Reds

The amount of information, facts and tidbits I don't know about Russian history could full volumes. I love history -- ALL of it -- but something about the immensity of Russia and its history has proved rather intimidating to me. Where to even start? Well, movies seem to agree with me. I liked but didn't love 1965's Doctor Zhivago, but there's another Russian epic that's long been recommend to me. Let's get going with 1981's Reds.

Living in Portland, Oregon in 1915, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) has a relatively safe if dull life. She's married, does art and is a hopeful writer. Then, she meets John Reed (Warren Beatty), a highly respected if somewhat controversial writer with an impressive following. She is immediately drawn to him and ends up following him to New York City to be with him while also hopefully pursuing a career as a writer and a journalist. There's a relative catch though. John is a staunch supporter of the socialist movement, a movement that threatens to tear World War I apart as workers around the world, especially in Russia, begin to push for more rights, more privileges. In the midst of World War I (and with the Russian Revolution looming), Louise has entered into one of history's most tumultuous times. She loves John and he loves her, but the world seems on the brink of blowing itself up. What will happen next?

For years, my Mom has recommended this movie to me. It's one of her all-time favorites, and she knows far more about the time and backstory than I do. For some background reading, read about the Russian Revolution HERE at Wikipedia. It's not even fair to say this is a Russian Revolution movie. This is a story about two people's lives amidst that turbulent time in world history with a heavy socialist focus. For more reading, read about John Reed and Louise Bryant, two incredibly interesting individuals. It is a big, epic movie, clocking in at equally intimidating 194 minutes, and took Beatty (who starred, directed, produced and wrote) and his cast and crew a full year to film. That's before you consider a lengthy editing process. Beatty is no dummy, taking on films that mean something to him, and this is the definition of that. This is a message movie, an intellectual, thought-out, impressive film. Is it good though?

I will say it is more interesting than it is good, if that makes sense. 'Reds' picked up 12 Oscar nominations, ultimately winning three, including Beatty as Best Director. For a movie that clocks in at almost three and a half hours, it did well at the box office and resonated with critics and has developed quite a following among fans. It was filmed in New York City, Finland, England, Sweden and Spain. So....yeah, what else? 'Reds' is an epic. The scale and immensity is impressive. This is an epic about an idea though, the idea of socialism. This is 194 minutes of almost entirely talking. This is talking about a principle, about government, about corruption, about history, about the system. 'Reds' isn't Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather or Gone With the Wind. It is its own epic, and with Beatty backing it all the way, it is quite okay with being its own film. I struggled at times because it is such a smart, well-written movie. Is that enough to hamstring a film? I don't know, but definitely know what you're getting into here.

Picking up two of the film's four Oscar acting nominations, Beatty and Keaton carry the film. Either one or the other is in almost every scene, and apparently the filming was so strenuous on their off-screen relationship they ultimately broke up. I didn't necessarily buy their doomed love, their unexplained chemistry. What did I buy? Their performances themselves are excellent. These are two extremely intelligent individuals, drawn to each other but who's personalities butt heads because they're both so strong-willed. Based on historical figures, both characters are 3-D, blood and guts people, not cardboard cutouts. Kudos to both actors who again make their characters interesting/fascinating if not necessarily likable.

Up until 2012's Silver Linings Playbook, 'Reds' was the last film to receive Oscar nominations for all four acting categories. The culprits? Jack Nicholson as playwright/writer Eugene O'Neill and Maureen Stapleton as famed anarchist Emma Goldman. These aren't huge supporting parts, but what's there is choice, two actors making the most of their relatively small screentime. Also look for Edward Herrmann, Jerzy Kosinski, M. Emmet Walsh, Paul Sorvino, William Daniels, Gene Hackman, and R.G. Armstrong in supporting parts. Some of them are pretty quick, none of them truly developed, and a couple are nothing more than a single scene. Of the smaller parts, Kosinski is memorable as a socialist leader working with Reed and Hackman as a booze-loving, honest newspaper editor.

One of the best choices Beatty makes as a director was a wise style choice. Along with the actual story, interviews with those who knew Reed and Bryant during the 1910s and 1920s are interspersed throughout the movie. These people -- now in their 70s and 80s -- reminiscing about John and Louise, about the times, about how things have changed, these are the moments that proved most memorable for me. Check out the list of witnesses HERE. So as I mentioned before, this is an excellent movie. One you appreciate and admire and respect. I felt like I learned some things as the story develops, but did I love the movie like I hoped I would? Nope. Still very much worth checking out, but not quite the movie I was expecting.

Reds (1981): ** 1/2 /****

Dollars

I think heist films can unfairly get criticized at times. They're not quite low-brow, but there's something simple and straightforward about them. Now with that said, there have been some very talented directors who have taken a crack at a heist flick like Jean-Pierre Melville, Jules Dassin, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino, and in a surprising twist, Richard Brooks in 1971's Dollars (also released as $).

An American banking consultant working in Hamburg, Germany, Joe Collins (Warren Beatty) has helped one highly respected and well-regarded bank install a state of the art security system. German banking allows individuals to keep security deposit boxes that no government or police enforcement agency can examine, a law that several shady characters are taking advantage of....and Joe knows it. He's working with a call girl, Dawn (Goldie Hawn), who has done some "recon work" to root out some of these shady types with deposit boxes at Joe's bank, and together the duo has found three such individuals. Joe knows all the ways around the newly-installed security features, but he also has an ace up his sleeve. If they can pull off the job, the victims aren't going to be able to go to the police with their stolen money now....well, stolen. If only they can pull it off.

I thought I was in for it early on in this Brooks-directed heist flick. The reviews I'd perused claimed this was a comedic-drama, a spoof of heist films. Spoofs? Oh, no, I'll pass thank you very much. With the cast and director involved though, I had to give it a chance. I was then even a little bit more confused when the movie starts, and it didn't feel like a spoof AT ALL. It seemed like the polar opposite, a twisting, turning story involving an opening segment with countless characters and situations that were completely unexplained. Who's that?!? What's he up to?!? I'm confused!!! Well, thankfully things right themselves, and this ended up being a very enjoyable, smart heist flick with just a touch of humor to keep things light.

In 1971, there weren't too many people around cooler than Warren Beatty. Okay, check that. That's true now too -- Beatty is awesome no matter the age, year -- but it was especially true in 1971. His cool was an effortless one, an ability to put an audience at ease almost at will. So while his part as Joe Collins isn't a flashy part, it's a cool part. He has a couple noteworthy scenes including his explanation of the intricate security system and later a rant about the science and percentages of bank robbing. As his co-star, Hawn was the weak link here. She's a little too shrill, a little too goofy for her own good. Cute as a button? Yes. As the duo's three targets, we've got Sarge (Scott Brady), a longtime Army soldier stationed in Germany working the black market, Attorney (Robert Webber), a lawyer who's been shorting a Las Vegas casino for years, and Candy Man (Arthur Brauss), a smuggler who specializes in everything from drugs to cash. Also worth mentioning is Auric Goldfinger himself, Gert Frobe, as the trusting bank manager Joe works with.

So while I liked this heist flick -- and more as it developed -- there's some flaws I have to bring up that bothered me. For one, the spoof criticism isn't valid in my mind. For the most part, it's a pretty serious movie. Why then have Little Richard sing two songs on the soundtrack? They feel out of place and reek of early product placement to me. I usually like composer Quincy Jones' soundtracks, but this one fell short for me. And then there's just the general weirdness. In one scene, we see Hawn's Dawn with Webber's character pre-hook-up. She dresses as a fireman to "put out his fire" while also spraying him with a water bottle. Maybe it's just the angle (and/or my dirty mind), but the angle Brooks chooses to shoot from sure makes it look like Miss Hawn is peeing on Mr. Webber. Oh, the Candy Man also gives his cat a dose of acid -- I suppose to see if its the real stuff....it is -- and disposes of the body in his apartment heater. Weird much?

Now that we've got that unpleasantness out of the way, let's get back to the positives. I liked that Brooks shot on location as much as possible in Hamburg, Germany and Sweden. It feels authentic. The best thing going though is two separate set pieces that help bring the movie up a notch or two. The first is the actual heist in Joe's bank vault. The plan is ingenious, and without giving away any spoilers, an extended sequence that is dripping with tension. Okay, here's a hint. He actually pulls the job with hundreds and thousands of people watching him do it. Confused? Don't be. It's a gem of a scene with a great payoff.

Then there's the finale. If an epically well-done and choreographed heist/robbery scene wasn't enough for you, the ending should satisfy your desire. Joe and Dawn are on the run with two of the three bad guys hot on their tails. In a sequence that runs an entire 30 minutes, we see a chase with barely 15 words spoken. It sounds simple, but a chase with two people chasing one person can be an incredibly exhilarating sequence to watch. No frills, no crazy twists, just one person running for his life with two people chasing him close behind. It rivals a similar chase in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid but with a seriously darker edge. It keeps going and going to the point you feel a little tired just watching it. Credit to Brooks, Beatty, Brady and Brauss for keeping the momentum going, never wavering at any point. A few oddities aside, I liked this one a lot. Highly recommended.

Dollars (1971): ***/****

Kaleidoscope

I love heist and caper films. I tolerate romantic-ish comedies. So while I was intrigued by 1966's Kaleidoscope when it popped up on Turner Classic Movie's schedule in January, I was also a tad bit worried. Would the two different genres combine to be good? Okay, that's not fair. I was looking for a movie I don't hate. I'm a cheap date when it comes to most movies.

Making his way across Europe and countless cities, Barney Lincoln (Warren Beatty) is taking down one casino after another, and his riches are growing quickly. While he's in London, Barney meets Angel (Susannah York) on the streets and quickly falls for her. Angel, on the other hand, isn't interested at all in the smooth American....at first. After a chance encounter at a casino, Angel starts to tag along as Barney visits one casino after another. Only then does she start to question how he keeps winning and never loses. The young couple are falling for each other, but Angel has other plans, calling her father, McGinnis (Clive Revill), a Scotland Yard investigator, to look into things. What exactly has Barney gotten himself into?

So go figure, but heist-caper meets romantic comedy works surprisingly well. No, this is absolutely nothing new or innovative. An upper class, suave, well-to-do man has the hots for a woman who is perfect, but she wants nothing to do with him? I, for one, did not see that coming. (That was sarcasm by the way). It works because of Susannah York and a pre-Bonnie and Clyde Warren Beatty, their chemistry evident from the first scene. It's fun to see them go back and forth, always trying to one up the other as they start to realize they have genuine feelings toward each other. It's good, but not great, the first 30-40 minutes a little slow going. Never bad, just could have been better and more entertaining in the first half of the flick.

Overall, it's got a lot of little things going for it. Like several recent reviews -- Jack of Diamonds, Danger: Diabolik -- I've posted, Kaleidoscope has that always fun, always interesting 1960s style. With its lightly toned story (the "danger" is never really in question), Kaleidoscope globe trots around Europe. England is used as the backdrop for a majority of the story with some green-screen shots inserted here and there to show Barney's other stops. The score from composer Stanley Myers is solid and light without being too light-hearted. Give it a listen HERE. Even the scene to scene transitions are cool, the visual of a spinning kaleidoscope helping make the jumps.

While this is obviously Beatty and York's movie, I was more drawn to a handful of supporting players. Revill as Inspector MacGinnis is especially good. He's recruiting Barney for a dangerous mission that any James Bond fan will surely appreciate. Have you read Casino Royale? Seen the movie? Then you've seen this thinly veiled duplicate of the original Ian Fleming story for 007.  McGinnis needs Barney to break the bank of a narcotics supplier, Dominion (Eric Porter), who's fallen on difficult times financially. His trick? Barney snuck into Kaleidoscope, a playing card company and marked the card plates so he can read the cards where no one else can. Those cards happen to be at casinos and clubs across Europe, including Dominion's club. Revill brings some much-needed drama, Porter has some fun as the smooth, underplayed villain, and Murray Melvin plays Aimes, McGinnis' goofy assistant and dead-shot with a rifle.

It's in the last half of the movie that Kaleidoscope finds its rhythm in its James Bond-knock-off. There is something inherently simple and tense about a card game with hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars resting on one hand of cards. Director Jack Smight has some cool techniques with his camera, following the action around in long, unedited cuts, then zooming in for extreme close-ups. Watch some of the poker scenes HERE (SPOILERS). Generally underplayed and understated, the energy gets ratcheted up in the final act as Barney has it out with Dominion and his henchmen at a huge English countryside manor. I didn't love this movie early on, but I really liked the second half. Surprisingly good stuff. Worth checking out.

Kaleidoscope (1966): ***/****

McCabe and Mrs. Miller

Revisionist westerns are completely hit or miss with me.  Made mostly in the 1960s and early 1970s as Americans and people around the world undoubtedly became a little more skeptical, a little more cynical, these westerns tried to show what the wild west was really like.  I go back and forth because I can appreciate the west was not the one so often portrayed in John Wayne movies.  It just wasn't a romantic place where everything ended with the good guys winning out.  Some revisionist westerns just go too far though.  There's a middle ground between the romantic and just ripping apart a myth or a legend for the sake of doing it.  One of the best I've come across though, proof that a revisionist look at the old west can be a classic, 1971's McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

Sometimes these westerns are prime examples of the period they were made in.  Director Robert Altman is certainly guilty of that here with his folk music soundtrack coming across as too lyrical and just trying too hard overall. But other than the poor choice in music, I feel safe saying Altman makes a nearly perfect western...if you can call this a western.  It is one of the most realistic looks a movie has ever given about what frontier life was really like.  It was a lawless place where one must fend for themselves.  Death lurked around any corner waiting to strike.  Maybe it's an anti-western, I really don't know.  But just on pure emotion with an ability to tell the simplest, darkest of stories, Altman delivers a winner.

Its the Pacific Northwest in the 1890s, and a man named John McCabe (Warren Beatty) rides into a small, muddy one-road mining town high up in the mountains.  He has his sights set on building a successful business for himself and letting the money roll in.  The plan goes perfectly as he brings three prostitutes in and goes about building a saloon for all the miners living nearby.  McCabe is quickly approached by a madam, Mrs. Constance Miller (Julie Christie), who wants to help him improve his business.  Not quite sure if he wants to go into business with a woman as a partner, McCabe wavers before ultimately deciding to do it.  It's the right choice, and his business thrives.  If anything, it thrives too much though.  The company that owns the nearby mines is very aware of his success and wants their fair share of the profits.

At the heart of this movie is Beatty and Christie as these two very similar flawed characters who find a common link between them through their arguments and disagreements.  This is the type of relationship that so many westerns attempt to show between a man and woman.  It's just natural, never forced.  The duo was actually dating in real life apart from the movie, and their chemistry certainly shows.  They have an easy-going back and forth in their conversations, whether it be an argument or a quiet discussion as they discuss what to do next.  It's also a plus that in two actors like Beatty and Christie, neither made a long list of movies during their careers.  They clearly chose quality projects to do, and this is a perfect example.

Altman has that rare knack that few directors have, an artsy reputation who still appeals to a mainstream audience.  I like his directing style because it's never in your face.  He places his camera there for a scene and lets things develop.  He filmed in West Vancouver in the mountains, giving a palatable feel of being separated from humanity in this mountaintop town.  It is a gorgeous movie, one that earned cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond a British Oscar nomination for his camerawork. It is a movie that feels authentic down to its very roots and the muddy streets these characters walk through.  The dialogue, the period dress, the sets, the guns, all authentic as possible.

Now I've made no qualms about my preference for darker, cynical movies that shy away from generic happy endings, but this one bugged me to the point where I felt sick as the ending neared.  The whole tone of the movie led me to figure out how the story was going to end up, but even seeing it feels like a train just rolled over you.  This was 1971, and Altman pulls out all the stops.  No one is immune from his wrath, including big and small businesses, lawyers (William Devane in a great one-scene cameo), the church and organized religion, and just about anything else you care to think of in between. Altman comes out firing with both barrels and isn't afraid who gets caught in the crossfire.  That said, the ending (as much as I hated it) is the perfect, appropriate finale for this movie.  Anything else would have felt inauthentic.  The American dream, my ass, Altman is beyond pessimistic here.

Depending on the viewer, certain scenes in a given movie are going to have a different impact or leave an impression.  This had several -- the ending obviously -- but one just minutes before that shows how fragile life on the frontier really was.  Keith Carradine plays a young man known simply as the Cowboy who stops by McCabe and Miller's whorehouse, enjoys himself, and then prepares to ride out.  He's confronted by one of three killers sent to dispatch McCabe and callously gunned down by the man. It is an uncomfortable scene to watch because it's clear where it's building to, and when the gunshot roars to life, you wince at the noise. With the snap of a finger, one unlucky young man is dead as quick as that.  Without any pandering to the audience or a big speech explaining what just happened, Altman gets his message across.

More on the ending so SPOILERS from here on in.  Three hired guns are sent to this mountain town to force McCabe into a deal or kill him in the process.  All three actors are virtual unknowns, making their appearance more ominous. Who are they, and what are they capable of? McCabe has a reputation as a gunfighter, but he really isn't so when push comes to shove he loads his pistol and confronts them, not unlike the showdown at the end of High Noon.  He kills them all, but at a price. He's mortally wounded and dies in the snow as a storm rages all around him. Altman films this almost 30-minute sequence with no music and little dialogue to distract from what's happening on screen.  Heartbreaking, incredibly moving, however you want to describe it. It's an upsetting but perfect ending for the story.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller <---trailer (1971): ****/****