Skip to main content

Encumbered by idiots, we pressed on.

Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory

(SPOILERS) Revisiting the favourites of one’s youth can be a sobering experience, particularly if they’re reflective of one’s then age. Brat pack movies were always hit and miss, and the grouping itself was generally more a lazy catch-all for anything from the mid ’80s to the early ’90s that starred actors of a certain age who weren’t Tom Cruise (although, he might be squeezed in right at the start, a good few years prior to the phrase’s formulation). Young Guns, which I’d considered decent enough, didn’t really stand the test of time, so how does Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory fare, given I rated it more highly?

Gratifyingly, just about the same, returning screenwriter John Fusco having evident fun embroidering the legend of William H Bonney while director Geoff Murphy delivers far superior sub-Peckinpah to his predecessor Christopher Cain. Plus, that Jon Bon Jovi theme is persuasively evocative, understandably intruding on the proceedings at every opportunity, over and above Alan Silvestri’s score.

This really is the bookend to the Brat Pack as it was known, with dog-end attempts that followed (Mobsters) headlining faces who weren’t really part of what was, as noted, a loosely defined crowd anyway. Christian Slater, a crucial few years younger than that pack, gains nominal admittance here, and he’s a shot in the arm in a real signature role that utilises his cocky bravado to positive ends; Arkansas Dave Rudabaugh is obsessed with his own legend and attempting to project “his” leadership of the gang, to the complete disinterest of everyone else.

Slater’s clearly having a ball, embracing Dave’s less-than-refined elements (overtly racist – "I've killed sixty-five men, not countin' Mexicans and Indians" – and taking delight in killing). He makes an effective counterweight to Emilio Estevez, naturally ruling the roost as Billy the Kid with his trademark giggling and manic energy (Estevez, it has to be said, is also really good as Brushy Bill Roberts in the bookend sequence, shrouded in old-age makeup and providing convincingly hoarse narration throughout).

Kiefer Sutherland returns as Doc Scurlock, once again the sensitive soul but this time relieved of the romantic baggage; because he has the moral compass, Doc’s inevitably a weaker presence, but he generally has a better footing on this occasion, and it’s worth recognising that Sutherland’s Andrew McCarthy-style softness is in stark contrast to other roles he was taking either side (The Lost Boys, Stand by Me, A Few Good Men). Lou Diamond Phillips also comes across much better here. For one thing, he has an unrepentant antagonist in Rudabaugh. For another, the “My people have a saying...” style faux-wisdom is kept to a minimum.

Other cast members – even those who weren’t yet names – reflect that Fusco’s screenplay is surprisingly deft and nuanced in its rehearsal of Billy lore, taking in his testimony in respect of the Lincoln County War, escape from custody and subsequent pursuit by former comrade Pat Garrett (William Peterson). Along the way, he picks up new members Hendry William French (Alan Ruck) and youngster Tom O’Folliard (Balthazar Getty), incurs the wrath of John Chisum (James Coburn, making a dependably indelible impression in only a couple of scenes), visits bordello madam Jane Greathouse (Jenny Wright, offering an, ahem, great exit) and incurring his fellows’ wrath – Doc’s in particular – when he reveals the Mexican Blackbird – a trail leading to Mexico – is something he made up.

There’s a range of familiar faces pockmarking the picture. Scott Wilson (The Walking Dead, the same month of release’s The Exorcist III) is Governor Wallace. Jack Kehoe (The Untouchables, Midnight Run) is Garrett’s biographer Upson, much despised by posse member Poe (Viggo Mortensen) but proving useful in a tight spot (he speaks Navajo). Bradley Whitford is the reporter interviewing Brushy Bill Roberts. Tracey Walter is a Tracey Walter type (reuniting with Estevez following Repo Man). Robert Knepper is a deputy.

Many of them get memorable lines or scenes, be it the reaction of Sheriff Kimbel (Jerry Gardner) to being told to go get Billy: “I’d rather drink turpentine and piss on a brush fire”, or Poe’s chilly “Take your medicine, son” as O’Folliard dies before him (the picture’s leaning towards what would be Unforgiven-esque reflection is that, amid the stirring Bon Jovi and cackling Billy, he’s gleefully leading friends and impressionable youngsters to their deaths). Then there’s Jane’s promise, before her revealing passage from town: “I’ll show them what my civic virtue looks like”.

Many of the best lines go to Estevez, though, from the crudely impudent (“Good day, Mr Dung Pile”), to his reaction to being told by the judge he will be hanged until he is “Dead, dead, dead”: “You can go to hell, hell, hell!” He also shoots Sheriff Ollinger (Leon Rippey) with a rifle loaded with dimes (“Best dollar eighty I ever spent”).

Like any western worth its mythologising salt, Young Guns II plays fast and loose with history. But then, the best you can probably assert in such cases anyway is that official legend has likely overruled rumoured legend. The deaths of O’Folliard (but younger here) and off-screen demise of Rudabaugh are pretty much as stated. Both Chavez and Scurlock lived on until the 1920s, though.

It seems Sutherland refused to return unless his character was killed off (why this would be down to scheduling conflicts is anyone’s guess; it’s also said he didn’t want to continue with the franchise, in which case he clearly got his wish). Fusco had been historically accurate in having him survive, so he was understandably reluctant to make the change. Chavez is implied to be sloping off to die from a gaping stomach wound when we last see him, so why Fusco didn’t opt for historical accuracy there is anyone’s guess. As for Brushy Bill appearing out of the desert in 1950, the gist of that is also accurate.

Geoff Murphy’s Hollywood feature debut is nimble and engaging; he shows a keen eye for the iconic pose and sequence, and he’s aided by Dean Semler (returning to the series as DP) and editor Bruce Green. How energised would the picture seem without the Bon Jovi theme? Difficult to say, but that’s not slight; a movie’s score is inevitably a good portion of its power. Mostly. Notably, however, Estevez and Murphy would reunite on flaccid sci-fi Freejack the following year, and the director’s initial promise, complete with a subsequent Steven Seagal sequel, would turn rocky rather quickly.

Critics weren’t keen on Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory, but then, the title itself is a red flag, rubbing their noses in an idea they’re predisposed to loathe. I’d argue the movie strikes precisely the desired balance between disrespect and diligence and amounts to one of the superior westerns post their golden era. To be ranked in the crowd-pleasing section with Tombstone, rather than the self-important stodge of Wyatt Earp.

As for the sequel? It’s suggested Fusco intimidated that not only Estevez, but also Sutherland, Phillips and Slater will be back (and Chris Pratt?!) I can quite see getting Doc and Chavez involved, as one only needs to expose Bill Roberts as an unreliable narrator (and only in the closing section at that, in order to protect their legacy or some such). Rudabaugh seems more of a stretch, but as noted, the Wild West is a highly malleable artefact when it comes to veracity.

I for one am eager to see it (Bill and Ted Face the Music turned out well, give or take, after a similar gap, after all). One might caution that Estevez the director hasn’t proved he has the chops for an action piece, but if he’s keen enough to exhume the property, I suspect he’ll make sure to do it justice. Provided that is, he can make anything, now he’s been tarred with the stigma of the unjabbed. Him and Will Smith and Ice Cube both. Gonna make you famous. One more time.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.