Saturday, April 21, 2012

NIGHT OF THE PRECINCT RIO BRAVO

Stars: three of five.    
As the title of this piece suggests, John Carpenter's "original" movie, Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), is Rio Bravo crossed with Night of the Living Dead. It is also a thoroughly enjoyable movie, because in the spirit of the best westerns and horror movies, Assault has an undeniable energy and, yes, even a sense of integrity. It also has a lot of people in it who couldn't act to save their lives, the sole exceptions being Austin Stoker, who plays Lieutenant Bishop, a new cop assigned to what he anticipates will be a boring night in charge of a police precinct that is being closed down, and Darwin Joston, who plays Napoleon Wilson, a convicted murderer on his way to doing either a life stretch or death row, depending on which scene we're in. For those keeping score, Stoker plays a black John Wayne and Joston plays a resourceful and trustworthy scalawag with a wit as dry as dirt. The zombies are played by half a million teenagers of all races and nationalities. They aren't actually zombies, though. They're gang kids in Anderson, a ghetto in Los Angeles, at least in this movie. As the film begins, two anonymous policemen shoot down six gang members under curious circumstances. The rest of this enormous group wages a "cholo" or blood oath against the father of a little girl they murdered. The father, who does probably the worst acting job in the entire film, even though he was likely doing what Carpenter told him to do, seeks refuge in the soon-to-be-deserted police station. Given the nasty sun spots the man on the radio keeps talking about, we know bad times are on the rise. 
    In the real world outside the theatre, a cholo is a Mexican gangster, but this movie is not the real world, which is one of the great things about it. Oh, there's all types of realism going on, mind you. Carpenter probably spent more money on the synthesizer he used for the music he played and composed than he did on sets, and that is, now that I think of it, entirely appropriate considering he was not a movie-house common name in those days. So we have city streets that are deserted even though in real life L.A. they would be choked with people. We have an old-style phone system that no longer existed in 1976. We have a team of police officers with all the personality of mildew and--well, okay, maybe Carpenter did get that part right. Otherwise, however, the movie is complete and total bullshit from beginning to end, just like any of a thousand wonderful movies from the world of science fiction, horror, or westerns. None of it matters. It doesn't matter that a potential victim runs like hell while the attackers walk after him and somehow the walking attackers catch up with the running victim. It doesn't matter that we don't really see about half the cast inside the precinct getting shot; somehow we just accept that they have been. And it doesn't matter that most of the costly pyrotechnics don't actually happen on-screen at all because that would have been too expensive. Look, this was only the writer-director's second full-length film, and he followed it up with Halloween, so let's get off the dude's back. 
    What matters is that Assault on Precinct 13 stays on point for its duration, doesn't go off on some pointless deeper meanings nonsense, and does not attempt to solve all of society's problems. Indeed, it is the film-maker's responsibility to create problems for society rather than to solve them. This movie is simply a lot of fun, you can probably watch it for free on YouTube, and you won't be bothered by anything approximating society for a full ninety-four minutes. With a set-up like that, how can it miss?
Note the Skittles. You know it's gonna be trouble. 
Angry Czechs

Other top stories
'Stain of interest' found in Etan Patz search
Team retraces historic, and risky, Everest climb
Mysteriously silent satellite spotted by spacecraft
Yankees rally from 9 down to stun Red Sox
Caps have Cup champ Bruins on the brink


Romney sells economic acumen — are voters buying?
NBC/WSJ poll: Romney's image improves but remains a net-negative


Seattle's iconic Space Needle turns 50
Costa Concordia to be salvaged in 1 piece
NYT: Are travel agents back?
Cellphone in cockpit led to aborted landing on flight

  • Posted by Peter Hart on 04/20/12 at 1:35 pm
    More Democrats are starting to shift towards supporting the controversial Keystone pipeline, reports Jennifer Steinhauer in the New York Times (4/20/12).  The media discussion has leaned heavily in favor of the project, so perhaps this is no surprise. And this … Continue reading  Read more»
  • Posted by Peter Hart on 04/20/12 at 1:31 pm
    Brian Stelter reports in the New York Times that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are renewing their contracts– meaning that we'll be enjoying– and paying for– their talents through the 2016 election season. Not many people around Fox wanted to …Continue reading  Read more»
  • Posted by Steve Rendall on 04/19/12 at 3:13 pm
    Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor acknowledged on Al Jazeera English(4/14/12) that Iranian leaders have never called for Israel to be "wiped" off the map.
    Meridor agreed with interviewer Teymoor Nabili's suggestion that the supposed remarks  were never actually made; Iranian leaders, Meridor said,
    come basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn't say "we'll wipe it out," you are right, but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed.
    Hostile words, to be sure, but not the menacing threat endlessly reported in corporate U.S. media in recent years. (Iran, Israel and "wiped off the map" occur together more than 8,500 times in the Nexis news database in the last seven years.)
    Of course, Mideast expert and blogger Juan Cole noted long ago that Ahmadinejad never called for Israel to be wiped off the map, but Meridor's interview suggests that there is hope this information might finally penetrate the corporate media bubble. [...]Read more»
  • Posted by Peter Hart on 04/18/12 at 10:55 am
    New York Times critic Alessandra Stanley–whose work has been regularly featured in the paper's Corrections box–doesn't think much of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange's new TV show, which debuted on the Russian-backed RT cable channel.

1 comment:

sigithermawan12 said...

thanks for sharing information.. i'ts valuable to me..