Tag Archives: Debra Winger

Thank God It’s Friday (1978)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: A night at discotheque.

This film was requested for review and was a part of the disco craze that permeated pop culture during the mid to late 70’s. It was released just 6 months after Saturday Night Fever but was nowhere as good and didn’t have the same staying power. The plot revolves around several people who decide to spend their Friday evening at a local L.A. discotheque and the various conversations and ‘adventures’ that they have while inside the place. The main cast is Donna Summer who plays a character named Nicole who tries to ger her ‘big break’ by singing one of her songs while everyone is on the dance floor, but the club DJ (Ray Vitte) goes to great lengths to prevent that. There’s also two underage friends (Valerie Landsburg, Terri Nunn) who sneak into the club in order to win a dance contest, and a married couple (Mark Lonow, Andrea Howard) who go to the club on a lark, but then have their marriage challenged when club owner Tony (Jeff Goldblum) begins aggressively hitting-on the wife while the husband gets side-tracked by a ditzy patron named Jackie (Mayra Small) who gives him drugs that makes him behave erratically.

The biggest shock was that this lame thing was directed by Robert Klane, who burst onto the scene in the early 70’s with the dark comedy classic Where’s Poppa? that was both edgy and inventive and based on his book of the same name, but this has none of that. The dialogue and situations are quite stale, and it was like he was just selling out his career, which did eventually recover when he wrote the script for Weekend at Bernie’sbut this is definitely a black mark.  What’s even more perplexing is that the screenwriter for this, Armyan Bernstein, was able to sell six more screenplays after this one, even though this one displays no writing talent at all and his subsequent scripts that were made in the 80’s all bombed at the box office, but I guess this kind of shows how it’s more who you know in Hollywood that proves who gets the breaks and who doesn’t.

The concept of having an entire movie take place inside one location has a certain appeal, but Klane captures the proceedings in a flat sort of way. It was shot inside an actual club, that has since been torn down and was described by those who went there as a ‘labyrinth’, but I didn’t get that feeling while watching it. Most of it is shot in and around the dance floor, which quickly becomes boring visually. The various ‘dramedies’ of the characters fail to elicit any interest. To some degree you could say this was a realistic look at the club scene as I remember going out to dance clubs in the 90’s in Chicago hoping to pick-up some action, or meet ‘cool new friends’ but coming away disappointed and feeling like it was all overrated and on that level that’s exactly what you get here. The characters come in anticipating way more excitement than they actually receive, but the film still needs to convey this in some sort of compelling way, and it doesn’t.

A good example of this is the married couple, which has some potential, but the characters don’t learn anything, or change. In a good movie/script the main people are supposed to go through a character arch and end up in a different spot, either in an emotional, or intellectual way, or in their situation in life, then they were at the beginning, but the couple leaves the place returning to their ‘happy married’ mindset. However, since the wife was so quick to consider the advances from the club owner and the husband with the young punk girl, that it should’ve rattled them and they should’ve left seriously contemplating whether their marriage was really all that strong.

The same goes for Donna Summer’s character. She spends the entire evening trying to aggressively get her chance to sing. It might’ve worked better had the movie had a parent, or friend being the one that was pushy while Summer stood shyly back and thus made her seem a little less narcissistic. Either way when she finally sing and the crowd loves it, it doesn’t mean much because it wasn’t in front of a record producer, so therefore there was no contract and thus just a fleeting moment in time.

I did like Goldblum and it’s easy to see why out of the entire cast he was the one that had a long a distinguished career though it’s a little confusing why he hits so hard on another man’s wife when he has a plethora of hot women that he has slept with, or willing to sleep with him, so why get so fixated on the one? Debra Winger is an absolute delight too mainly because of her exquisite beauty, which is at the absolute peak here and makes watching the movie more than worth it just for that. In fact, that’s the only reason why I decided to give this one point.

Out of the entire runtime there’s only four mildly diverting moments that stands out. The first is when the lady holding the torch in the Columbia Pictures symbol breaks out into a disco dance. The second, in a scene that the producers strongly considered cutting, is when a guy asks if he can but into a dance that Debra Winger is having with another guy, but instead of continuing the dance with her he goes on with the other guy. The third is a nice dance routine that Marv Gomez has on the rooftops of some parked cars while the fourth consists of Goldblum’s car, a prized possession of his, that falls completely apart.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: May 19, 1978

Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Klane

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Tubi, YouTube

 

 

Legal Eagles (1986)

legal eagles

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Searching for stolen paintings.

Successful district attorney Tom Logan (Robert Redford) suddenly finds himself in a big mess when defense lawyer Laura Kelly (Debra Winger) approaches him in regards to her quirky client Chelsea Deardon (Daryl Hannah). She feels that Chelsea is innocent of the charges against her and hopes to have them dropped before it goes to court. When Tom looks into the case he finds that there’s much more to it than initially assumed, which leads the three into danger, stolen paintings, murder and even a weird love triangle.

If you are expecting anything having to do with a legal drama then you’ll be highly disappointed as there is very little time spent in the actual courtroom. Instead you get what amounts to an ‘80s action flick with explosions, car chases and even shootouts as these two lawyers go through things that no other lawyer in the history of the universe has ever went through either before or after.

The main selling point, and the only thing that actually works, is the casting. Redford with his laid back style is terrific in this type of comedy and I enjoyed the way he tries to remain cool-under-pressure despite being exasperated with two very kooky females, who both have an interest in him, coming at him from both sides. Winger is fun too as a well-meaning young attorney who tries hard, but still seems a bit ‘rough-around-the-edges’. Hannah is also perfectly cast in a role that works well with her slightly flaky, free-spirited persona and she even has a scene where she performs a fire-laden performance art piece that she wrote herself.

The first hour has a nice balance between the interpersonal relationships of the three as well as an intriguing mystery, but the second half leans too much into the action and gets overblown. The supposedly ‘exciting’ finale only helped to get me bored and annoyed. It’s the chemistry of the three stars and the romantic entanglements that ensued between them that had me interested and are what made the plot unique. The film should’ve emphasized this area more and even played it up. Having things end up working out so conveniently between the three despite the fact that both women were for a time seemingly competing for Redford’s affections misses out on a lot of potential fireworks and amusingly comical scenarios.

Familiar faces pop up in minor roles including a young Christine Baranski as a fledgling member of Tom’s legal team as well as Terence Stamp in a role that ends up being so small and insignificant I was surprised he agreed to take it. The film also features Rod Stewart’s hit song ‘Love Touch’ that climbed to number 6 on the pop charts, but isn’t heard until the very end when it gets played over the closing credits.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: June 20, 1986

Runtime: 1Hour 56Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Ivan Reitman

Studio: Universal

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Black Widow (1987)

black widow

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: She kills her husbands.

A federal agent named Alexandra (Debra Winger) tracks an elusive woman named Catherine (Theresa Russell) who marries rich men and then kills them off to inherit their fortune. Catherine is constantly changing her identity making it tough for her to track and Alexandra’s superiors do not share her same passion for the case nor believe there’s even a case at all. Finally while in Hawaii Alexandra manages to make contact with the woman and the two become fast friends only to have Alexandra become the next target when Catherine starts to suspect that she’s been double-crossed.

The film’s biggest asset is Conrad L. Hall’s cinematography, which is uniformly gorgeous and breathtaking. I loved the outdoor shots of Hawaii most notably the open terrain and the volcano as well as the scuba diving underwater sequence. The shots of the Seattle skyline and woodsy cabin are equally good making this on a visual level a top notch production. Winger is great in the lead even if her character lets down her guard a few too many times. I also enjoyed James Hong a perennial character actor who gets his most memorable role as a sleazy private investigator. It’s also fun to go back to what life was like before the internet, cellphones and debit cards and where ‘disappearing’ was so much easier.

Ronald Bass’s script though is shallow and formulaic. Just as it should be getting exciting it instead becomes boring and the slick twist at the end cannot overcome all of its loopholes. I found it surprising that Alexandra would be the only person in the world that would be on to this woman. Wouldn’t the relatives of the deceased start to suspect her as well? One segment has Catherine agreeing to give some relatives a large sum of money as a ‘gift’ to get them off her back, but what about the relatives of the first two husbands? The police work is also extremely sloppy. One of the husbands was allergic to penicillin, which is what Catherine uses to kill him, but they never think to test for it or investigate to see if Catherine had recently acquired a prescription for it, which she had. I also couldn’t figure out why Catherine would want to robotically go right back out and marry another rich man just after killing another. Why not ‘enjoy the fruits of her labor’ as it was and live it up with the money she already acquired from the last one before going through all the stress and planning of nabbing the next?

In fact the most frustrating thing about the film is the Catherine character as we never learn what motivates her or anything about her background. Alexandra is asked at one point what she thinks motivates this woman and she responds that it’s ‘not important’, but actually it is because it helps create a three-dimensional character instead of this evil prototype that gets increasingly more boring as the film progresses.

There is also a twist in the film where Catherine has one of her husband’s sign over his fortune to charity in his will, which helps him believe that she is not after him for his money, but then after he is killed it is learned that his legal residence was actually Florida, which has something called a ‘Mark Main’ statute that invalidates any bequest to charity that is made in a will six months before his death and thus allows the inheritance to go back to the surviving spouse, which Catherine takes full advantage of, but are we the viewer really expected to believe that Catherine knew about this loophole all along? Who researches that kind of stuff or even thinks to research it? Okay, so maybe she had some area of legal expertise in her background, but then why is she also such an expert at poisons and forgery and all the other stuff that she does and gets away with in order to stay ahead of the police? Haven’t these filmmakers ever watched an episode of ‘Columbo’ where even the smartest of killers will eventually screw up because it is simply humanely impossible to be ontop of everything like the character here is? By making the villain so over-the-top cunning and conniving while also cool under pressure hurts the tension instead of heightening it because it throws the believability factor out the window and ultimately makes this otherwise slick thriller empty and forgettable.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: February 6, 1987

Runtime: 1Hour 42Minutes

Rated R

Director: Bob Rafelson

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Urban Cowboy (1980)

urban cowboy 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Ride the mechanical bull.

Bud (John Travolta) has just moved to the big city of Houston and is looking to fit-in and prove himself to the local crowd. He finds his niche at a local hang out called Gilley’s where he gets noticed for the way he rides the mechanical bull that is there. He also meets Sissy (Debra Winger) who he quickly falls in love with and marries. Sissy takes an interest in riding the bull as well, but Bud refuses to allow it as he is afraid it might compete with his own macho image. When she does it anyways he becomes angered and the two break-up, but secretly long to get back together especially when the other relationships that they get into aren’t as fulfilling.

This movie, which is based on a magazine story, is highly disjointed and doesn’t have any type of seamless pace. There is way too much footage of people dancing on the barroom dance floor and the amount of songs that get played, which ends up being 30 as I counted them during the closing credits, is too many. The songs themselves are great, but by playing so many it starts sounding more like a radio station playlist than a movie soundtrack. The Texas caricatures also get overdone. In this movie everybody wears a cowboy hat even though I have now been living in this state for 4 months and can count on the fingers of one hand how many people I’ve seen wearing one since I’ve moved here. The Texas drawls of the characters are a bit too heavy and at one point during Bud’s job interview the interviewer refers to Bud as ‘boy’ or more aptly ‘Bo-AH’. I realized that this was made 35 years ago, so it may just be life from a different era, but it still seemed over-the-top and not a balanced, realistic view of the state as a whole.

Travolta’s presence doesn’t help as it reminded me of Saturday Night Fever as both of those characters go through the same type of growing pains into manhood. The sexist, immature way that he treats Sissy really got on my nerves and he was certainly not the type of character I would want to make the center point of a movie. Winger on the other hand is beautiful and far more appealing. The fact that she gets treated just poorly by her second boyfriend (Scott Glenn) is equally irritating and I started to wish they had written out the two dipshit male leads completely and made her the sole centerpiece of the story. I also liked Barry Corbin in support as Bud’s uncle, but the way he dies by getting struck by lightning is hooky.

The riding the mechanical bull stuff to me looks unintentionally funny and even strangely sexual. It’s also not all that interesting to watch and quickly becomes repetitive to look at, which severely diminishes the ‘exciting’ climatic sequence that it’s built around. The only scene involving the mechanical bull that I did like is when Winger gets on it and starts riding it in all sorts of different provocative poses, which was fun and sexy.

The second half of the film loses its focus completely and instead of being this intended gritty ‘boy-to-man’ drama becomes more like a soap opera where the emphasis is on whether Sissy and Bud will get to back together, which is not that interesting or original and the schmaltzy ending is Hollywood at its clichéd worst.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: June 6, 1980

Runtime: 2Hours 12Minutes

Rated PG

Director: James Bridges

Studio: Paramount

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube