Funeral in Berlin (1966)

A follow-on to the Icpriss file, this one has Harry Palmer going to Berlin to help a KGB General defect to the West. Its well-acted and directed, and benefits from a good performance by Michael Caine, some witty, clever dialogue, and plenty of West Berlin location shots. For the first 80 minutes its a good, if somewhat leisurely, Cold War Spy story.

Sadly, the movie then switches gears and turns into a 20 minute action story with a new plot.* Y'see Harry's German friend is actually a former Nazi trying to regain his identity papers and escape to East Berlin. Nothing prepares us for this, and frankly, I didn't much care**. Its as if the director decided "Wait a minute we don't have enough killings and fist fights" and threw in this nonsense to meet the allotted 104 minute run time. Too bad the script goes wrong, because the supporting cast is very good.***

 Notes (spoilers)

* = The movie reaches its natural ending when Palmer refuses to kill Vulkan in cold blood., and Caine talks to the KGB General in West Berlin. However, we then switch to Vulkan killing a safe cracker and ambushing Palmer to get the documents. This is followed by a Palmer-Vulkan fist fight, then the M5 documents guy showing up, another killing, another fight, and then the final failed escape attempt.
** = The German's change from Palmer's friend to Nazi Villain is completely unconvincing and since we were never given much background about the character or his crimes, its impossible to care. We are relieved when Palmer lets him go, and then surprised when Vulkan cold-bloodily attacks Palmer out of nowhere.
*** = Oskar Homokla in particular is very good.  Eva Renzi is very beautiful and can act. Hugh Burden is excellent as the pathetic MI5 Documents expert.

Get Carter (1971)

Get Carter is a British twist on a familiar film-noir plot* : a man seeks vengeance for  his brother’s murder. But it’s not only the British Midlands setting that’s different, instead of the usual "good guy" brother finding his dead brother was mixed up with crooks, we get the opposite. The film benefits from a  clever script and a slew of good performances, starting with Michael Caine** as the lead.  We also get plenty of sex and violence, although its more realistic*** and subdued than the typical American fare. 

Summary: A well done, brutal revenge story, it’s a soul-less exercise in style (it reminded me of Point Blank) with everyone who needs killing ending up dead.. I enjoyed it for the Newcastle locations and 1970s British Vibe. Rating - 3 stars

Notes
* As an in-joke we see Carter reading “Farewell, My lovely” on the train to Newcastle. Later, in the “bar” the singers belt out “I like New York in June, how about you?” while Caine orders “Scotch”.
** Its a testimony to Caine's charisma that he makes us root for such a vicious bastard. SPOILER For example, after a pub owner tells Carter he didn’t kill his brother but only helped the bad guys, Carter kills him anyway!. He also causes the death of 2 women, although it’s not clear that either of them deserved to die.

***  I should say “relatively” realistic. One wonders where the police are during the numerous chase scenes, punch-ups and shoot-outs.

 

Pulp Fiction (1994)

In 1994, Pulp Fiction ushered in a whole new type of film that mixed realism, fantasy, smart dialogue and graphic violence. Widely praised by the critics as “shocking” “Funny” and “Blazingly Original”, it received a mix reception from the general public. I saw it in 1994 at a local matinee and enjoyed it. But half the audience walked out before an hour was up. One old man walked by me and spit out “this is garbage”.  Today, of course, we’re so used to deviancy and violence, it seems almost normal.

On re-watch, I liked it less and was struck at how silly & tiresome some of it is. Did we really need the restaurant hold up scenes - and those two bogus characters?  What was the point? Or have a discussion of Burger King Hamburgers in France? In fact, only two of the characters held my interest. First, Bruce Willis as the boxer in danger, and Harvey Keitel’s “clean up” Pro. They’re about 40% of the movie. Other notes: Travolta looks apish and stupid, while Uma Thurman looks quite odd - like a female impersonator.

Summary: This is the movie that started QT into his own special world of comic book characters, over-the-top violence, and riffing off old movies. Later he became even more fantastical, and extravagant in things like Django and Inglorious Bastards. Like those movies, I only enjoyed parts of Pulp Fiction. I admire the technique and the sometimes brilliant smart-ass dialogue - but I need more than that. There’s nothing wrong with a good hot dog, but no matter how well you cook it, it’s still a Hot dog.  Even when it comes with expensive Mustard.  Rating ** 1/2 

Blood Simple (1984)

Blood Simple was the Coen Brothers first film and it has all their trademark bits: The quirky characters, the excellent photography, the smart ass dialogue, and the artificial movie reality. The problem is nobody is likeable, and only one person (the villain) is interesting.

The three lead characters all have lockjaw and speak so slowly, it’s as if the Coen’s wrote their words in cement. Even worse, the three (the two adulterers and the cuckold) are incredibly stupid. Every problem in movie could have been avoided by a realistic discussion. Instead, obvious questions go unasked and vital information is withheld for no reason. It’s less “blood simple” than “Three simpletons”. For example (spoilers ahead):

When John Getz stumbles upon a dead “Marty” he finds Frances McDormand gun. Does he pick up the gun and leave? Of course not. Instead, he takes the body and buries it, cleans up the crime scene, and never asks McDormand if she killed Marty. And why bury him and risk being discovered when the gun is her only link to the crime?

When Marty meets with killer/detective E. Emmett Walsh, he’s shown a fake death photo of the 2 lovers and Marty gives him $10,000. But why is he shown a photo? Obviously, if Marty’s wife had been killed the police would’ve contacted Marty. Yet, he never asks what Walsh did with the bodies. Or why he’s showing him a photo. Huh?

Walsh shoots Marty but never checks to see if he’s really dead. Huh? Hours later when Getz is about to bury him, Marty then suddenly brings to life. How did that happen?

Summary: A good first effort by the Coen Brothers. Unfortunately, a few excellent scenes (especially the last 10 minutes) and Walsh’s creepy detective can’t overcome the unpleasant leads, plot holes, and slow-pace. Worth a watch for Coen fans - otherwise mediocre ** ½

The French Connection (1971)

The French Connection is a sometimes exciting, sometimes boring, police/action story about two NYC policemen trying to nab a French Drug dealer. There’s nothing wrong with it, but you wonder why in the world it why it won an Academy Award. Perhaps, in 1971, it was the grimy New York locations shots, or the “shocking” raw violence and language, or the amazing Car stunts. And then there’s Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle, the original foul-mouthed, macho cop, obsessed with getting the bad guys.

But 50 years later, all this is pretty standard
And I was hitting the FF (despite it being 104 minutes) throughout the movie. We spend too much time tailing/staking-out the bad guys or showing the Frenchman or Hackman’ private life. And there’s no real characterization. Roy Schneider is given little to do, and the bad guys are paper thin cliches. The script? It doesn’t have one memorable line. We even get the standard “Keep me on the case, Chief” scene and fights with the superiors.

The Movie contains a lot of unrealistic action.
The car drive (an EL Chase?) under the EL is justly famous but makes little sense, since he almost kills himself and a dozen innocent people. Why didn’t  Doyle just phone the next station and have the the killer picked up? Nor does the French Assassin behave in realistic manner. Why kill a low-level NYC policeman? Or use a high-powered rifle (that misses) from a rooftop? And why get on the El Train with no escape and only one destination? In other words, he’s a professional killer - with no escape plan. Really.

Summary A good movie of its kind - but unworthy of a Best Picture Award. Some good things: The Car chase, the bar scene, and Gene Hackman. But too much is forgettable. Bottom-line?  Its just standard cops and robbers. Recommended for Hackman fans & those nostalgic for gritty 1971 Brooklyn.