Fandango (1985, K. Reynolds)

From All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Eleanor Mannikka
The still unknown Kevin Costner carries this film that involves five college roommates on a last "fandango" before they separately face the harsh realities of an unpredictable future. It is 1971, and the Vietnam War has not yet ended. Gardner Barnes (Costner) has extended his college years by six semesters in an attempt to stave off the rapidly approaching future, Kenneth (Sam Robards) has just canceled his wedding in a drunken look at reality, Lester (Brian Cesak) loves alcohol and tags along with the group just to have a good time, Dorman (Chuck Bush) is devoted to existentialism and flights of poetic fancy, and Phil (Judd Nelson) is barely a member of the group because he is consorting with the enemy: he is a member of ROTC. This unlikely mismatch cavorts through several classic college pranks, among them taking bets on daredevil acts like skydiving into the middle of nowhere. As their high jinks continue, it becomes apparent that their real desire is not to live a wild life for its own sake, but to postpone the moment when they will have to leave school and its lifestyle behind them.

I watched Fandango for the first time last night, in order to prep for my eventual "80's List" submission on The Criterion Forum. I sought it out because I thought I had read a poster in the 80's thread (thought, because now I can't find it) say he enjoyed it more than Levinson's "Diner". Tarantino also calls it one the best film writer/director debuts ever.

Now, I wouldn't go that far (on either statement; "Diner" is a better directorial debut). But it is a fairly enjoyable on-the-road/coming-of-age film bolstered by an ensemble cast including Kevin Costner, Sam Robards, Judd Nelson, and Chuck Bush as college grads on one last road trip before the 1971 Draft. There's some other dude that is asleep/nursing a hangover with them the whole time, but I honestly forgot about him for most the movie.

The use of this cast and how they frame them is what I enjoyed most about the film. Costner is in full swagger mode , Robards' character is the one who makes bad decisions, and Nelson is the whiny one who must learn to toughen up. They all have to mature and it's fairly typical, but what saves it are:

A great understated performance by Chuck Bush as "Dorman". He's the fourth of the four/five (yeah, that sleeping kid who's not in the poster. He's five, right?) guys taking the road trip and has no back story compared to Costner, Robards, and Nelson. He's just around to read Sartre and Gibran, and help out physically. He just barely has more of a character arc than the sleeping hangover kid. Which is too bad, because I enjoyed him the most. More so than the whininess of Robards and Nelson. This movie came out the same year Nelson was in "The Breakfast Club" and "St. Elmos Fire" (which I haven't seen in forever), which now looks like kind of a peak year for the Brat Packer.

With so many movies having trouble with their endings these days, I was honestly suprised that Reynolds ended the film like he did. Affectingly melancholic indeed. And no "Where Are They Now" title cards at the end!

I found a website dedicated to the film,Howaboutafandango.com, and I learned that a plane/helicopter sequence was filmed above the highways of my old hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma! Alot of the movie was filmed around Marfa, Texas ("Giant" is referenced in the film), the same location as recent films "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". I swear a gas station the Groovers stop at looks like one that Anton Sugur does.

The film is set in 1971, but really has that eighties feel to it. I can't really explain it any better than to point out it is produced by Amblin, at which point I feel like they were at a high point. Maybe it's Costner's mullet in a flashback/dream(?) sequence, or Robards' fiancee having crimped hair at one point...the airplane pilot goes to pick up Robards' fiancee in a big-house suburban type nighborhood...

But I digress; I enjoyed this film and was wondering who else has seen it. I don't think it adds anything new to it's genre(s), but is a great lazy afternoon hangout type flick to put on. I may be giving it a special pass because I enjoyed these types of films popping up on HBO, growing up in the eighties. I completely missed this one back then.

Reynolds went on to "Prince Of Thieves" and "Waterword", but I've heard that "The Beast" is worth watching. Has anyone seen it? I also read that Reynolds wrote the original script for "Red Dawn" which John Milius rewrote(re-Righted).

Revenge: Director's Cut (d: T. Scott, 1990/2007)

All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by All Movie Guide
Kevin Costner plays an ex-pilot who visits the posh Mexican estate of an old associate (Anthony Quinn) "Tibey" Mendes, for a bit of R & R. Tibey has turned into a very powerful Godfather type who rules his world and those who touch it. Costner can't help but notice his old friend's incredibly beautiful young wife (Madeleine Stowe) and before long they're involved in some sizzling hoochie-coo at the risk of being discovered by Mendes. Mendes eventually catches on and exacts a painful and cruel punishment on the reclusive lovers caught in their lustful liaison. Costner vows a pay-back and the last part of the movie involves his attempt to achieve it.

Revenge is what you would call a "sexually-charged" thriller, which seems to be a prime 80's genre ripe for reinvestigation. While that reinvestigation will not be happening within this review, I' ve had a nice introduction to the genre with "Revenge". To be fair, "Revenge" seems more likely a genre combination of the sexually-charged thriller and the revenge movie (hence, the title), though it it a little light on the "thriller" aspect.

What I watched recently was Tony Scott's new Director's Cut which is twenty minutes shorter than the theatrical (and previous home video release) cut. Apparently, the film was taken away from Scott by Rastar Films and turned into the version we have seen in the past (I speak as if you've seen it). I first saw this movie after reading a quote from Quentin Tarantino listing this as one of his favorite films of the early 1990's. Tarantino, being an aficionado of the revenge genre, was giving props to an otherwise neglected film. Tarantino is even quoted on this new director's edition as "Tony Scott's Masterpiece!" Now, I wouldn't go that far. And if anyone can tell me what it is that Tarantino sees in Scott's film, please lead me in that direction because I cannot find it (at least on the web).

Scott has made better films, True Romance, Enemy Of The State are two of them, but I can't think of another one since The Hunger that had such a sexual element to it.

Kevin Costner plays a retiring pilot who visits his friend (played by Anthony Quinn) down in Mexico. How these two became friends, or why they remain that way is not exactly clear in the story. Quinn appears to be leading some kind of mafioso-type life in Mexico but Costner is not involved in that area. Quinn's wife (Madeline Stowe) gives Costner bedroom eyes constantly. Soon enough, Costner is betraying his friend and having sex with Stowe during a large outdoor party/fiesta Quinn throws.

Are we supposed to accept this as okay because Stowe with betrothed to Quinn? Why does Costner fuck his friend's wife and a) expect no consequences, and b) have no remorse about it? Was I falling asleep during some of this film?

This all sets up the revenge portion. The affair is found out and Costner is beat within an inch of his life. Stowe is shipped off to a whorehouse. Costner (with the kindness of the strangers) nurses himself back to health and carries out his revenge plot, and tries to find Stowe again.

I like Tony Scott. I'll watch any movie he makes/made. I'll get into my reasoning why at another time, but I'm not sure why this is considered one of his better films. The new cut works for me. It is lean, the story moves fast, and the DVD print looks amazing. Green is used everywhere in this film, and I'm not sure what this is supposed to symbolize beyond jealousy. But, it looks beautiful. But, the motivation behind the affair baffles me. Why Costner is so quick to turn on his friend, and how fast it happens, is a fault the film cannot recover from. I end up not feeling all that bad for the leads, and I'm not sure that was supposed to happen.