Skip to main content

Now, are you sure you want to have a fight? Because I’m only going to use my thumb.

The Presidio
(1988)

(SPOILERS) “Shit on a shtick” exclaims Sean Connery (RIP) at one point during The Presidio. That was probably also his reaction on learning Mark Harmon was to be his co-star (it seems Kevin Costner dropped out, and then Don Johnson couldn’t catch a break from Miami Vice. You know, manly male types Sean might have vibed with). Much as it would be nice to dispute the prevailing view (“I suppose Harmon could have been stronger” was Sean’s verdict), Connery’s co-star is the weak link here. But even if this had ended up as a reteam for Costner and Connery, I doubt The Presidio would have been a keeper.

That’s down to a very average Larry Ferguson screenplay, one that encourages director Peter Hyams’ most generic impulses rather than inspiring him to turn in a quality journeyman affair (as his previous collaboration with Connery, Outland, turned out to be). In the vein of the later likes of A Few Good Men and The General’s Daughter, there’s a murder investigation focused an army base, the San Francisco Presidio of the title. Aliens’ Jenette Goldstein has been killed, and Harmon’s former MP Austin, now a police detective, is called in, reluctantly collaborating with Connery’s Lieutenant Colonel Caldwell.

There’s bad blood between them because hot head Harmon beat up a colonel on Connery’s watch; he subsequently left the army after getting busted down a stripe. Nevertheless, as is always the case with these things, the at-loggerheads duo gradually develop a grudging respect for each other. This despite Harmon embarking on an affair with Connery’s daughter Meg Ryan (herself keen on provoking daddy; she first encounters Harmon in a braless top).

In part then, The Presidio’s problems derive from there being no bite to Harmon’s bland performance. Which means there’s no energy to his friction with Connery. Which also means the picture spends significant time on a romance that fails to pay off (doubtless Paramount had one eye on the military formula that paid off for them so resoundingly with Top Gun, along with the ex-services vibe of Lethal Weapon). Connery and Ryan work well together, and Connery and Jack Warden, the latter as the retired sergeant major who saved his life, work even better, a couple of old pros hitting an easy chemistry ("I should have left your worthless Scotch ass in the jungle").

But the investigation itself is a fizzle. There’s no hard graft involved, with clues dropping in our heroes’ laps; it turns out the bad guys are smuggling diamonds in water bottles. Those bad guys (Mark Blum’s ex-CIA entrepreneur, Dana Gladstone’s colonel) are quite forgettable – inevitably, whatever disrepute the armed forces fall into represents only a few bad apples – and the reveal that Warden is involved leads to ungainly exposition in which he’s effectively exonerated (he still has to die, of course, in a pretty rubbish shootout climax in a bottling factory, complete with Harmon killing Blum as the former rides a conveyor belt).

The picture’s keen on exactly those kinds of very 80s tropes (Ryan ravishes Harmon on her car before retreating to a fireside rug), but they’re all ones its borrowing rather than inventing, and it shows. Bruce Broughton’s score is forgettably synth heavy. Connery is serviced with an enjoyable grandstanding scene where he beats up an uncouth bar hound with only his thumb (actually, he also trips the guy up, so he cheats a bit). It’s The Presidio’s one claim to fame with regard to anything memorable.

Still, Harmon aside (let’s face it, the small screen suited him better, as NCIS evidenced), it’s interesting to note the picture as the first fruit of Connery’s post-The Untouchables career phase. This might not have been a prestigious example, but the paternal figure he’d tested out in his last few roles (Highlander, The Name of the Rose), would soon lead to more consistent box office. It also represented Ryan’s final girlfriend trophy part before When Harry Met Sally established her as a lead in her own right. Whatever The Presidio’s faults, they can’t be said to lie with either Connery or Ryan.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.