This site is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of 1960's and '70's Musclecars. I will answer any and all questions about what is original, and what are "Period Correct" modifications. I will also post my personal opinion about what is and is not proper. People are encouraged to debate me or share their own opinions or experiences.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
I agree with "Stuntman Mike"....
In Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" "Stuntman Mike" is played with evil glee by Kurt Russel. He gets his jollies by stalking women and then killing them with his car in "accidents". He has a great monologue educating Rose McGowan before taking her on a deadly ride. He laments how modern movies are all CGI and the stuff they do in them is impossible and stupid. He longs for the "Vanishing Point" days, the "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry days, White Line Fever days, when you had great men doing great things with great cars. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The "Fast&Furious" movies were ok through the first 4. Putting lead in the Chevelle's bumper to make it wheelie-that was innovative and cool. From 5 onward they've gotten progessively worse and more insane. Jumping the Lamborghini or McClaren or whatever it was from skyscraper to skyscraper? Come on. Bringing down a 747 size jet with cars? Please. Now the producers of the "F&F" movies are advertising "Hobbes&Shaw" starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Jason Statham who were a federal agent and a criminal in previous "F&F" installments. In this flick their working together to stop Idris Elba who obviously has some Dr Evil plan for world domination or whatever. I've only seen previews but it looks awful. Unless the target audience is 12 year old boys-why waste your time putting something impossible on screen? Even in fight scenes-guy jumps 6 feet in the air, rotates his body clockwise, kicks 3 guys in the face, does a backflip and lands on his feet. It can't be done,we know it can't be done, and we know the actor isn't doing it, so why put it on screen? Whether it was Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal, or Jean-Claude Van Damme, or even Jackie Chan-it might not have always looked pretty, but you knew they were actually doing it, which made it cool no matter how lame the story line was. Jason Statham is a talented martial artist but going back to the "Transporter" movies-one guy is not going to take out 10 guys single-handedly. I've been a Golden Gloves boxer and I've dabbled in kick-boxing. Whatever your art-boxing, Tae-Kwon-do, Muay Thai, etc-if your really good you can take out two guys pretty easily. 3 if their drunk or stupid. In the real world if 4 or more people decide to stomp your ass-you will get your ass kicked, and probably gravely injured. In the preview for Hobbes&Shaw they show Statham taking out like 10 guys in a hallway. Puhleeze. Film makers have been guilty of this forever. I know Chuck Norris took on a whole bar in "Silent Rage" which was made way back in 1982. It was awful. 20 guys standing around politely waiting their turn to get their ass kicked one by one. At least Norris tried to improve. By "Code of Silence" his best picture in my opinion-that was originally written for Clint Eastwood-he takes on a bar full of gangsters and gets the shit kicked out of him. More realistic. Remember the jump in "Gone in 60 Seconds?" The crappy one with Nicholas Cage. The Mustang would have been destroyed, the engine would have fell out, the shock towers would have busted through the fenders, the car would have been totalled. The worst offender was "Wanted". Even a briefly naked Angelina Jolie couldn't save this stinker. Shooting around corners? Bullets only go in a straight line!! Until they hit something!!! And the vehicle stunts? Arrrgggghhhh!!! In one scene Jolie is driving an '86 Corvette and James Macavoy is driving a '65 Mustang. They drive toward each other head-on. At the last second before head-on impact She slams on the brakes, he punches it. This allows the Mustang to use the 'Vette as a launching ramp and fly through the air so he can shoot someone in another car. But neither the 'Vette nor the Mustang get a scratch!! Both cars would have been totalled and both drivers gravely injured if not killed. It's impossible, we know it's impossible, so why do it?. That's what is so maddening. I just want to see an action flick with real, believable action. Like "Mr Majestyk" Remember that one? The chase scene was used in the "Built Ford Tough" truck ads for years. "The Mechanic"-the original with Charles Bronson, and Jan-Micheal Vincent not the awful remake with Jason Statham and Ben Foster. "A Small Town in Texas" with Timothy Bottoms and Bo Hopkins, and Susan George and her usual straining halter top. Maybe someone will step up and do a badass movie old school, Stunt Man Mike style. Mastermind
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
MM . . . I believe your desire for the past is admirable, but ignores the reality of today.
ReplyDeleteIt is too expensive and too dangerous to try to duplicate what was done 40 or 50 years ago. I am referring to car chases. Let me take a moment to pay homage to what many feel is the greatest car chase ever . . . BULLITT. The producers got permission from the city of San Francisco to do the chase in city streets by promising that speeds would not exceed 35 MPH. They said they would undercrank the cameras so 35 would look like 70. Unfortunately when they did a test of this filming method - it didn't look real. On the first day of filming the chase, the SFPD had a deluge of calls from concerned citizens saying there were cars racing in the streets at 100 MPH! This brought out the old adage . . . "it is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission." Bud Elkins, Cary Lofton and Bill Hickman were the three best stunt drivers in Hollywood in 1968. All drove in BULLITT.
So who is the best Hollywood stunt driver today MM? BULLITT was made for $5.5 million. In 2019 dollars that's $40,474,310.34.
Also keep in mind that BULLITT won the Academy Award for Film Editing. There is a reason why you see that green Volkswagen a number of times.
I too long for days gone by. If it isn't CGI, it's Green Screen. But don't lose sight of the purpose of going to the movies . . . to be entertained. Just bring a healthy dose of "suspension of disbelief" with you.
Thanks for commenting! I agree with you partly. All I'm saying is action should be believable. I don't think Tom Cruise was the right choice-( In the books Jack Reacher is 6'5" and 270 lbs ) but the "Jack Reacher" films had believable action. An athletic man or woman COULD physically do the stuff that Cruise and Cobie Smulders did on screen. As for "Bullitt" 40 million is cheap for a movie today. Avengers :Endgame cost 356 million! It grossed 2.7 billion so the producers more than got their money back, but 350 million is a ton to invest in one film. Anyhow I just want believable action, not a video game on screen. Thanks again for commenting!
ReplyDelete