bookeryfan Reviews

Hush (V) (2008)

Remake of Road Games?

[5/10 · 6 February 2023]

Though this film has been compared, in previous reviews, to "Duel", "Breakdown", and others... in many ways it appears this is a remake, or at least, reinvention, of 1981's "Road Games" with Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis. The movies begin and end similarly, with some variations in between.

I won't go into plot details, as others have covered that territory. But if one is going to do a remake, then it is not unfair to ask if the remake improved or added to the original. Here are some key differences. "RG" was set in Australia. "H" is set in the UK. "RG" featured crisp cinematography and gorgeous views of the Australian outback. "H" features endless shaky-cam and is shot in pouring rain at night. "RG" had dashes of humor and clever banter between the stars. "H" has no humor and has an angry couple bickering at each other. Both movies have prominent plot points featuring dogs (again leading one to believe this is a conscious remake).

Obviously, "Hush" aims to be much darker than "Road Games". It's more violent, but doesn't veer into the gore-fest category of so many modern thrillers. It's not terrible. But the shaky-cam really is quite distracting (someday film historians will look back at this era and say "what were they thinking" that such an annoying gimmick could become so pervasive for a time). In "Road Games" we are immediately attracted to and like the protagonists. We get to see no likability with the couple in "Hush", as we encounter them already in their endgame of a nasty breakup. "Hush" does have a decent twist halfway through, which I won't divulge here.

Ultimately, it's an okay time-passer, but other films have done it better. It's not a waste of your time, but it's also not a film you'll remember a year after having seen it. Thus, 5/10.

A Covenant with Death (1967)

Melodrama falls short of its concept

[5/10 · 10 October 2022]

No need to cover the plot beyond what has already been said. As has also been stated, in many ways this seems like a one-hour teleplay that has been expanded into a feature film. Though billed as a courtroom drama, most of the screen time is taken up with two romantic subplots and a third drama involving the relationship between Maharis and his mother (Jurado).

Maharis is bland as the lead, as are the two women in his life (this is more of a script problem than the actors' faults). Gene Hackman has a fairly small role as the sheriff, so doesn't really get to shine. The one standout, surprisingly, is Earl Holliman. He can often be hammy or wooden, but here he deftly alternates between sympathetic and despicable in the movie's one complex role.

The other standouts in the film are its period setting (early 1900s New Mexico), and the luminous photography by Robert Burks in his next-to-last film.

Welcome to Hard Times (1967)

Not what many think it is

[6/10 · 18 April 2022]

Many reviewers have given this film a low rating because they interpret it as being a pacifist political film. That's not the case, nor does that interpretation really make sense. If this was a pro-pacifist western (whatever that might be) then it wouldn't make sense to have every pacifist move in the film result in total and terrible failure. But to be fair... every attempt to combat violence with violence ALSO ends in failure.

Aldo Ray does not represent a man, but a condition. It's even stated in the film that he is as inevitable as a ruinous storm or drought. He doesn't speak a word (merely grunts and laughs like an animal), to further remove him from consideration as the embodiment of a mortal man.

The film is flawed (I give it a 6). Its themes are a bit muddy, but it's mostly about shame and stubbornness. Fonda feels shame because he is a coward, and an inept protector. Rule is ashamed both of her occupation, but even more for her assault and humiliation. The prostitutes are too ashamed to flee the bullying Wynn. Yet everyone also is stubborn, to the point of self-sacrifice, by continuing to forge ahead in a forsaken town that offers little of use to anyone. In the end, it's about the battle between hope and hopelessness.

The town represents an unarmed, untrained population much like the generic Mexican village in most westerns, where a thug or gang has taken over the town and cowers the population. Only in this film, there is no John Wayne of Magnificent Seven to come to the rescue.

Fonda is perfect casting because the viewer expects him to rise to the occasion. But it simply isn't in his nature. And were he to attempt an act of bravery earlier, he is correct in his assessment that he would fail... as we see he has little proficiency with a weapon. One of the flaws with film, however, is the casting. Fonda and Rule are perfect, and there's nothing wrong with any of the performances. But it might have been more powerful if the rest of the cast were mainly unknowns. Instead, they are such a star-studded cast of character actors that you find yourself waiting for each guest-star appearance which takes away from the grim subject.

On the plus side, the location is fascinating. It is one of those few westerns that shows what small soon-to-be ghost towns in the west are really like (also see The Hanging Tree, The Ballad of Cable Hogue, McCabe and Mrs. Miller). Yes, the final shot is a confusing misfire... possibly because a studio felt they needed to tag on an "upbeat" ending... but it could also be seen as a continuation of the stubbornness theme... and an unwillingness to adapt to reality.