Take 2 Review: Stand Up Guys

By Arthur Ryan


In 1986 Touchstone Pictures released an aging buddy-comedy called, "Tough Guys" starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. In it, Burt and Kirk played two recently released ex-cons who must adapt to the modern and ever-changing world outside the prison yard. It was a funny little movie with great charm thanks to it's stars who overcame the simple and at times juvenile aspects of the script.

This past weekend while watching the new film, "Stand Up Guys" starring Al Pacino and Christopher Walken, it all seemed a little familiar.

In "Stand Up Guys", Pacino plays Val, a small-time crook who took the wrap for the death of a mobster's son, and now after serving 28 years in prison is reunited with his partner-in-crime, Doc played with great charm by Walken. Doc, however has been hired as a hit-man by that same grieving mobster and is required to off his old friend or be done-in as well.

"Stand Up Guys" spends most of it's time showing these two aging conmen adjusting to old age as they spend about twelve hours together in an overnight last hurrah before Doc's hit on Val has to take place.

Walken shines throughout as we see Doc deal with just about everything with a hilarious matter-of-fact quality. While breaking into a neighborhood pharmacy to steal some Viagra for Val, Doc is more interested in stealing some medicine for his hypertension since his co-pay is too high.
Most of the jokes and set-ups dealing with the age of these two conmen work well despite the occasional juvenile tendency of the script.

Along the way the two spring their former getaway driver, Hirsch from a nursing home. Hirsch, is played with typical dryness by Alan Arkin. And although his scenes are among the most absurd in the film, you can't help but feel disappointed by Arkin's brief time onscreen.

Pacino’s Val is no great stretch for the actor, after all he’s played this type before in “Donnie Brasco (1997)” among others. In one scene Val attempts to charm a young female bar patron to dance with him. It is humorous yet totally unbelievable. The girl would practically have to know that she was dancing with legendary actor Al Pacino to make it at all plausible. But Val’s relationship with Doc and Hirsch is at times genuine, thanks in large part to the onscreen chemistry of these three veterans.

But the real surprise here comes from Doc’s friendship with Alex (Addison Timlin) a young waitress at an all-night diner that the ex-cons visit several times throughout the night. Their relationship becomes the heart of the film and it helps elevate the material to something other than just a funny buddy flick.

The script was a first effort for its young writer, Noah Haidle, and just the second big-screen outing for it’s actor-turn director, Fisher Stevens. The two have a handle on their material, although nothing too new is on display here. But both writer and director owe an awful lot to their cast of seasoned veterans whose charm, talent and onscreen personas make “Stand Up Guys” all the more enjoyable.


By David Bjorkgren
Managing editor

If nothing else, Stand Up Guys gets you to feel good about thugs.

This buddy picture about three aging criminals who are reunited stretches credibility but works well when the focus remains on the friendship they share.
And why not?  The three gangsters in question are played with a mix of gusto and tenderness by Christopher Walken, Al Pacino and Alan Arkin, with Walken and Pacino dominating the screen time.

The story begins when Val (Al Pacino) is picked up by his best friend Doc (Christopher Walken) after he is released from prison. Val has served 28 years after he took the rap in the death of a crime boss’ son.  Val’s in a party mood and Doc’s happy to oblige, as they hook up with some hookers, steal a car from some dangerous low-life’s, elude police, free their other long-time companion Hirsch (Alan Arkin) from a nursing home  and provide their own brand of justice for a rape victim against the previously-mentioned low-life’s.

In between, there are some very nice scenes mostly between Val and Doc in a restaurant with a very sweet waitress named Alex whose importance to the film becomes apparent later on.
I wanted more of those scenes.  The dialogue rang truer and the feelings of the characters seemed more authentic than the criminal antics and sexual exploits elsewhere in the picture.

To the film’s credit, every time it seemed like it was going to go over the edge with the zany antics of these geriatric criminals, it pulled back and refocused on the friendships between Doc, Val and Hirsch.

There is a plot device here, adding tension and giving particular dimension to Doc and Val’s relationship.  Doc has been coerced by the crime boss to kill Val in revenge for the death of his son.  Should Doc not carry out his mission by 10 a.m. the following morning after Val’s release from prison, his own life and/or the life of his granddaughter would be forfeited.

So we have two aging criminals reminiscing about the good old days, complaining about their aches, pains and high co-pays on their medicines. At the same time Doc wrestles with the dilemma of having to kill his best friend while Val tries to prepare for his own death.

Walken, who somehow manages to deliver a great performance when it looks like he’s doing nothing, is particularly endearing as the level-headed guy who has to make this situation work while Pacino delivers a manic, but sympathetic  portrayal of a man who is quickly running out of options.

Arkin’s appearance as Hirsch is delightful but, sadly, he seems to be around more for comic relief than as a partner on par with Walken and Pacino.  (Note to the filmmakers: There’s no way a man with emphysema could be as sexually spry or energetic as Arkin’s character appears to be.)

The film exists as a vehicle for the three actors and it really delivers,  making it worth the price of a ticket.  As to the rest of the story, it has its quirky appeal but should be seen for what it is—an over-the-top urban fantasy that in no way resembles a true-to-life gangster pic.
I give “Stand Up Guys” 6.8 over-the-hill, rough and tumble, gun-toting, but sensitive, bad guys out of 10.

Hitchcock - Fun But Uneven Look At The Master of Suspense!

Alfred Hitchcock, never won a competitive Academy Award for directing, despite being nominated five times. It wasn't until 1968 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded Hitch the Irving G. Thalberg award honoring him for his work as a producer. The last of those five nominations for best director, was for the 1960 film, "Psycho" which is arguably the director's most famous and best work.

The making of that classic horror film is also the subject of a new movie, "Hitchcock", starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role. It's an enjoyable if not always true retelling of how "Psycho" got made and the toll it took on the director's health and his relationship with wife and collaborator, Alma Reville.

Written by John J. McLaughlin, the film is based on the 1990 book, "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," by Stephen Rebello who also worked as a consultant on "Hitchcock." Although Rebello's book focused more on the artistic production of "Psycho," this film uses Robello's work as a backdrop to the complex relationship between the aging film genius and his loving but longsuffering wife.

Directed by writer-turned-director Sacha Gervasi, "Hitchcock" opens in Plainfield, Wisconsin in 1944, with real-life murderer, Ed Gein (played by Michael Wincott) killing his older brother Henry in a fit of rage. The camera then suddenly pans to the right where we see Hopkins as Hitchock commenting on the crime in an obvious nod to the 1950's TV series, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." It's a device that works at first, but as the film progresses, the balance of comic commentary versus dramatic exposition proves uneven at best.

Yet, "Hitchcock" still packs a favorable punch thanks primarily to the performances of it's entire cast, starting with Hopkins. His Hitchcock is part impression, part curious take on the reserved film genius. His best moment comes near the film's end, in a riotously funny scene depicting Hitch's reaction to the audience's first exposure to the famed "Psycho" shower-scene. It’s moments like this that comment on the making of the film at hand that are by far the most interesting to watch.

As for the actors playing the stars of “Psycho”, they are all reminiscent of the iconic movie’s cast. Scarlett Johansson doubles for Janet Leigh along with Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. But it's James D’Arcy as Anthony Perkins who is downright uncanny as the famed Norman Bates. It's disappointing however, that such little attention was given to Perkins in the script. D’Arcy embodies Perkins so well, that a biopic of his own seems in order.

But by far the most compelling performance belongs to Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. As Hitch’s wife and collaborator, Reville worked on many of the master-of-suspense’s films as both an editor and script doctor, not always receiving on-screen credit. In “Hitchcock,” Mirren’s Alma is trapped in what seems to be a loveless marriage to a man who is often more interested in his blond-bombshell stars than his devoted wife.

As Alma pursues creative outlets on her own with former script collaborator Whitfield Cook (played by Danny Huston), Hitch becomes suspicious and confronts her.  Alma’s response is an impassioned one and by far the dramatic high-point of the film. Mirren’s work is solid here and worthy of Oscar consideration.

The only drawback to this focus on Alma and Hitch's troubled relationship, is that if often overshadows the behind-the-scenes look at the making of the master-of-suspense's most famous film. It was hard to know what aspects about the Hitchcock's relationship covered in the film were true or just artistic license on part of screenwriter, McLaughlin. For that reason, I often felt I was watching a made-for-TV biopic, and not a feature film.

What I found the most hard to reconcile in “Hitchcock” was the filmmaker’s choice to have Ed Gein, the real-life serial killer who inspired the “Psycho” story, interacting with Hitch in several scenes. The two never really met and having the creepy Gein comment on what’s happening in Hitch’s personal life seems far fetched and unnecessary.

Despite the brief ‘making-of’ portions devoted to “Psycho,” this film spends most of it’s time peering into the personal life of it’s subject. Most of it is light and fun, but the uneven patchwork of drama, comedy and commentary keep it from ever achieving the classic status of the film “Psycho” itself.

Take 2 Movie Review: Lincoln

By DAVID BJORKGREN

Managing Editor

Is there nothing Steven Spielberg can’t do? In his latest film, “Lincoln,” Spielberg takes his cameras back in time and records one of the nation’s pivotal moments when it passed the 13th Amendment and abolished slavery. And he convinced President Abraham Lincoln to play himself in the film.

Well, not really, but it feels that way sometimes thanks to a convincing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, a thoughtful screenplay by Tony Kushner and some good period piece lighting.

Day-Lewis gives us a mostly gentle, often humorous and folksy Lincoln who nevertheless shows the ruthlessness and political brilliance required to guide the nation through one of its darkest periods. In his Lincoln, we see not so much his human frailties, but rather the turmoil our 16th President felt trying to steer a divided nation past the institution of slavery and through the last moments of its Civil War. Lincoln’s devotion to the United States comes through, even as he occasionally tampers with its Democratic principles in order to preserve it.

And not once did he brandish an ax or try to kill off a vampire.
As with most film treatments of historical figures, we can only guess how close Day-Lewis hit the mark in portraying the actual Lincoln, but his is a Lincoln that felt real to the touch, visually and in personality.

Given the circumstances of January 1865, it seems incredible that Lincoln was able to orchestrate the House of Representatives into passing a Constitutional amendment to end slavery. The Civil War was still raging and even without the seceded southern states in play, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives was 20 votes short of getting the two-thirds majority it needed to pass the amendment. The concept of freed slaves was not a popular idea with many of the Democrats of Congress, from whose ranks many of the southern secessionists had come. There were even detractors among the Republicans.

And there’s a time limit. The South, depleted after four years of fighting, is sending emissaries north to talk about ending the war. The president’s in a quandary. If peace comes before the amendment passes then the South, readmitted to the Union, will be able to stop it. If he delays a chance to end the war early so the amendment can pass, then thousands more will die unnecessarily.

Most of the film focuses on Lincoln’s work behind the scenes to get support for the amendment before its final vote on Jan. 31. It is at these moments we appreciate Lincoln’s sheer will of personality. That personality was brought to bear against hesitant Congressman to swing them over to the “yes” column, as well as to members of his own cabinet who were often at odds over the best course of action to follow.

Day-Lewis is supported by a strong cast that has no problem sharing the room with him.

Tommy Lee Jones shines as Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens. This outspoken and sarcastic radical wanted slavery abolished and even pushed the idea that blacks and whites were equal. In a key scene during the House debates that resonates powerfully, Stevens must decide to put his tongue in check for the good of the amendment. Jones has raised the role of sarcastic, obstinate old man to an art form and he does not disappoint here. But beneath his humorous diatribes, Jones also shows us a man of deep character and principle.

Sally Fields gives us a stronger and smarter Mary Todd-Lincoln than history has often shown us. Yes, she struggles with depression and grief over the death of her sons, Edward and William, years before.

But at this point in her life, before future tragedies completely wear her down, she is still a strong and practical woman, devoted to her husband and politically-savvy when necessary. Fields shares a wonderful scene with Jones, when Mrs. Lincoln takes jabs at Congressman Stevens, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Stevens is critical of the money Mrs. Lincoln has spent to refurbish the White House and even tried to have her jailed. The White House, she counters, was a pig sty when they moved in and accuses him of withholding funds because he viewed the president and herself as hicks who didn’t need or deserve more lavish accommodations. At another point, in a bit of clairvoyance, she laments to Lincoln that she will only be remembered as that crazy woman who made her husband miserable.

David Strathairn plays Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, a strong ally in the president’s efforts to pass the amendment. Seward had lost the Republican Presidential nomination to Lincoln, but in time turned from bitter foe to staunch supporter as a member of Lincoln’s cabinet.

Veteran actor Hal Holbrook plays Preston Blair, a combative Lincoln advisor and southern politician who opposed the 13th amendment and wanted instead a peace treaty with the Confederacy and a sooner, rather than later, end to the war.

Lincoln’s efforts to secure the necessary votes were aided by three political operatives, played sometimes for laughs by John Hawkes, James Spader and Tim Blake. These men worked in secret, offering patronage jobs to lame-duck Democratic Congressman in order to win their vote for the amendment.

Two characters in the film, Congressman Steven’s housekeeper, Lydia Hamilton Smith (S. Epatha Merkerson) and White House seamstress Elizabeth Keckley (Gloria Reubenoffer) provide a black perspective on the historic events of 1865, reminding us that real lives are in the balance while the politicians debate.

Spielberg, as usual, has done a great job of creating a visually stunning piece. Scenes are lit naturally or seemingly with whatever artificial lighting was available in 1865. The dimly-lit scenes create intimacy between the characters and the audience that draw you in. The landscapes, from interiors of the White House to exteriors of Washington D.C., to the battlefields, range from elegant to gritty.

This will not be a film to everyone’s tastes. It is not action-adventure. It is historical political intrigue. It is the spoken word and it is an intimate exploration of a bigger-than-life presidential figure with noble ideas. The cinematography, as good as it is, is mere backdrop to the actors that carry the day.

I give “Lincoln” 8.5 story-telling, top hat-tipping presidents out of 10.


By Arthur Ryan

Correspondent

Steven Spielberg is no stranger to historical drama. He won his first Oscar for Best Director in 1994 for “Schindler’s List” and then again in 1999 for “Saving Private Ryan.”

Films like “Munich” would follow as well as his work as a producer on such projects as “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific.”

Spielberg has a great talent for interpreting history on film and with his latest effort, “Lincoln” which opened in movie theaters across the country this past weekend, he has outdone himself and delivered a breathtaking snapshot of a seminal moment in the life of our country and it’s 16th President.

Based in-part on historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s 2005 book, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” Spielberg’s “Lincoln” concentrates for the most part on one month, January 1865. The Civil War was almost over and Lincoln’s decision to amend the Constitution and make permanent his wartime Emancipation Proclamation, set’s off a political battle of wits and backroom horse-trading that seem all too familiar to the polarized times we live in today.

Daniel Day-Lewis is nothing short of brilliant in the title role of Abraham Lincoln. His cool, calm and collected Lincoln is steadfast, amusing and at times impassioned, and not at all unwilling to play politics to reach his goal of ending slavery. His onscreen performance is one for the ages, up there with James Cagney’s George M. Cohan and Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone. There is no doubt that for generations to come, when people think of President Abraham Lincoln, they will picture him as Day-Lewis.

Sally Field also shines as Lincoln’s tormented and extremely protective wife, Mary Todd. Molly, as Lincoln calls her, is still suffering emotionally from the death of their son, Willie, two years earlier. When their oldest son, Robert (portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) hopes to enlist in the union army, it proves almost too much for Mrs. Lincoln to bear. The scenes between Day-Lewis and Field are exceptional and bring great insight into their relationship.

In a film filled with commanding supporting performances, Tommy Lee Jones shines as Republican Congressman, Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania. His ardent abolitionist stand works both for and against Lincoln’s hope to pass the 13th Amendment and end slavery. His fiery rhetoric on the floor of the House of Representatives is a highlight, but Jones is equally as effective in more subtle scenes especially near the film’s end.

In at least two of those scenes at “Lincoln’s” conclusion prove why Spielberg is arguably the best living film director of our time. One is of course the assassination of President Lincoln and the other a lesser known footnote from Thaddeus Stevens’ biography, both of which are handled by Spielberg in the most inventive of ways.

His choices here are brilliant from a historical perspective. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner know just the right moment to reveal information about a main character along with finding new perspectives in which to shed light on known historical events, many of which have been filmed before.

With great restraint, Spielberg’s camera offers a more intimate look at history this time around, one with less sweeping camera moves and obvious musical cues than in his movies of the past. In other words, there’s less John Ford and more Sidney Lumet.

Unlike so many other directors in the past who have played very loose with the facts, Spielberg’s “Lincoln” only embellishes along the margins. A handful of historians have taken only minor issues with Kushner’s script, most of which have to do with character motivation and physical appearance. But as is so often the case in translating history to the big screen, time constraints often have some characters appearing more real than others. And today more than ever, there are some historians who will see on the screen what they want to, based on their own modern political ideologies.

There is no doubt in this reviewer’s mind that “Lincoln” and it’s stars Day-Lewis, Field and Jones will be up for Oscars come February along with writer Kushner and director Spielberg. And for the first time in a long time, the hype around a film and its chances of winning Oscar gold will be entirely justified.

Spielberg has given America a gift, one that will live on in the memory of movie-goers and historians for decades to come. And following the election of 2012, he may have also given his fellow Americans the best kind of medicine, the kind in a form of a movie that allows old wounds to heal and offers something other than a political party to rally around.