelson is kidnapped so could escape, there's no stakes if the cops get him.

I like taking Navajos seriously and we meet some hot Navajos (one played by Talisa Soto!) and the ending is satisfying. But there is something missing in the movie. An extra twist. Or someone dying at the end. Really Harrelson should die at the end - I think that would've worked if they'd gotten rid of his family. His family being in the film doesn't work, there's no point to it.

But, you know, interesting.

Movie review - "Michael Cimino: God Bless America" (2022) ***1/2

 Doco about the director with taped interviews though not recent pictures. Great talking heads of others though like Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone. Visits scenes where various movies shot notably The Deer Hunter. I like that it book ends The Sunchaser with Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

Movie review - "Desperate Hours" (1990) **

 I think the theory was good - take a well worn story, which almost always works (siege/home invasion), and add a hot star like Mickey Rourke, some great actors like Mimi Rogers and Anthony Hopkins, and give it to Michael Cimino.

It's got 90s bloat which we saw in a lot of remakes around this time (eg The Getaway). I think Cimino struggles with cramped, indoor stories. His famous films - all of them until here - were basically oudoor stories. Even the indoor sequences felt spectacular eg Russian Roulette in Deer Hunter, the restaurant in Year of the Dragon.  The scenes set outdoors here - Kelly Lynch on the opening, for instance, or when David Morse escapes - has a life the indoor stuff doesn't.

Cimino struggles with character interactions. Desperate Hours should be full of them - we keep waiting to see humanity in Rourke towards Hopkins/Rogers/Smith... but don't. Sexual attraction/repulsion, an understanding, people realising stuff about themselves, interesting gang dynamics... none of that is really there. I kept waiting for a psycho convict to do something... no. There's a nice moment where a convict recognises a video game played by Hopkins' son and waited to see that relationship developed... No. Smith is a bratty teen and I waited to see a convict fall for her (or Rogers) - or threaten them. No. Yes, cliches, or tropes, but at least drama. Hopkins acts all tough, which is foolish when people have your family. He has a younger lover he left Rogers for who would be a great person to turn up... instead there's a real estate agent who is killed. Also Smith's boyfriend appears but they don't move there.

It's one of those films where maybe they were too afraid of cliches.  So they didn't do the cliches but they didn't replace them with anything.

The movie needed to be directed by, I don't know, John Badham or someone. That's no diss on Badham - I think that director was better with characterisation and more conventional material.

Movie review - "The Sicilian" (1987) **1/2

 Heaven's Gate hurt Cimino's career but it didn't kill it - he made Year of the Dragon which underperformed in North American but did well enough for finance to be raised for this movia, a biopic of Sicilian bandit/politician Salvatore Giuliano.

There's very little American interest in the story but it was based on a novel by Mario Puzo. Christopher Lambert is not ideally cast in the lead. John Turturro is his best friend,  Giulia Boschi is his girlfriend and  Barbara Sukowa a horny countess. Joss Ackland is a mafia don and Terence Stamp is a prince.

The novel was part of The Godfather series and included the Corleones. They are removed here - presumably due to legal issues. It's a shame - I get the reasons, but maybe some American characters added could have helped the movie connect with American audiences. Or any non-Sicilian audiences. There's a lot of chat about Sicilian politics, elections and communists, that I felt a little behind the eight ball with.

Lambert looks good but is terrible. There's an awful "If you don't rape me I'll rape you" scene between Lambert and a countess and they listen to music and have sex  (Many Cimino's film have rape in them.) I think once they cast Lambert they just needed to reduce all his dialogue and give it to Turturro and Ackland and Stamp. Or just cast Terence Stamp. Or someone who can act. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. The women in the cast aren't great either.

The tremendous period  detail of his earlier films is present in the outdoor scenes but indoor scenes with big bands feels fake.

The spectacle, sweep and subject matter could've made this really good. There was a cut version and Cimino version - I saw the latter. It has stature but has a lead who can't act and some dreadful scenes as well as some amazing ones.

 Gore Vidal did a pass of the script. Most of the key actors are English but Aldo Ray has a small role.

Movie review - "Year of the Dragon" (1985) ***1/2 (re-watching)

 Mickey Rourke was born in 1952 so he could've served in Vietnam - I like his performance but his silly hair makes him seem old. And Ariane, I have affection for, but the fact is a really good actress in that part would've make it sing. John Lone is superb.

It looks gorgeous. Sweeping vistas. Extras.Burmese jungle. Hong Kong. Restaurants.  The action sequences are incredible - assassinations, shootouts in restaurants, people being shot on the road, beatings in nightclubs. So many great touches like the nuns translating bugged criminals and the mafia guy with a throat box.

They didn't have to make Rourke's character such an arsehole. When Ariane says she's been raped he grabs her and throws her in the chair and yells at her. When his wife is angry he took off at dinner he goes and sleeps with Ariane. He constantly makes racist slurs. This didn't have to be in the film. Neither did the rape scene - I wonder if that was Stone or Cimino both were partial to rape.

I like the bloke who played Rourke's old mate. The wife character is the standard Oliver Stone nag, but the actress does the best she can. Dennis Dun is moving as the undercover cop - at least he gets some time in the sun as does Ariane.

Really, Rourke's character should have died at the end - it feels wrong that Dun and his wife were killed and Ariane was raped and he got to live. 

Still, a really thought provoking movie. Not cookie cutter.

Movie review - "Heaven's Gate" (1980) *** (warning: spoilers)

 Looks gorgeous. Cimino spent a lot of money but it's up there on screeen. Every shot is like a painting.

Opening scene with John Hurt making speeches at Harvard doesn't really make sense.  There's pretty dances and bands and it looks tremendous - it doesn't have the universality of people getting married.

A key problem of the movie is Cimino is so in love with set pieces and sets. A train arriving. A horse drawn carriage. Rollerskating. Landscapes. It lacks the personal touch. It is pretty funny in that one scene where there's a juggler in the background. Some over the top action sequences like little battles. The immigrants have no personality.

And yet... 

There is greatness. In bits. Isabelle Huppert is captivating. The love triangle between Chris Walken, her and Kris Kristofferson works a treat. Walken's part is terrific. Kristofferson less strong - he looks wonderful and I think Cimino was in love with filming him in poses. 

The acting is fine. Sam Waterson as baddy.  Jeff Bridges as Kristofferson's mate. Walken - who steals the show.

No one enjoys sex here. I'm noticing that in Cimino films. Kristofferson and Huppert frolic nude but don't often do it. The other hookers look poorly. Huppert is raped.

The plot is actually simple. The bankers/land barons do up a death list. Execute. The people push back. Chaos. 

Easy to see the bits that needed to be fixed - give John Hurt some point, some genuine tie with Kristofferson. Cut all the stuff that has no story point. Trim it down. Really the story should've been properly told from the POV of immigrants - rather, the lead. I think Cimino had a man crush on Kristofferson.  His stakes don't compare. I mean, make Kristofferson an immigrant... the story comes alive a lot more.

The ending is moving with Kristofferson old, rich and sad. But wow what a downer - the government helps the richies, most of the immigrants die, then Bridges and Huppert are killed just to make us feel especially bad. 

Reviews were hysterically negative. I understand why but they shouldn't have been. It's not a masterpiece - Cimino needed a co writer - but it's a work that deserves appreciation.

Movie review - "The Deer Hunter" (1978) ****

 A big deal in its day and the fame has lingered in part because of the notoreity of Michael Cimino. It's long - over three hours - so is probably best appreciated in the cinema. It looks gorgeous - the Pennsylvania steel towns, Vietnam and stuff.

There's New York actors pretending to be working class types and they mostly pull it off because they're excellent actors. The Russian Roulette stuff works brilliantly as a dramatic device. It's so homoerotic - the homophobia dialogue is accurate for the milieu but Chris Walken and de Niro seem to be in love and John Cazale accuses de Niro of not being interested in women and de Niro doesn't do anything in bed with Meryl Streep for a while. 

We see a deer actually be killed. There is Hollywood shenanigans in de Niro is in Nam, then runs into Walken and Savage, then they are all captured, then de Niro escapes by being super heroic then de Niro gets back and does a silly but highly effective final Russian Roulette.

John Cazale's part isn't much and I sense the roles of George Dzunda and Chuck Aspegren could be combined and Streep is the Girl and Savage's wife could've done something more but...

You know what? This is still a really good movie. It's gorgeous. The money is on screen. De Niro is superb. It's moving. Russian Roulete words a treat. The cuts are terrific. It tackles PTSD very well. It does like its characters.

Movie review - "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" (1974) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 Michael Cimino got his directing career going with this buddy comedy, a genre much in vogue at the time. Cimino's commercials background means he knows how to fill a frame and compose an image. It ambles a bit in that Malpaso way. I was surprised how low fi it was (essentially a two hander which morphs into a four hander with a big heist sequence in act two). Also how homoerotic it was - Jeff Bridges is clearly in love with Clint Eastwood who is into Bridges; there is talk of women and they pick some up (including Catherine Bach) but it feels forced.

Interesting to see Bridges in drag after reading what came out about Cimino but that just may be accidental. Neat touches and twists like how George Kennedy dies. I'm guessing Midnight Cowboy was an influence.

Movie review - "Dogs of War" (1980) **

 This was in development for a few years - Don Siegel was going to do it, then Michael Cimino, then Norman Jewison. So it went through a lot of permutations.

Some of this is fine. It's stylishly shot by Jack Cardiff. The Belize locations impress. I don't buy American mercenaries in Africa but quite liked Tom Berenger's work as a slightly unhinged one.It is a decent cast.

Christopher Walken is all wrong as Cat Shannon, who was so vivid in the book. The character really should have been European and if they wanted to make American they should've gone with someone who was a believable soldier.

The piece has been distorted into a star vehicle. So we don't have anything about Sir James Marsden coming across the platinum and getting him secret, or using henchmen to organise the coup. I mean I know that could've been minimised but it would've been a great support star-ry role for an elder actor

Zangaro is different here - in the book it had hardly any Europeans here it's full of them, the officials speak English, there's a documentary crew. There's Colin Blakely as a world weary documentary filmmaker and a black woman who shows him around and offers up all this information about the country.

For whatever reasons the writers cut out exciting subplots - like a mercenary trying to kill Shannon, or Marsden having henchmen, or Shannon sleeping with Marsden's daughter, or the Russians finding out about the platinum deposit, or there being a KGB agent at the base, or the Russians sending a tanker to the country. Shannon is made dumber - instead of the book where he's super smart, tracking the mystery person who hires him to do a job, seducing the head man's daughter, arranging a massive double cross, doing a lot of research - here he's dumb, whining about being asked to go to Africa, not knowing anything, having to ask a lot of questions in Africa (I know exposition has to be conveyed but couldn't there be a cleverer way of showing him doing it?)

Instead there's dumb subplot about Walken wanting to get back with Jobeth Williams who's got an alcoholic dad or something (this feels like an impro'd Actors Studio exercise) and another dumb one about an African who shows Walken around and he likes her then gasp he finds out she's sleeping with the dictator. I mean, my golly.

This film was produced by smart people who made dumb decisions.

Book review - "Chasing the Light" by Oliver Stone (2020)

 Entertaining but a little disappointing. Not as good as the 1995 bio on Stone - which Stone quotes several times oddly enough.

Stone's life was so action packed my expectations were high - exotic squabbling parents, Yale, Vietnam, drugs, sex, taxi driving, film school being taught by Martin Scorsese, screenwriting, etc. Maybe it' s better suited to being a biography.

Stone is an interesting person. Intelligent, self centered, sensual, aware, ambitious, not great with money.

He plugged away for a number of years - driving a cab, living off his first wife and writing two scripts a year. Robert Bolt was an early champion. He made his first feature quite early but little came of it. What got him going was the spec Platoon. That led to Midnight Express, his first assignment - a good one to have. He became a top screenwriter (Conan, Scarface).

Interesting trivia: Keanu Reeves was offered the lead in Platoon, he wanted Warren Beatty and Tom Cruise for Wall Street. There's fascinating insights into the making of Seizure and The Hand. The book only goes up to him about to start on Wall Street. His analysis of other directors like De Palma, Parker, Milius and Cimino is interesting.

The accounts of the making of Salvador and Platoon are exhausting.

Strong book but I can't deny I felt a little let down.

RIP Michael Cimino - some random thoughts

Genius? Maniac? Woman? Over-praised? Under-appreciated? Unfulfilled? One hit wonder?

That's the great thing about Cimino - he offers something for everyone. Lovers of auteurs, haters of auteurs, a fabulous cautionary tale, a depressing example of Icarus...

He was odd. There can be no doubt about it. His appearance did weirdly change - though this has happened with other directors (the Wachowskis, Orson Welles, George Cukor). In his interviews he sounds very... unique.

He was bold. He was individual. He was a fantastist.

No one seems to like his movies after Year of the Dragon. The cults for The Sicilian, The Desperate Hours and The Sunchaser seem small. Cimino can talk all he wants about director's cuts but the chances are those films are simply bad.

Unfulfilled potential? Maybe. Hollywood the villain? I can't agree with that - not with all the chances he got and money he spent.

It is a shame he never got to make Man's Fate or The Fountainhead, stories which seem made for him. But he had a decent bunch of credits at the end of the day: Silent Running,Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Deer Hunter, Year of the Dragon and yes Heaven's Gate. Not a bad run.

He will be missed.

Movie review - "Year of the Dragon" (1985) *** (warning: spoilers)

I still remember the trailer for this movie in the cinema and how much it gripped me - the intercut between a line crossing the screen and various set pieces: "Is Chinatown so bad now?", shoot outs, Arianne interviewing John Lon,e Mickey Rourke looking pensive. I really wanted to see the movie and always felt a little dissatisfied by it - so dark, such an unlikeable hero, yet with so many amazing sequences.

Watching it years on and the virtues remain intact - it looks fantastic, with sumptuous production design; amazingly, a film focusing on Chinese gangsters still has novelty (you think it would be a natural for Godfather type sagas but filmmakers tend to steer clear).

The action sequences are brilliant - a shoot out in a Chinese restaurant, the climax where Rourke and John Lone run at each other across a train bridge blasting away, the scene where some gang members are forced to kill assassins, Rourke taking on two female assassins, the hit on Rourke and his wife.

The movie is full of imaginative touches, like the Italian gangster who speaks through an electronic device, the nuns used as translaters. It's genuinely visually impressive (there's even a sequence in the Golden Triangle) - for all Cimino's indulgences as a director he knew how to fill a frame.

There is some very good acting too - John Lone is a superb villain (even though the character's background could have been flashed out a little more), Dennis Dun a touching nerdy undercover agent.

Rourke does everything he can he's simply ten years too young - the part needed to be played by someone who looked like they served in Vietnam, who had pain and years. Rourke would come to look like that but there he's just Mickey Rourke with powdered hair. His character is hard to spend too much time with, with his constant racist cracks, misogyny and ignoring of procedure - he's not eve a particularly good cop either (Dennis Dun's work is more effective).

I can predict the argument that Cimino and Oliver Stone (the screenwriter) would make - "we're not endorsing the point of view of the hero, it's what real life cops talk like, it's based on historical fact" - but the film is racist. The hero is white, most of the villains are Asians, the one decent Asian cop is knocked off in time honoured tradition of the faithful servant, the one sympathetic Asian woman is basically a prostitute (badly acted by Arianne) who lives in a fancy apartment, falls in love with Rourke's character for no real reason whatsoever.

The version of the movie I saw felt cut down - parts like the corrupt cop and Rourke's wife felt as though there were more scenes in them.

I've got to say though, it is a film of power - it's intense and something lively always comes around the corner at you.

Movie review - "Magnum Force" (1973) ***

There's a lot of good things about this first Dirty Harry sequel. For starters, it's got a decent story - a vigilante cop is killing off baddies one by one (actually, sorry, sometimes that's ten by ten) making Harry look positively liberal. There's also a superb Lalo Schifrin score, stylish Ted Post direction (I love some of the shots, such as the cop assassin working his way through the bushes, and the opening hustle and bustle court scene.... why didn't Post do more features?). There's decent some lines and scenes, plus an excellent cast including Hal Holbrook and a bunch of later TV stars in Tim Matheson, David Soul (very effective as a baddie) and Robert Urich.

There are a lot of dumb bits, though. It's like the film had a solid basic structure but the filmmakers (in particular Clint) couldn't resist in shoving "bits" to show off Harry - like Harry happening to eat burgers at an airport cafe just as a hostage situation taking place (mind you, it was fun to see Harry pretending to be a pilot) or Harry turning up at a supermarket as some more psychos were taking control. Or the sub-sub plot of Harry's hot Asian-American neighbour who flat outright seduces him.

Some of the action isn't that well staged - for instance during the final set piece I was never sure of which cop Harry had knocked off, and I got confused. And it was a long slog at the running time.

Still, a decent enough movie and the series definitely got worse.

Book review - "Blade Runners, Deer Hunters And Blowing The Bloody Doors Off" by Michael Deeley

Deeley was a giant in the British film industry of the 1970s - kind of like being a fantastic cricket player for New Zealand... His name always seemed to be associated in various books with disasters and bitterness (eg Stanley Baker losing all his money after they sold a building and being in business with Deeley, re-cutting The Wicker Man) - so it was good to hear Deeley's side of the story. And when you look at it, his credits really stack up - as he points out, no sequels or crappy rip offs. Deeley obviously had a lot of get up and go, tenacity and an eye for talent. He also seems to have had a great ability to annoy people - he's not a particularly likeable raconteur. But the British film industry would have been better off keeping him in charge of EMI.

Some decent anecdotes: raising funds for the mega-flop Where’s Jack? ("the star of Zulu, the director of To Sir With Love, the writers of Point Blank equals a hit"); Warren Beatty trying to have the love scene cut from Don’t Look Down; David Bowie being anti social but professional on The Man Who Fell to Earth; Vanessa Redgrave was going to star in Robbery; adding Jason Robards to Robbery as the as the mastermind of the robbery at the request of Joe Levine (to appeal to US audiences) but then cutting him out because it was silly; Peter Collinson’s disregard for safety on The Italian Job, resulting in the near death of some of the crew; just missing a plane flight which blew up while shooting Murphy’s Law; Peter Yates turned down The Godfather; taking Convoy off the hands of Sam Peckinpah (a big box office name for distributors in the 70s); dealing with Michael Cimino’s arrogance on Deer Hunter and Noel Coward’s infirmity on Italian Job.

Deeley doesn't try to sugar coat himself. He was friends with Peter Yates, but that ended after Murphy’s Law; friends with Stanley Baker but that ended when Baker was turfed from British Lion; friends with Barry Spikings but that ended. He bags Julia Ormond for being a pain on Young Catherine; Christopher Lee for bagging him over the cutting of The Wicker Man; Lew Grade for his crap films; Michael Cimino for being an arrogant, lying prat. Very entertaining read if you're interested in any of his films or the British industry of the 70s.

Movie review – “Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven’s Gate” (2004) ***1/2

One of the most famous – if not the most famous – movie flops of all time deserved a good making-of doco and it got one. Some great interviews: Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif, Steven Bach, David Field (UA exec at the time), Kris Kristofferson, various crew. Michael Cimino didn’t agree to be interviewed but there’s plenty of archival footage involving him. This isn’t a Cimino bash by any means – everyone comments on his dedication and determination to make the best possible film, but also point out this meant he didn’t really care about things like budget and schedule. The executives at UA such as Bach acknowledge their inexperience – I can see why they let things go overboard in Montana, but even after they cracked the whip, why did they then let Cimino shoot the Harvard sequence. It makes no sense. 

I hate the way critics tore the film a new one when it came out then turn around and say the re-cut version was better; blaming everything on the studio was incredibly childish.