Lets Get Lost (1988) – 10/10

Probably the greatest music documentary (real, as opposed to spinal tap) that I’ve ever seen. Why? There’s so much of humanity laid bare here. He’s not my favourite artist but he’s bloody great. I couldn’t listen to “I get along without you very well” by anyone else, and there are versions by nina simone (possibly my all time favourite artist) and Sinatra and others. Baker is great, no mistake. He’s also a fucked up guy. He lived his life like most great artists, full of myths and lies and brilliance and bullshit. A career fuelled by outrageous talent that drove his peers mad with jealousy, and looks that gave him everything but the personality to deal with it, he managed to throw it all away, and will never be remembered with the all time jazz greats, but with the near-greats.

This documentary catches him at the end of his career, old (but not too old), wizened, but still proud, still playing. It traces him then, it shows him now. Interviews come forth, they inform the opinions we’ve gained on him just from seeing him then – he’s already fooled us. We see he’s vain, but we also see the talent, the heart, the love for his art. He looks like the young American guy made good – the Jazz Elvis. Then we’re back in the enddays, and he’s the old American guy looking back. It’s all of life, right there. The guy, up in a hotel room, drugged, confused, staring down at the trumpet in its case, glaring back up at him, his whole worth. You know, without it, he thinks he’s nothing, even if he’s giving it the big I am – we see through the terror he’s suppressing.

What’s funny is that, performance wise, people get worse as they get older. I love Miles Davis, but his later stuff is tough to accept from the guy who made Sketches of Spain and Kind of Blue, and Nina Simone was a mess in her last days, painful to listen to. Chet Baker, looking like a homeless toothless hobo, sounds just as good as he ever did, and that isn’t an insult – it’s great. What’s lovely about this film is that it gives his music a wonderful platform – I won’t say better than it deserves, because it deserves a great platform. But there’s better jazz musicians that never had this platform. The cinematography is amazing. Take a bottle of wine, and watch this, and drown in it. I have, more than once. Finally, an artist gets what they deserve in terms of a film. That he wasn’t even bothered by that point, and that it may be more than the man deserves, is a part of it, to be honest.

From a headline point of view, he helps the documentary by throwing himself out of a topfloor window and killing himself sometime soon after this film was made, but he didn’t need to do so. This wasn’t a film that relied on glamour, scandal and excitement. This film was brilliant already.

The Weather Man (2005) – 9/10

I missed this film when it first came out, and, due to it not being particularly well reviewed, was in no rush to see it.  I have only got around to it due to having watched “The Family Man” a while ago, and remembering how much I love watching Nicolas Cage in stuff, and so added a load more to my lovefilm list.  And he doesn’t disappoint again.  In fact, I think this is one of his greatest performances.

The acting is superb throughout this film, with the one bad spot being Michael Caine’s appalling effort at an American accent.  It’s such a small attempt, he gives up trying sometimes, and when he does do it, it makes you cringe.  Other than that though, his performance is excellent, as Cage’s disappointed father.  He’s disappointed with David Spritz (Cage), as is everybody else, most of all Spritz himself.  He does 2 hours of work a day, and picks up a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year for it.  He’s a weather man, but he’s not even a meteorologist.  He hates that there is a high degree of variance, which means the predictions he makes can’t even be relied upon.  So if his predictions are unreliable, and that’s all he does, then what use is he?

His conclusions about himself aren’t happy ones, unfortunately, but what he thinks of himself is probably still nicer than what his ex-wife, played by Hope Davis, thinks of him.  They have two kids, a fat unhappy daughter and a son who has had drug problems, and is assigned a counsellor, but has the bad luck to get a dodgy pervy one who wants to take photos of him topless. 

Spritz gets a shot at getting one of the top weather jobs, on daytime US network television, which would mean relocating.  He harbours dreams of reuniting his family and starting again elsewhere, an idea not wholly embraced by his ex who plans to marry someone else.  It’s this common feeling of “if only” that this film demonstrates so well.  If only he could get this better job, then maybe everything else will fall into place.  I’m very familiar with that feeling, and even if we know it can’t possibly fix everything, or maybe even anything, the magic fix is a delusion we’re often happy to entertain, as the alternative involves lots of hard work, and possibly unending unhappiness.

Another issue Spritz is wrestling with is the gradual wasting away of his potential.  Sure, he’s doing well, but you can only take one path in life, even if it’s a meandering one.  When it’s all potential, the possibilities are endless.  When you actually go through life, no matter which choice you make, you automatically discard all other choices.  The possibilities are whittled down to one, even if you choose right.  And nobody can choose right all the time.  Eventually, all the possible you’s are whittled down to just one you.  And that’s all you’re left with.  You.

It’s a messy film, with no obvious plot lines, and mixing humour and sadness to the point you can jump from one straight into the other.  Messy, then, kind of like life.  I confess to laughing and crying (yes, how sad is that.  And I’m not prone to crying at films, it’s probably happened about three or four times ever, but Cage and Caine, sitting in a car with a song by Bob Segar playing in the background, made it happen) in this film, although there’s no doubt it’s more drama than comedy.  Billed as a comedy, this was a crazy idea by the production company.  Talk about false advertising.  You want a comedy, you would hate this, as lots of people seem to have done.  It’s the same as About Shmidt, one of the most depressing films I’ve ever seen.  However, if you want a film about the human condition, and what it means to find happiness in the world, and maintain relationships with your family, filled with terrific dialogue, fantastic performances, sparkling direction, tears, laughter, and the sense that anything could happen, then it’s worth a go.  You can continually think you know how a scene is going to pan out, and you will be continually wrong.

 Steve Conrad’s intelligent script is a joy – there’s a love of language, a love of the unexpected, and a love of life.  I try and write screenplays, and this is one I’d love to have written.  Maybe I feel I loved this film so much because I didn’t have much in the way of expectation, but this is one of the best films I’ve seen for a long time.  I can’t believe the negative ratings it gets.  In a time of boring films by numbers that Hollywood puts out, in between reboots and remakes and sequels and prequels, this is something special, and I’m gutted it doesn’t get more respect for that.  This is a courageous and sparkling piece of filmmaking, that I already want to watch again.  A film that can create tears of laughter and tears of sadness, sometimes only moments apart, is an excellent film indeed.  Possibly even a great one.

Sunset Boulevard (1950) – 9/10

Write about what you know, they say. So Billy Wilder came up with a story, funded by Hollywood, absolutely smashing Hollywood to it’s rotten charred heart. What stones, as they say! Focusing on a skint scriptwriter, being chased by people wanting to reclaim his car due to lack of payments, he gets a puncture, and hides out in a garage in a mansion he happened to be driving past in Beverley Hills. Seeing that the house appears to be run down and abandoned, he has a look around, and is startled when he is called in, in a case of mistaken identity, as the owner is expecting someone to arrive to bury her dead chimpanzee. Just the sort of storyline you’d expe- wait a minute! A dead chimpanzee?! Anyway, her butler (and biggest fan) shows him in, and he sets her straight, but it turns out in their conversation, as she is throwing him out, that their paths crossing could be useful to everyone. She is a forgotten Hollywood star, reclusive and cast aside since the glory days of silent cinema, which she ruled (as indeed the actress playing her did in real life). She is working on a comeback, and has a script. She wants him to finish it. She is clearly rich, judging by her house and her demeanour, and maybe this could be his mealticket if he plays it right. The problem is, while part of him is content to soak up her money and write her dismal script out for her, he is also falling for a girl, a fellow screenwriter, and this requires a delicate balancing act. While Desmond pays well, she doesn’t like competition, oh no.

What follows is for the viewer to find out, but there is clearly murder involved, as the film starts with a body in the pool, and the film is the story of the events that lead up to the grisly resolution. Therefore, we know disaster is looming, and that helps with the noir dread that hangs over everything. Norma Desmond, the film star, is almost dead already – forgotten and faded in her mansion like Miss Haversham (referenced in the knowing voiceover of the scriptwriter as he checks the place out for the first time). The acting is great – Gloria Swanson gets a dream ticket to ham her way through everything. There is no such thing as overacting for her – she is playing the greatest overactor of them all! By the very point of her role, she can’t physically overdo it, but my God, she tries. By contrast, William Holden plays it straight as the hapless drunk, Joe Gillis. This is helped by the fact that Holden was also a hapless drunk, his boozing having pretty much thrown his promising career off the rails by the time this film came along. He doesn’t have much charisma, but that’s perfect for the role, and it’s an excellent and believable performance. Erich von Stroheim, who actually directed Swanson in her silent career, plays her stoic and devoutly loyal butler sadly and brilliantly. Nancy Olson isn’t on the same level as the rest, but her part is a pretty superficial one. She is there to represent youth and the future to contrast with Desmond’s ugly and bitter past, to provide the choice for Gillis to sweat over.

There’s lots to admire in the film – it’s shot beautifully, it’s hard hitting and intriguing storyline drags you along, and is filled with compelling performances. It was sad, but nice, to see Buster Keaton as one of Desmond’s poker buddies. The film’s focus on Desmond reminds me of what a sad fall from grace Keaton had in his own career, and how his studio shafted him at the peak of his creative powers. Living proof that the dastardly film business portrayed in the film was no fiction on Wilder’s part, making the film all the more powerful. The stars might get rich, but at what cost.

The Family Man (2000) – 7.5/10

This is a poor film in so many ways, and yet I really enjoyed it. Part of that is down to the star. Nic Cage is pure eye glue in everything he’s in – good or bad. He is one of the most watchable screen presences I have ever encountered. He’s often been in edgy films, so to see him in a predictable schmaltzy Christmas film has it’s own particular appeal. He definitely makes the film far more enjoyable than it would have been with anyone else in it – indeed, put a middle of the road actor in this, and it would probably scrape a six if that. He plays Jack Campbell, an incredibly rich banker, who got rich by pursuing his job, rather than his relationship.

The film starts with him leaving his girlfriend Kate (Tea Leoni) at the airport for a year while he goes to London. They have a plan. Despite her wanting to abandon the plan because she has a bad feeling about it, he goes anyway. We cut to a number of years later. His work dream worked out. The relationship with Kate didn’t. In a nod to Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life, he meets what we can only assume is an angel, and, after saying he doesn’t need anything – he has everything he needs – gets a very unwanted glimpse at what life would have been like if he hadn’t boarded the plane.

What follows is predictable – surely by reading that, you can pretty much nail how the film is going to go at every turn. You’re right. But it’s still watchable, that’s the weird thing. More than watchable. I enjoyed it. I’d watch it again. It probably comes down to whether you like Cage, but if so, there’s much to enjoy here. Tea Leoni is watchable too, in other ways. She’s bloody gorgeous. It’s not really a fair “glimpse” – she’s even better looking when the film has moved on 12 years than she was at the airport begging him not to leave. If she looked that way at the beginning, he might not have left, and the glimpse would have showed him how rich he might become and how much fun there was to be had singing opera in your underpants on your way to making another cool few billion dollars. What if the “glimpse” had placed him into a family life where Kate had gained several stone and the kids were brats, and he hated his inlaws? That would have been an interesting deviation from the standard Hollywood fare.

To its credit, it’s not entirely black and white, like these films often are. He wasn’t miserable in his rich life. It showed him really enjoying what he did. He spends a portion of his “glimpse” life trying to get back into that, so he can have the best of both worlds. It isn’t quite the usual “happy and poor vs sad and rich” scenario – it’s more subtle and the decision is less clearcut and more interesting as a result. While the hypocrisy of being preached to about moral values by Hollywood never gets dulled, this is a fun film, that runs along familiar lines, but does so with gusto, not a little fun, and a terrific performance by the always watchable Cage.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) – 8/10

This ‘quirky’ Wes Anderson offering* follows aquatic explorer steve zissou, played fantastically as always by Bill Murray, as he broadcasts his latest offering to the public, where a terrifying hitherto-undiscovered species of shark claims the life of one of his crew, and takes questions on it, before setting off to film the follow-up, where he seeks revenge on the creature.  The funding for this comes from a millionaire, Alistair Hennessy (Jeff Goldblum), who has also taken Zissou’s wife, Eleanor (Anjelica Huston).  The crew are joined by Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), who may or may not be Zissou’s son from a long-ago tryst, and an English journalist (Cate Blanchett), who is writing an article on Zissou.  Zissou is getting old, his popularity may be waning (although not with one of the crew, in one of the best and funniest performances of the film; that of Willem Defoe as the German, Klaus Daimler).  That is the framework for the film, but the beauty and successful bits of the film have very little to do with the overall plot, but the nuances, the terrific lines, the acting of a bunch of brilliant actors having fun by playing it all incredibly straight to excellent comedic effect.

The film is often derided for having no pace or direction, but I found I was laughing more constantly, and was more drawn in, than by any of Anderson’s other films that I’ve seen, including The Royal Tenembaums (which I felt really let down by), Rushmore, which I found boring, and Fantastic Mr Fox, which I thought was utterly terrible.  I was resigned to not liking Wes Anderson, and not seeing what the fuss was about, and yet this was superb.  Part of the joy is in seeing Bill Murray centre screen; the camera really does love his slow, miserable, expressionless latter-day performances.  Part of it is the confidence Anderson has in the characters he has created – there is no urgency to move the film on – they find their own way.  That’s not to say the film doesn’t move on – in it’s own way, it’s tight and meticulous, and yet it feels unhurried and human.

I really don’t think this film is for everyone, but I’m sure there are some that will love it, if you can buy into it.  I haven’t really seen a film like this one, and that is to be commended over every “sure fire” attempt (I realise there is no such thing, but there are lots of attempts that follow strict formulas that are obviously designed to be sure fire successes.  This is something new, something original, and while it may not be everyone’s taste, it will delight some.  That is surely a more worthwhile thing than a safer film that pleases more people, but delights none.

* I think he must have changed his name to Quirky Wes Anderson by now, such is the lazy approach to reviewing his films, by everyone, including myself.  Shame on me.

Rocky (1976) – 9/10

This film’s backstory is almost as famous, and almost as movie-worthy, as the storyline of the film itself.  Sylvester Stallone, a total unknown, almost forced to sell his dog due to not being able to afford to keep him, gets offered $350,000 for the rights to a script he has written.  He turns it down, saying he will only sell the story if he can play the lead role.  Who of us would be brave enough to do that?  A triumph of self-belief that more than matches anything in the film (especially as his character, Rocky Balboa, is utterly plagued by self-doubt), this decision was proved utterly correct.  Nobody could watch this and deny that Stallone IS Rocky, and that it is doubtful anyone else could have played it better.  He mumbles his way through the film, about a nothing boxer, given a random shot at the world title, when the Champ’s opponent withdraws and a fight has to be arranged for the Fourth of July, a fight to encapsulate the American Dream, where anybody can be given a shot at the bigtime.  The Champion hits on Rocky’s nickname, the Italian Stallion, and so the film focuses on one man’s fight with his own doubts, his own fears, and the chance to finally make something of himself. 

He isn’t even thinking in terms of the traditional underdog.  He has no aspirations of winning, but of merely going the distance and not being humiliated.  There’s a simple realism to Rocky that is utterly lost in the sequels (there aren’t many films whose inferior sequels tarnished their reputation in quite such a way as Rocky.  Most people who have seen the later ones, and disliked them, would never think to pay any attention to the first, but it’s an entirely different film.  There’s not much fighting in it, for a start.  It focuses far more on the man, his situation, and especially his burgeoning relationship with his friend’s sister, the strangely named Adrian (Talia Shire), an incredibly timid and shy girl who works in the local petstore.  She’s been verbally abused by her depressed alcoholic brother to the point of feeling utterly worthless, as hemmed in by the world as Rocky, but in different ways, and the film makes a point of showing her looking after birds locked in cages every bit as restrictive as the metaphorical one she has around her.  There aren’t many likeable characters in Rocky’s world, and as frustrating as her shyness is, we can see why he would like her by the sheer lack of beauty or humanity that is in everyone around her: his loanshark boss who treats him like a bum, his best friend Paulie (Burt Young) who talks to him like a bum, his trainer (the wonderful Burgess Meredith) who tells him he’s a bum.  To her, he’s not a bum.  That’s enough.  The two need each other, and the developing of their relationship (including what may be one of the most awkward first dates ever put on film) is tender and involving. 

Rocky isn’t shallow – his character has depth, and Stallone (a man often derided for his acting) is convincing.  He is capable of hinting at inner feelings with the smallest of looks, and has a genuine vulnerability that an established star (Redford and Burt Reynolds were two of the discussed names) would have struggled to give.  He was an unknown in life, and in the film, and the public sided with him.  I’d be amazed if anyone watched the film and didn’t end up investing real emotion in the fight.  I feel nervous in the buildup to the fight every time, and I’ve watched it many times.  I feel defensive when I list Rocky as a fantastic film, and almost follow it with a challenge, or with a “It is!” exclamation after to ward off people’s immediate mocking.  But the mocking rarely comes.  As opposed to it’s terrible sequels, most people who know the film, love the film.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) – 9/10

It’s startling to realise that this is now twenty years old.  This is still a shocking piece of work.  Although, for a gangster film, there isn’t really all that much violence, what there is is powerful and dark.  It’s also a masterpiece of plotting on a budget.  Set largely in a warehouse, where a gang of criminals are set to meet after an armed robbery that has gone wrong, it’s a tight claustrophobic setting, where the confusion of the robbers as to what’s gone wrong is matched by our own, as the film is told out of sequence.  We see the bloody aftermath before we even know what they are trying to do.  As they piece together who’s alive and who’s dead, and whether it all went wrong by accident or if there is a rat in the house, so we piece together who is in this gang, and what roles they all played in it. 

There are examples of Tarantino’s now famous naturalistic dialogue, where a bunch of guys just sitting around a restaurant table, or cruising in a car, really can sound like a bunch of guys just sitting around a restaurant table, or cruising in a car.  The characters come to life, and the plot keeps us glued to the screen – we’re involved but always playing catch-up – a tight line that Tarantino walks with perfection.  Complete with great dialogue, iconic scenes – any bunch of guys walking down the road in suits, or especially in sunglasses too, will always get someone commenting on it, or starting to hum the tune that goes with it, or how about the Mutually Assured Destruction showdown between Keitel’s Mr White and Buscemi’s Mr Pink (“I didn’t create this situation. I’m dealing with it!”) and the infamous scene involving Michael Madsen’s Mr Blonde with a captured policeman – this film still feels fresh and dangerous, and I get the feeling that is unlikely to change.  With this as a debut feature, and following it up with Pulp Fiction, Tarantino established himself as one of the most important names in 90s cinema.

The Hurt Locker (2008) – 7.5/10

Known forever as the film that stopped the juggernaut that is Avatar, this was judged “Best Film” at the 2010 Oscars.  While I preferred Inglourious Basterds, and even District 9 and Avatar, this is a good film that manages to feature the Iraq war without bothering to focus on whether the people should be there or not.  It’s probably by avoiding that thorny issue that it became possible for it to win the Oscar, as a lot of voters would have been turned off depending on which side of the debate the film fell.  This, however,  is not bothered about whether they should be there.  They are there, and that’s that.  The soldiers have more to worry about than the reasons for the war.  They face a daily battle to stay alive. 

This battle is rarely to do with gunfire – their chances of becoming just another statistic in the war are mainly down to bombs, which they have to try and defuse, often with someone hiding nearby hoping for the chance to detonate the bomb when it might cause most damage to the American troops.  This sort of thing is good for film tension, obviously, although I generally felt less tension than I think I was supposed to.  I guess because Jeremy Renner, playing Sergeant First Class William James, was the star of the show, top billed, and clearly the maverick doing things his own way, on the edge, and was always the guy doing the defusing, it was pretty obvious he wasn’t about to get blown up any time soon, or the movie would stop. 

While I would have liked more tension, it was still quite an involving watch, although I thought the best bit of the entire film was the only non-bomb segment, where they get involved in a firefight with a sniper.  It reminded me slightly of the sniper section in Full Metal Jacket (where, again, I thought it was a better segment of film than the more celebrated training camp.  Maybe I’m just “into” sniper battles!)  There’s other good set scenes, including one where a man comes before them with a bomb strapped to himself, pleading for help.  The crew must decide, and gamble their lives on their decision, whether he is a suicide bomber wanting to get them close before killing himself, or whether he is a civilian in need of help.  You’re treated to the view of a man risking his life by getting close to the guy to examine him, while also pointing a gun at him and threatening to shoot him if he moves unexpectedly.  It’s a hell of a conundrum for the character, and the film manages these scenes well.

Renner was very good, and the film was less annoying than I thought it would be.  I was fully prepared for lots of whooping and hollering and “that’s what I’m talking about” and “USA USA!” chanting and high fives and all of that, and what I saw was a fairly pleasant surprise.  There was a section where they prove how manly they are by punching each other in the stomach.  While the very nature of their daily activity must leave such people with more adrenaline running round their bodies than I could possibly comprehend, and they obviously need to find ways to use that up, this seemed such an utterly moronic activity, I couldn’t help but hope for a ruptured appendix or two.

The film concentrates on the idea of this adrenaline, that people such as James get so used to it, that normal life is utterly unsatisfactory.  You can see the post-coital glow in his post-defusing relaxation, puffing on cigarettes and murmering “That was good!” and it’s contrasted nicely with a spell back in civilian duty, in a supermarket, where his wife asks him to choose which cereal they should eat for the next week.   There are questions raised about people who risk their lives in warfare, where we ponder not just the fates of those who die, but also those who survive, and people like James, who are most content when riding the line in between.

Escape From New York (1981) 5/10

America filled up with so many criminals, they ended up abandoning Manhatten, and turning it into a massive prison, surrounded by the military.  Unfortunately, Air Force One has been kidnapped, with the President (Donald Pleasance) on board, and crashlanded into the heart of the area (as a massive fan of Chris Morris, I found myself thinking “This is the one thing we didn’t want to happen!”).  Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), a convicted and dangerous criminal, with no respect for anyone, is brought in by Lee Van Cleef’s “Hauk”, as the only man bad and tough enough to go in and get the President out.  He has an implant into his neck that will kill him if he doesn’t return with the President in 24 hours, so he can’t take the opportunity to escape, or dilly dally in any way. 

Lee van Cleef is one of the better things in the film, but is the main reason, according to the special features on the disc, why Russell decided to talk in the manner of Clint Eastwood for the duration of the film.  Unfortunately this was an awful decision, as the void separating the charisma and screen presence of Eastwood and Russell would be more than enough to keep all the prisoners on this film separated from society.  Mind you, the “prisoners” on this film are about as scary as a bunch of slightly unruly school kids that won’t keep quiet in a substitute teacher’s lesson.  I can only assume the crime rate’s increased so much because there is now a fixed 10-year term for littering or not renewing your car tax. 

A frankly bizarre cast includes Harry Dean Stanton as some kind of wet fish toadying around after whoever he thinks might be most likely to come out on top, Isaac Hayes as the “Duke”, the leader of the prison, and Ernest Borgnine as an incredibly friendly and enthusiastic cab driver.  They all ham it up massively, which is reasonably fun, for a while.  The pacing of the film, however, is so slow, that enthusiasm has long ceased to fire by the final act.  A burnt out area in Illinois gave Carpenter an ideal post-apocalyptic landscape in which to film, and I have to say the look of the locations is great, and the main pull of the film, especially considering they were working on such a tiny budget.  Unfortunately the plot is terrible, the acting is worse, and the whole thing takes itself far too seriously.

I appreciate this film is important, in that it was probably quite unlike anything that was around at the time.  However, it came before a load of great 80s action films.  The 80s wasn’t a great era for many things, but action movies did pretty well out of the whole thing.  Unfortunately, they immediately dated this film beyond recognition.  It’s a B-movie, and probably quite a good one if taken on that level, but it’s no classic film.

Prizzi’s Honor (1985) – 6.5/10

Jack Nicholson plays somewhat against type here, in that he is thicker and much more reined in than his normal efforts.  He is playing Charlie Partanna, a Mafia gangster who is suddenly unsure of himself, removed from the comfort of his usual routine of murder and blindly following out family orders.  Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner) is the cause of this confusion, when he spots her from afar at a wedding and falls in love. Bizarrely, considering how weirdly he plays the seduction, she reciprocates, and a strange relationship rather devoid of onscreen chemistry plays out.  The lack of chemistry may be something to do with the fact Nicholson was actually dating his co-star Anjelica Huston, whose father was directing them all.  Therefore, romping naked with Turner may have caused a few tensions on set.  Actually, that’s probably completely untrue, at least as far as man’s man John Huston was concerned, but I’m sure it would have been interesting to be backstage sometimes! 

Anjelica Huston actually got a supporting actress oscar for her turn here, which astounds me, as she is hardly in the film, and largely average, but maybe that’s just me.  There’s some good supporting work, if slightly hammy, from some of the other gangsters in the film, including a fun turn from William Hickey as the anaemic Don, who appears to be on his last legs, but you suspect may seem them all buried before he finally kicks the bucket.  The plot is quite fun, with twists and turns, as we follow Charlie try and make head or tail of his upturned world.  He needs to work out who he can trust, and as hits are made fairly regularly throughout the film, he needs to be pretty confident that he has made the right choices.  Irene is “Polack”, and therefore entirely untrusted by the Mafia, who want Charlie to have nothing to do with her, and so he is forced to choose between his love for Irene and his love for, and duty to, his family. 

The film’s flawed – it doesn’t know fully what it intends to be.  It’s not funny enough to be a black comedy and it’s not serious enough to be a compelling drama.  For all that, the story is worth a watch.  It’s no classic, but it’s decent.  It got nominated for eight oscars, which is WAY too many for what is essentially an average to quite good film.  I can only think the personnel involved caused quite a bit of backslapping in the voting.  If you enjoy watching gangster films, or black comedies, or the stars involved, this is worth sticking on if you see it, but it doesn’t add up to the promise, considering all the talent on show.