Die Hard (1988)

For various peculiar reasons I missed out on seeing almost all the big hit movies of the 80s. In the past few years I’ve been slowly rectifying those omissions. Which brings me to the mammoth 1988 hit Die Hard which amazingly I had never seen. I had always assumed it was just a big dumb action movie. It is a big dumb action movie but it’s astonishingly well-crafted and it totally redefined the action movie.

Interestingly director John McTiernan was initially reluctant to have anything to do with this project. He thought the early versions of the script were mean and unpleasant and nihilistic. He agreed to do it if major changes were made.

Apparently the source novel by Roderick Thorp was about a major terrorist incident and that was McTiernan’s biggest objection. He wanted to make an enjoyable summer blockbuster, not a horrifying tale of viciousness. When the script was changed to make it more of a classic heist movie rather than a terrorist movie he suddenly became enthusiastic.

McTiernan also wanted to remove any hint of political content.

He also felt that the hero of the novel is too much in the Dirty Harry mould. The hero of the movie, John McClane (Bruce Willis), is not like that. He is a flawed hero but we like him because he is aware of his flaws and he’s working on them. Fundamentally he’s a decent guy. He’s a nice guy. The kind of guy you’d like to have a few beers with.

The Nakatomi Building, built by a Japanese corporation, has just opened. They’re throwing a Christmas party to celebrate. Among the celebrants is high-achieving fast-rising executive Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia). Her estranged husband, New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) has arrived in L.A. to see the kids at Christmas. He gets an invite to a party. It turns out to be quite a party.

A gang of a dozen terrorists seizes the building. Oddly enough they don’t talk about revolution at all. They don’t spout political rhetoric like typical terrorists.

Their leader Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) has devised an intricate and foolproof plan. There’s just one tiny problem. That problem is John McClane. When the guests were rounded up as hostages the gang overlooked McClane. Now he’s on the loose and he’s annoyed and he intends to make trouble. What do you do when you’re outnumbered twelve to one and the situation is hopeless? McClane has no doubts as to what you do. You seize the initiative. You make the bad guys feel like they’re the hunted rather than the hunters.

This sets up a series of dazzling action set-pieces. And they’re relentless and they’re sufficiently well executed that there’s no danger of action scene fatigue setting in.

The building itself becomes a character in the story (and it should be added that the production design is superb). McClane has to get to know the building. The more he learns about the geography of the building the better his chances.

Bruce Willis’s likeability is a major asset. McClane isn’t perfect but that’s why we’re totally on his side. He’s just a cop.

When we first meet Holly she seems like a typical girlboss but we gradually realise that there’s a bit more to her. She really does love her big lunk of a husband. There’s a great moment late in the movie when it’s obvious that she is incredibly proud of him. She slowly comes to realise that their marriage is worth saving.

There’s a fine love story here.

And Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber is such a fun super-villain. He’s a bad man but he’s clever and his plan is so ingenious that we almost find ourselves thinking that it deserved to work.

The LAPD Deputy Police Chief is both arrogant and dumb. When the FBI guys turn up it’s soon apparent that they’re not as smart as they think they are. McClane’s advantage is that he doesn’t think he’s a genius. He’s just a street cop.

You can also see this as a technology vs humans story. The Nakatomi Building has incredibly sophisticated security but it relies entirely on technology. You can’t help thinking that half a dozen armed guards who know their jobs would have been more effective. In fact one ordinary New York street cop with no technological aids whatsoever achieves more than all thew high-tech security devices.

Die Hard is indeed a big dumb action movie but it’s a truly great movie of its type. Fast-moving, hyperactive, stylish. Very highly recommended.

Legend (1985)

Legend is a 1985 fantasy film directed by Ridley Scott and it seems to be almost a forgotten movie. This is old school fantasy, not just in terms of special effects but in terms of overall feel. It has more of an affinity with movies like The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth than with more recent fantasy films.

This is a fairy tale movie without any noticeable comic-book influence.

It was a box-office flop and critics were unimpressed.

The central characters are Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and Jack (Tom Cruise). This is definitely the Realm of Faerie, a world of magic with goblins and unicorns and all manner of fantastic creatures, but it appears that Lili and Jack are human. Jack lives in the forest. Perhaps he was raised by the fairies? He does speak the language of the animals. 

Lili and Jack are madly in love and although Jack does not seem to have the usual qualifications one needs in order to marry a princess it is clear that Lili has chosen him.

These two young lovebirds then make two serious mistakes. They do two forbidden things. Firstly Jack allows Lili to touch a unicorn, something no mortal is permitted to do. And then Lili exercises her prerogative as a princess to set Jack a quest. She tosses the ring that signifies their betrothal into the lake. Jack must retrieve it, which proves impossible.

Unfortunately these mistakes aid the magical plans of the Lords of Darkness. He detests the sunshine and plans to create a world of perpetual night. To achieve this he must destroy the forest’s two unicorns and he must corrupt innocence. And Lili is clearly an innocent.

The corruption of Lili began with her impetuous urge to touch the unicorn.

The forest has now been plunged into permanent winter.

Jack is not exactly obvious hero material. He’s a naïve good-natured child of the forest. But now he will have to become a hero. 

Yes, there’s a hero’s journey here and Jack has a Destiny.

He has a small band of fairies to help him. They don’t seem like much of an army but they are devoted to Lili. And the elf Gump will be a useful lieutenant.

Tom Cruise is surprisingly effective as a sweet-natured hapless lad trying desperately hard to do the hero thing. And he’s very likeable. He’s the one cast member who gets it just right.

You won’t be surprised to hear that Tim Curry is incredibly hammy as the Lord of Darkness.

Lili is the problem. But that depends on which ending you choose. Yes, this is a Ridley Scott movie so there are three different cuts of the movie each with a radically different ending which changes the whole movie, and which will totally change your feelings about Lili. Either way the fact remains that Mia Sara just didn’t have the necessary star quality or warmth or depth to make us really care about Lili.

This was 1985, long before CGI. But by this time old school special effects and makeup effects had become extraordinarily sophisticated and effective. Legend is a demonstration of just how stunning pre-CGI movies could be.

Ridley Scott’s greatest asset has always been his aesthetic vision and his ability to assemble teams of talented people who can put his vision on the screen. His best movies are largely exercises in aesthetic vision and when he sticks to that he makes superb movies. When he makes movies that require storytelling skill and complex characterisation  the results can be very disappointing (Someone To Watch Over Me being a prime example). I think each of the endings of Legend has its pluses and minuses.

Legend has a few problems but they’re outweighed by its strengths. Recommended.

Le Désordre et la nuit (1958)

Le Désordre et la nuit (literal translation is The Disorder and the Night) is a French crime thriller directed by Gilles Grangier and released in 1958. It was released in the U.S. as The Night Affair. 

It's a crime thriller with a definite film noir vibe.

Inspecteur Georges Vallois (Jean Gabin) is a Paris Vice cop. A night club called L’Oef offers hot American jazz and other things as well. It’s definitely the centre of a drugs ring. It offers girls as well.

The owner of the club, Albert Simoni, gets bumped off. Simoni was suspected of being heavily involved in the drugs racket but there are quite a few shady characters who might have had motives for having him rubbed out. And several women with whom he was sleeping would have had strong motives as well.

We see the shooting of Simoni early on. We do not know who did the shooting, but we do know that one of the key characters who becomes a suspect definitely was not guilty.

Vallois thinks Lucky Fridel (Nadja Tiller) represents his most promising lead. Lucky is a cute 23-year-old German girl. She’s a poor little rich girl whose daddy is threatening to cut off her allowance to force her to return home to Munich. Daddy fears that she will be corrupted by the wickedness of Paris. And his fears are well founded. Lucky is a junkie, possibly at least a part-time whore and a gangster’s mistress. A girl can have so many adventures in a city like Paris!

Lucky is the kind of girl who could easily end up playing the femme fatale role but she may be just an innocent out of her depth.

Vallois hopes to persuade Lucky to tell him the name of her drugs supplier, which Vallois feels will get him a lot closer to solving the case. Vallois and Lucky soon end up in bed together.

Blasco (Robert Manuel) and Marquis (Robert Berri) are among the late Albert Simoni’s business associates and they’re certainly involved in Simoni’s criminal activities. There’s American jazz singer Valentine Horse (Hazel Scott) - in the 50s jazz musicians were notorious for their enthusiastic use of drugs. And there’s Thérèse Marken (Danielle Darrieux), a pharmacist and an unlikely friend of Lucky’s.

The plot is decent enough but the main interest in this movie is the relationship between Vallois and Lucky. Is Vallois just using her to help in breaking the case? Is he another middle-aged man tempted to try to rescue a damsel in distress? That’s possible, especially when the damsel is cute and sexy. Does he have genuine feelings for her? Lucky is the kind of girl who can be exasperating and adorable at the same time.

What about Lucky? Given her unhappy relationship with her father she might well be looking for a substitute father and it’s easy to imagine that she could see Vallois as ideal daddy material - he’s old enough to be her father and he exudes confident masculinity but without the obvious sleaziness of the other men in her life.

There’s certainly a genuine sexual attraction between Vallois and Lucky and whatever their original intentions they’re now in danger of getting seriously emotionally entangled.

Jean Gabin and Danielle Darrieux were established huge stars in France so it’s natural that they get top billing. Gabin is excellent, adding just enough ambiguity to his portrayal of Vallois to keep us uncertain of his motivations. Danielle Darrieux is superb as a woman with some very dark secrets.

But the movie really belongs to Nadja Tiller. She makes Lucky a very complicated girl. She’s self-destructive but only up to a point. She can be manipulative but perhaps she’s not truly aware when she’s being manipulative and when she’s being sincere. She’s a very confused young woman which makes her very dangerous. And she’s sexy in a fascinatingly ambivalent way.

This is a French film noir unconstrained by the Hollywood Production Code so it’s open about sex in a way that was impossible for American noir. And it’s willing to explore the dark primal side of female sexuality. Not being bound by the Production Code also meant that the writers had a lot more freedom - they were not obliged to give the story a morally uplifting ending.

Le Désordre et la nuit is a fine example of 50s French film noir and I like 50s French film noir very much indeed. Highly recommended.

I’ve also reviewed another extremely good Gilles Grangier noir, Speaking of Murder (1957).

Saraband for Dead Lovers (1948)

Saraband for Dead Lovers is a 1948 British adventure romance movie based on a 1935 novel by Australian writer Helen Simpson. It was made by Ealing Studios and directed by Basil Dearden.

This is the story of Sophia Dorothea of Celle, the first wife of George Louis of Hanover who would later become King George I of England.

Sophia Dorothea (Joan Greenwood) is forced into the marriage. She considers George Louis (Peter Bull) to be a disgusting fat pig with no morals. It’s an accurate appraisal of his character.

The marriage is unhappy but luckily George Louis spends most of his time with his mistresses.

The Hanoverian court is a hotbed of intrigue, backstabbing, jealousy and ambition. The mother of George Louis, the Electress Sophias, is willing to do anything and sacrifice anything (and anyone) in order to secure the succession to the throne of England for her appalling son. Countess Platen (Flora Robson) also does a good deal of scheming on his behalf. She expects rich rewards for her efforts.

Then Sophia Dorothea meets the handsome, dashing, irresponsible Swedish soldier of fortune Philip Konigsmark (Stewart Granger). They fall in madly in love. Unfortunately Philip already has a mistress, Countess Platen. She considers him to be her property, bought and paid for. The Countess is middle-aged and hopelessly in love with Philip and she is also immensely powerful and inclined to be ruthless. She has a network of spies working for her.

The two lovers are not very successful in keeping their love a secret. They certainly cannot keep it a secret from Countess Platen.

This is an odd movie. With Stewart Granger as the star you expect swashbuckling adventure but it’s not that kind of movie at all. There is one very brief action scene. And Philip Konigsmark is not a swashbuckling hero. He’s a surprisingly passive character. Like all the other main characters he is to some extent trapped by circumstances.

He behaves foolishly and is guilty of serious errors of judgment but perhaps a man in love is always a fool. And perhaps both Sophia Dorothea and Countess Platen are fools for love as well. But in the Hanoverian Court love counts for very little.

While the film was shot in Technicolor this is not pretty chocolate-box Technicolor. There’s  a certain gloominess, almost a gothic quality, to the visuals. There are lots of shadows, which was simply not done in Technicolor cinematography at this time. We feel that in such a poisonous atmosphere the odds are stacked against the two lovers and the visuals reflect this.

The carnival scene is a major tour-de-force - there’s nothing joyous about it, it’s chaos and madness and it’s very disturbing.

Stewart Granger has to rely more on subtlety than charm and dash and he does a reasonably effective job. Joan Greenwood is good as the rather mousy Sophia Dorothea. Not surprisingly they’re both overshadowed by Flora Robson who is in dazzling form.

This is an imaginatively shot romantic melodrama rather than a swashbuckling adventure and it’s rather doom-laden, but that makes it a fascinating oddity. Recommended.

The Studiocanal Blu-Ray looks terrific and there are a couple of reasonably worthwhile extras.

Basil Dearden had a very varied career as a director. I’ve reviewed The Ship That Died of Shame (1955), The League of Gentlemen (1960) and The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970) - all excellent movies.

La Dolce Vita (1960)

Everybody knows that La Dolce Vita is Fellini’s masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. But is everybody right about that?

This is a movie that has been so lavishly praised that if you don’t like it you can find yourself doubting your own judgment. It must be a great movie - all those critics and film scholars said so.

One thing that can be said for certain is that this is an incredibly depressing nihilistic movie. 

I’m not surprised that Martin Scorsese loves this movie. He saw when it first came out, at the age of 18. And it’s a movie guaranteed to appeal to teenaged aspiring arty intellectuals.

The plot is just a series of incidents in the life of journalist Marcello Rubini (Marcello Mastroianni). He doesn’t really like to think of himself as a journalist. He’s actually a writer of serious literature. As the film progresses we come to suspect this is merely a cope. He doesn’t actually write serious literature. He just talks about writing it. The reality is that he’s just another sleazebag journalist.

Marcello has a girlfriend, Emma (Yvonne Furneaux). He treats her very badly but it has to be said that she’s irritating and whiny and needy and incredibly emotionally manipulative.

His first encounter in the movie is with sexy glamorous Sylvia  Rank (Anita Ekberg). He tries to get her into bed but fails. Being a movie star she might not have high moral standards but she does have enough self-respect not to sleep with sleazy second-rate journalists.

He’s equally unsuccessful with the aristocratic Maddalena (Anouk Aimée). She flirts with him and plays emotional games with him but she’s not going to lower herself to sleeping with him. That would be like sleeping with the gardener or one of the footmen.

We start to suspect that Marcello is not a very successful philanderer. He only seems to score with women with zero self-respect.

He runs into an old friend named Steiner (Alain Cuny). Steiner is an intellectual. He’s as shallow and empty as all the other characters but he can make misery and self-pity sound impressive.

Marcello also encounter the Roman proto-counterculture - pseudo-arty misfits trying to shock the bourgeoisie.

And he visits the countryside where he finds that the peasants are still living in the mental world of the Middle Ages.

The aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the poor, the counter-culture types, the intellectuals  - all stupid and empty-headed. And the journalists and the paparazzi flocking around the rich and famous are the most corrupt and shallow of all.

This was the era of the Italian economic miracle of the 1950s. The economy was booming but Fellini clearly thought that Europe was doomed by rampant materialism and decadence.

La Dolce Vita was considered revolutionary for its lack of interest in any coherent linear narrative. This suited the subject matter - aimless people living in an aimless society, moving fast on a road to nowhere. Unfortunately the movie does not move fast. At almost three hours it is very slow and since every single character is contemptible (either selfish and narcissistic or self-pitying) there’s not much to engage the viewer’s interest. And it’s shot in stark black-and-white. It’s quite an achievement to make one of the world’s most beautiful exciting cities seem ugly and dull but this film manages to do just that. And he makes the picturesque Italian countryside look like a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Anita Ekberg is the one bright spot. She seems to be enjoying herself and her character, Sylvia, might be shallow but she seems almost alive.

And while he might be satirising the shallow hedonistic decadence of the new Europe and he might have been intending to make the decadence seem tawdry and sordid and they might be valid intentions the fact remains that La Dolce Vita is a bit of a slog. There’s also some heavy-handed symbolism.

At the end of the day you have to wonder if the cinematic journey was really worth it. I can see why people were excited by the movie at the time and it is one of those movies that you have to be able to say you’ve seen but it left me cold.

Straw Dogs (1971)

Straw Dogs is Sam Peckinpah’s most controversial film and in its day it was very controversial indeed. Modern audiences are likely to be far more shocked than 70s audiences.

This is a movie that immediately ignited a firestorm of controversy so that even in 1971 many critics and viewers approached it with preconceptions. They expected to be outraged. As a result they totally misunderstood the film and read things into it that are simply not there.

And there is of course Peckinpah’s reputation as an apostle of cinematic violence. In fact the violence in this movie only matters insofar as it has an impact on the emotional states of the characters. And Peckinpah goes out of his way to avoid presenting the violence as being in any way heroic or admirable or justified. This is a very anti-heroic movie. The violence is squalid and nasty and petty and disgusting and absurd. Peckinpah wants us to be horrified and disgusted. It’s not easy to present extreme violence without making it exciting but more than anyone other director who has tried doing this Peckinpah succeeds in making violence very very unattractive.

There is no hero in this movie. Despite what you may have heard this is not the story of a man pushed beyond endurance who finally overcomes his fears and fights back and becomes a righteous avenger.

David (Dustin Hoffman) and his wife Amy (Susan George) have taken up residence in a farmhouse in a village in Cornwall. David is a mathematician. As an American he is an outsider. Amy was born in the village. This is home to her. This is important.

David is a middle-class intellectual and like so many of that breed he despises anyone who isn’t a middle-class intellectual. He considers the locals to be barely human and they are immediately aware of this. He is also a coward and they are also immediately aware of this. He antagonises the locals. 

Peckinpah saw this movie as the story of a marriage. A failed marriage. Amy loves David but she knows that he despises her as an intellectual inferior. He is petty and vindictive. Amy also knows that he is a coward. The marriage is clearly heading for the rocks.

Right at the start the couple have an encounter with Charlie Venner (Del Henney). Charlie and David hate each on sight. Charlie and Amy have a history. The reason they broke up is one of the many things that Peckinpah keeps deliberately vague.

David has hired four young men from the village to repair the barn. Despite what you may have heard about the movie Amy is not flirtatious.

Then comes the infamous scene in which Charlie and one of the other men take Amy by force. The biggest controversy created by the movie is the allegation that Amy is shown to enjoy it. It’s much more complicated than that. She is already in emotional turmoil and now she is emotionally shattered. Yes, she may feel a momentary physical pleasure but it horrifies her and the whole experience is traumatic and devastating.

And then comes the most important scene in the film. David arrives home and she doesn’t tell him what has happened. This is crucial because it means that none of David’s later actions are motivated by a desire for revenge. She doesn’t tell him because she now feels so estranged from him that she doesn’t see the point. She assumes that if she tells him he will let her down again.

Three minor characters now become important. Henry Niles (David Warner) is suspected of having an unhealthy interest in the young village girls. Once again Peckinpah keeps things deliberately vague. Is Henry dangerous or just odd?

Tom Hedden (Peter Vaughan) is a drunken aggressive braggart. His daughter Janice (Sally Thomsett, a couple of years away from major TV stardom) is an incorrigible flirt. Janice and Henry Niles have gone off together and now no-one knows where they are. Tom reacts as if Janice is a mere child but clearly she isn’t. It would appear to be a case of an over-protective father refusing to admit that his daughter is no longer a child and pushing her into an act of rebellion.

In this movie the social breakdown is almost complete. Those whose duty it is to protect the vulnerable are ineffectual. The forces of law and order, represented by the magistrate Major Scott (T.P. McKenna) are impotent. Fathers fail their daughters, husbands fail their wives.

The story of Henry Niles will intersect with that of David and Amy.

Then comes the climax - the pitched battle at the farmhouse. But there’s nothing heroic about it. It’s just a mob of drunken louts led by Tom Heddon battling a crazy man. David does fight and fights viciously but Peckinpah undercuts any admiration we may feel for him. He is not a weakling who suddenly discovers reserves of courage and nobility. It’s just that his anger that has been festering inside him for years suddenly explodes. It’s a battle that is more farcical than heroic.

It’s worth pointing out that Peckinpah stated that he saw David as the villain of the movie. I have never been a fan of Dustin Hoffman but I must admit that in this movie he is perfect. He gets David’s twitchiness, his tendency to flinch at even the smallest hit of conflict, and he gets across his pettiness and his cruelty towards Amy. Susan George is even more impressive.

Peter Vaughan is outrageous but effective. David Warner has the right mix of creepiness and vulnerability. Sally Thomsett is excellent in what is actually a rather tricky and ambiguous role.

Mention must be made of the frenetic editing. A single very brief scene can include literally hundreds of cuts. Images succeed each other at dizzying speed. There are also wild camera angles and in almost every way Peckinpah is totally reinventing the language of cinema. This is a technically revolutionary film.

Straw Dogs is one of Peckinpah’s two best movies, the other being Junior Bonner. Both tend to be unjustly overshadowed by his more famous films. Straw Dogs is very highly recommended

Junior Bonner (1972)

Junior Bonner is a 1972 Sam Peckinpah movie and although it has a contemporary setting it is a western of sorts. It’s a movie about the West.

J.R. Bonner (Steve McQueen), known to his friends as Junior Bonner, is a rodeo star. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say was a rodeo star. Mc Queen was 41 when he made this film so he was the perfect age to play a cowboy who is getting too old for the rodeo game but just will not accept that reality.

He’s just been thrown by a really mean bull named Sunshine. He’s been thrown plenty of times before but he just doesn’t bounce back the way he used to. Everything hurts, and a week later everything still hurts. But at the next rodeo he’s fixed the draw so he gets Sunshine again. Most men would bribe the officials not to draw Sunshine but Junior pays to get him. He has to ride him. Sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

Much of the film takes place during the Frontier Day celebrations in Prescott, Arizona but the frontier days are gone.  It’s a celebration of the past. The movie is an elegy to a West that is now just a draw for tourists. 

It’s also an elegy to an America that was passing into history. An America that has no room for cowboys. His brother Curly (Joe Don Baker) is in real estate. That’s the future. Mobile home villages, shopping malls, parking lots.

It’s interesting that the movie that made Peckinpah’s reputation, Ride the High Country (1962), is also about the passing of the Old West although it handles that theme differently.

Junior could take a job working for Curly, but Junior just can’t do that. He’s a cowboy. That’s all he knows. That’s all he wants. He doesn’t understand this new world.

His father Ace Bonner (Robert Preston) is a cowboy as well. Curly has just sold Ace’s land out from under him. He gave Ace a measly fifteen grand. Ace proceeded to blow the money on gambling and good-time girls. He has no regrets. That’s what money is for. Now Ace has a dream of going to Australia to prospect for gold. He speaks of Australia as if it’s some fabulous fabled land where there is still a frontier.  The gold rush in Australia had ended more than a century earlier but Ace doesn’t believe it.

A lot of critics just didn’t get this movie. They complained that nothing happens. While it’s true that there’s very little plot that’s not the point of the movie. I thought it was a bit existentialist. We have here a group of characters trying to come to terms with their lives and figure out if those lives actually mean anything.

Does Junior actually learn anything? The answer is, yes and no. But the important thing is that life hasn’t beaten him. Maybe it will beat him, but not today. Maybe that’s all any of us can hope for. Maybe it’s enough.

It’s no surprise that this movie was a box-office flop. It’s not an action movie. There is no violence. It’s not what people expected from Peckinpah (or McQueen). But it is a superb deeply personal movie and it’s one of Peckinpah’s two greatest movies (the other being the spectacularly misunderstood Straw Dogs).

It’s also McQueen’s best-ever performance. His portrayal of Junior is subtle, sensitive and intelligent.

Robert Preston had ludicrous amounts of charisma and it’s a joy to watch him in full flight here. Joe Don Baker is excellent, as is Ida Lupino as Ace’s wife Elvira. She loves both Ace and Junior but cannot see any way to help them.

There aren’t any villains. Even Curly isn’t a villain. He’s adapted to reality. Maybe he should have given Ace more than fifteen grand for his land but Curly figured that if he’d given him thirty grand Ace would simply have blown the lot on gambling and ladies of the night. And Curly’s assessment was undoubtedly correct. Curly isn’t going to let his father starve but Curly is the only grown-up in the family. He has to be responsible about money, even if it means looking heartless.

Ace and Junior are both losers, if you look at it one way. If you look at it another way they’re living their lives the way they want to, so they aren’t losers. Maybe the way they’re living can’t last, but nothing lasts. Maybe enjoying life while you can isn’t such a bad idea. These people, including Elvira, neither need nor want anybody’s pity. Ace is too old to ride bulls but he can still drink whiskey and chase girls (and sometimes catch them). As long as a man can do that life is good. Junior is broke and probably always will be but he has his convertible and his horse and he can’t think of anything else a man could want. And he can still chase girls as well.

There’s emotion in this movie but no cheap sentimentality. It treats its characters with too much respect to mock or pity them. It’s actually not a depressing movie. You think it’s going to be, but it isn’t.

Junior Bonner is an unassuming low-key masterpiece. Very highly recommended.