Narrow Margin (1990)

An enjoyable remake of the 1952 film, Narrow Margin is a well-made neo-noir that benefits from having Gene Hackman being his usual brilliant self in the lead role that makes good use of his formidable talent. He is L.A. District Attorney Robert Caulfield, a man who ends up escorting a woman named Hunnicut (Anne Archer) on a dangerous cross-country train ride to get her to stand as a witness against the powerful Leo Watts (Harris Yulin).

Directed by the dependable Peter Hyams, who also wrote the script adapting the earlier movie into this updated take, this is a film full of shifting surroundings and constant momentum, not just due to most of it taking place on a train. Caulfield only knows one or two people he can fully trust, while Hunnicut isn’t always entirely sure about why she should place her faith in him. Anyone around our two leads could be a killer, and Watts may not be onscreen for much of the runtime, but there’s a large shadow cast over everything as we see how seemingly infinite his reach and resources are.

Although this follows the template of the original film fairly closely, there are some tweaks that help to make it a slightly more enjoyable experience. The various identity reveals are well-placed, whether they are proving someone is bad or ultimately good, and there are a few decent action moments that allow Hackman to back up his promise of doing whatever it takes to get the woman in his care safely to a more secure environment.

Hackman is the reason this works as well as it does, and Hyams was surely thankful to bag him for the lead role. He may not be the typical choice for this kind of role, but he’s undeniably trustworthy, determined, and charismatic. I wish I could say the same for Archer, who feels sadly all-too-replaceable in her key role. Susan Hogan does much better though, playing a train passenger who takes more than a passing interest in Hackman’s character. Yulin does well with his minutes of screentime, there are small roles for both M. Emmet Walsh and J. T. Walsh, and James Sikking, Nigel Bennett, B. A. “Smitty” Smith, and J. A. Preston help to round out a supporting cast of surprisingly compelling characters.

Although it has a layer of polish that lessens the feeling of real danger and darkness, Narrow Margin still manages to ratchet up the tension on the way to a final act that proves to be enormously satisfying. If you like even some of the names I have listed here, and especially if you like Hackman, then this is a fun film to give your time to on an evening when you want something comfortingly assured.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Noirvember: Night Moves (1975)

While I often spend my time trying, hopelessly, to catch up on many of the bigger movie titles that I have somehow avoided over the years, some of those films feel a bit more notable than others. Night Moves was something I have been aware of ever since knowing the term “neo-noir”, but I just hadn’t ever got around to watching the thing. That has finally changed now, and (as is so often the case) I wish I had seen this years ago.

It’s an absolutely classic premise, in many ways. Gene Hackman plays Harry Moseby, a detective tasked with locating a young woman named Delly (Melanie Griffith). This brings him into contact with Delly’s troublesome boyfriend (played by James Woods), a couple of stunt performers, before he eventually finds her living with her stepfather, Tom (John Crawford), and his girlfriend, Paula (Jennifer Warren). Things become more complicated as Harry investigated further, and the case he has been hired for may actually lead to him stumbling on to something much more dangerous.

Written by the immensely talented Alan Sharp (I haven’t got time to list everything in his filmography but I highly recommend the two most recent feature films that he worked on, for starters), Night Moves is an entertaining crime drama that leads viewers, slowly but surely, into increasingly dark waters. The first half is full of cynicism and bitterness laced with humour, but the finale removes any of the mirth. Viewers will root for Harry, mainly because it is always easy to root for Gene Hackman (even when he isn’t being a very nice guy), but it’s also easy to see that things may not lead to a satisfying conclusion for many, or any, of the main characters.

Director Arthur Penn also has a filmography well worth your time, although maybe focus on the ‘60s and ‘70s when exploring his back catalogue, and he makes great use of all his assets here. The script, the cast, the cinematography that moves between sunshine and shadows with equal clarity, the pacing of the unfolding plot, and a third act that cuts through everything that preceded it with unwavering commitment.

Hackman has always been superb onscreen, but this is one of his best roles. He’s a smart man who may sometimes be too smart for his own good, but he’s also quite selfish and blinkered (in a way that he feels is necessary for his job). Griffith is a delightful presence in her few scenes, and Warren has a chemistry with Hackman that has you sensing an extra complication due to arise. Crawford is fine, Woods perfectly embodies the kind of young guy that Hackman would dismiss as a punk, and there are excellent supporting turns from Susan Clark (playing the neglected wife of our “hero”), Anthony Costello and Edward Binns (two stuntmen who may be involved in something suspicious), and Janet Ward (the woman who hires Harry to find her daughter).

One of the films often mentioned by people who revere the seventies as the greatest ever decade for cinema (it’s undoubtedly great, and with a notable sea change at certain points, but every decade has highs and lows), Night Moves is a gritty classic, more effective because of the lightness of touch throughout the first half of the movie. I would highly recommend it to everyone, but I also suspect that everyone else has already seen it.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Ghostbusters II (1989)

When Ghostbusters II was released in 1989 it did solid business at the box office. You wouldn't think that nowadays, with the way many people deride it and claim that it's a completely unworthy sequel to the classic first movie. Well, the first movie is a classic. I completely agree with that and already praised it here. What I don't agree with is the opinion that this sequel is completely unworthy. It's not as good as the first movie but few films are. It is, however, a very enjoyable film that picks up some years after the events of the first movie and allows viewers to find out just what the main characters have been up to since their big battle with Gozer.

And just what have the Ghostbusters been up to since saving New York City and, indeed, the world? Well, they were sued by a number of city and state agencies and the brand became worthless. Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are trying to keep the Ghostbusters name out there by entertaining ungrateful children at birthday parties, Egon (Harold Ramis) is conducting scientific studies with his usual, detached demeanour and Venkman (Bill Murray) is hosting a paranormal chat show. Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) has a son and is enjoying the time that she spends helping to restore paintings under the watchful eye of Dr. Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol). There's one painting in particular, of a nasty man called Vigo (Wilhelm Von Homburg) that starts to cause no small amount of trouble and so the gang need to get back together and get back to doing what they do best.

The baddie may not be as memorable this time around and there's no denying that the movie doesn't feel as fresh as the first film (but sequels rarely do, by definition) but there's a hell of a lot here to enjoy and anyone dismissing this movie completely is, I'd say, being very harsh.

Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson are all still great in their ghostbusting roles, Weaver plays off them all very well once again and Annie Potts and Rick Moranis return to reprise their memorable characters. Peter MacNicol is also good fun and Wilhelm Von Homburg keeps his mean face on throughout. Kurt Fuller may not be able to replace the great William Atherton as the main jerk of the movie but he tries his best. David Margulies returns to play the Mayor of New York and Harris Yulin has a small, fun role as a very strict judge who ends up seeing the Ghostbusters on trial in his court.

With Aykroyd and Ramis also returning to their writing duties and Ivan Reitman once again directing the action, this is very much the kind of sequel that feels like audiences are getting to catch up with some old friends. Because that's exactly what it is. I will watch Ghostbusters any number of times and never tire of it but this second outing is almost as rewatchable and has a smattering of great lines in almost every scene. The ending is a bit of a letdown but I think that any ending would have been slightly underwhelming compared to the brilliance of that big finale of the first movie featuring Gozer and The Traveller.

Oh, okay, there's also a pretty lame soundtrack compared to the complete '80s greatness of the first movie but that's the only other major complaint I have.

If you haven't seen it in a while then do give it a go and you might just find that the Ghostbusters are still the guys to call when you want some ectoplasmic entertainment.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghostbusters-2-DVD-Bill-Murray/dp/B001G61178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351446146&sr=8-1

Multiplicity (1996)

Harold Ramis is a director who I can happily say has provided me with a lot of laughs. In fact, Groundhog Day is one of my favourite comedies of all time. The high concept and great lead performance from Bill Murray even managed to distract me from the fact that the female lead was played by one of my least favourite actresses ever, Andie MacDowell. In a similiar way, Multiplicity is a high concept movie with a great lead performance from Michael Keaton that manages to distract me from the fact that the female lead is played by one of my least favourite actresses ever, Andie MacDowell.

That's not the end of the common ground that both movies share. Both films show what can happen when someone is given much more time on their hands and both films, ultimately, try to convey the message that it doesn't matter how much time you have, what matters is how you use it.

Michael Keaton plays Doug Kinney, a busy man who is struggling to do well at work and keep his boss (Richard Masur) happy while also getting to spend time with his family and keep his wife (Andie MacDowell) happy. Fortunately, after a stressful incident at a site he's working on, Doug is given the chance of a miracle by Dr. Leeds (Harry Yulin). That miracle comes in the shape of . . . . . . . . . . . Doug. Well, Doug number two, to be exact. A clone. An extra Doug means that the original Doug should be able to spend more time with the family, relax occasionally and generally get more done. That's the theory anyway. In reality, things start getting more and more complicated. Maybe a third Doug could take the pressure off slightly. And a fourth?

There are a number of factors here that you can all too easily complain about. Andie MacDowell for one. The script, written by Chris Miller, Lowell Ganz, Mary Hale and Babaloo Mandel, is sharper than a lot of people give it credit for but there are also a few untidy loose ends and a number of developments that make holding your suspension of disbelief harder with every minute that goes by.

So it's a good thing that Ramis, who directs with his usual bright and breezy touch, has a good cast in place for many of the supporting roles - Yulin, Masur, John de Lancie, Eugene Levy, Brian Doyle-Murray - and then tops everything off with yet another great performance from the consistently brilliant Michael Keaton. In fact, Keaton gives four great performances, playing each Doug in the different way required to show exactly who they are. Clone number one is a more macho Doug, clone number two is a more sensitive and caring Doug in touch with his feminine side and clone number three is . . . . . . . . . . . well . . . . . . . . . he's not quite right. Keaton gets to have a blast playing all of the characters and it's a tour de force of acting that lifts the whole movie from something good to something very good and, to me, almost great.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Multiplicity-DVD-Michael-Keaton/dp/B0001E5T6K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348517780&sr=8-1