Skip to main content

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail
(1988)

(SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Tom walked away with the 1988 Number One (Rain Man) and Number Nine (this) in the US, and offhand, it’s difficult to think of another example approximating Cocktail, wherein a major star has been the material’s only “merit” (Sleeping with the Enemy, perhaps, although that at least goes through the motions of being a thriller). But he, and his audience, was high from the biggest movie of 1986 (Top Gun) and another that was no slouch (The Color of Money). He had reason to be a strutting, cocky little twerp, and he duly revelled in it. My recollection of this movie, having seen it at the time and not thinking much of the actor, was dim. It featured Bryan Brown, who was always solid, and it was all about a cocky little twerp being even cockier and littler twerpish when he discovers a facility for bartending that takes him to Jamaica.

None of that was mistaken. I had no recollection that Brian Flanagan (Tom) was an army veteran, something surprisingly common in Cruise movies of the era (he carries arms of some description in Taps, Top Gun, Born on the Fourth of July and A Few Good Men), perhaps as some form of overcompensation. Of course, Brian isn’t exactly Jack Reacher, so if the opening sequence (featuring The X-Files’ young CSM, Chris Owen) hadn’t informed you of this, you’d be none the wiser. Perhaps if he’d become a bouncer rather than a cocktail juggler, there’d be a semblance of continuity. This is also Cruise’s first flirtation with Oirishness (Brian’s Uncle Pat owns a traditionally Oirish bar and spouts stoicisms like “Most things in life, good and bad, just happen to you”; clearly, a more proactive mentor is required).

Tom, one of the ’80s most indelible stars, however well he may have done for himself since, here tackles overtly the prevailing doctrine of that decade (not that it was any less so in any other decade, but it at least had the decency to wear it on its chin). Most likely, seeing others get there first had him casting about for his own era-appropriate material; he’d been up for Wall Street, but Stone quite rightly wasn’t going to wait a year while Tom made another movie. And Michael J Fox scored one of the previous year’s Top Ten hits with The Secret of My Success.

Cocktail makes that movie look like a jet-black, biting satire. You watch this, and you compelled to ask if the entire purpose of Cruise in this decade was to assess how morally bankrupt audiences were, and not just morally, but in terms of basic taste and all-round common sense. Like the at Business… musical, we first see him reading How to Turn Your Idea into a Million Dollars, after which he overtly rejects the lure of Wall Street (who reject him) and business classes (featuring Paul Benedict as a first-rate snot, and a fellow pupil who “wants to become the Donald Trump of the cake business”).

Maybe on the page there was something astute going on here. And maybe there still is, beneath the apparent lack of effort. There’s a message about the making the right kind of vacuous money with the right kind of vacuous girl as opposed to the wrong with the same, but… its vacuously told. Cocktail’s trying to fashion a fable about the right kind of empty materialism, which in its way is quite clever – spiritually bereft, but clever – if the point is deception. And it works. Cocktail was armed with a dynamite soundtrack – the Beach Boys and Bobby McFerrin reaped hits from it - taking a leaf out of the Simpson/Bruckheimer book, and audiences appeared to swallow the faux sincerity of Tom settling down with Jordan (Elisabeth Shue) and their twins, tending that Oirish bar, spouting rotten poetry and strutting like a performing peacock every evening (to Jordan’s dubious approval) while rejecting the drunken suicidal wisdom of Doug (Brown) and the toy-boy clutches of Bonnie (Lisa Banes).

Even before he fell into Mimi’s actual toy-boy clutches (during Cocktail’s making, and the rest is engrammatic), Cruise’s tailored choices were quite savvy. He had the sense to attach himself to roles where mentor figures would shine a positive light on his ability to hold the screen, if not necessarily to essay a likeable character. So we had Tom and Paul Newman, and then Tom and Dustin Hoffman (well not quite a mentor, but you get the idea). Here we have Tom and Bryan, with Doug representing a sub-Gordon Gekko/pre-Dead Poets Society wisdom-spouting barkeep. Brown is by far the best thing in the movie, but aside from a jaundiced attitude, there’s precious little that tell us why he tops himself, regardless of the suicide note, other than it’s necessary to spur Brian onwards along his character “arc”.

Cocktail has been accused of sexism (Time Out), but that rather excuses it the broad cross-section of its offences against humanity as a whole. True, Tom is at his most flagrantly “heterosexual” here (he beds Gina, Lisa Banes, Shue and nearly Kelly), but with all the erotic charge of an Action Man. And given the movie documents a comprehensively unattractive collection of people, there’s little sympathy to be shared around. Heywood Gould (screenwriter of Fort Apache the Bronx and The Boys from Brazil, and director of – yikes! – One Good Cop) purportedly penned an autobiographical piece, one that then went through forty drafts (maybe, charitably, it was better at the time of the first).

The proceedings culminate in Brian shepherding Jordan to safety (and cheerful “poverty”, albeit not for long, not with the world’s last barman poet holding court). Out of the clutches of her rich snob dad (Laurence Luckinbill, also Spock’s half-brother in the following year’s Star Trek: The Final Frontier, and they’re chalk-and-cheese performances). The picture desperately needed some conflict, some reason for investment in the outcome, but only gets it at this late stage. It also needed to engineer a scenario where Brian actually is a good guy, despite clearly being anything but in his consummate insincerity and capacity for an inveterate shithood. Say Anything charted the parental disapproval territory much more convincingly, only with a character you actually liked.

Of all little Tom’s foibles, surely the least persuasive is boisterous Tom (audiences swooned at this previously when he serenaded Kelly McGillis in Top Gun). The viewer is supposed to think he’s so cool and such a charmer, when in fact he’s displaying maximum twattage. We see that early on with his riposte to Kelly Connell (who announces “I am the world’s first yuppie poet”), and for some reason, the patrons just adore him. We also get to hear Cruise’s quite incredible stab at a Jamaican accent, which we can but hope gets him retrospectively cancelled. So no, I can’t account for Cocktail’s allure, and couldn’t then. In three years, he went from no one seeing him in Legend to everyone flocking to catch him in this crock. It’s as compelling a case for mass hypnosis in effect as ever I’ve seen.

Nobody else comes off too too badly, as its clearly not their fault (although Shue going on to replace Claudia Wells as Jennifer in Back to the Future Part II isn’t exactly the sign of a great agent). Cocktail was rightly a Razzie winner for Worst Picture and Screenplay, and was nominated for Worst Director and Actor. Donaldson was coming off No Way Out, and if you were to ask yourself why he’d do such a thing, the answer would most likely be that it provided the biggest hit of his career. He kept on working too, since Cocktail’s an anonymous movie and, as noted, it made money (ditto for DP Dean Semler).

It’s been suggested various other stars/subsequent stars were considered for Brian, including Bill Murray and Jim Carrey, but you never know how pie in the sky such suggestions really were. I could maybe have seen some of the smug of Bruce Willis of that era working in the role, but that would likely also have made it a less melodramatic affair, if equally cocky. Patrick Bateman admired the movie (titled Bartender in American Psycho), which is about right. Cocktail is dream fuel for psychopaths.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .