Directed By George Gallo

Starring – Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Emile Hirsch

The Plot – In debt to the mob and in need of a new money making scheme to save his skin, greedy grind-house film producer, Max Barber, (De Niro) decides to produce a dangerous new film, all for the sake of killing his lead actor in a stunt so he can rake in the insurance money. But when he casts Duke Montana, (Tommy Lee Jones) an aging, washed up movie star as the lead, Max never expects the depressed old drunk to be revitalized by being in front of the camera again. Unable to kill Duke in a basic stunt, Max ups the stakes, putting Duke into ever more dangerous situations. And as Duke survives stunt after stunt, Max unwittingly starts making the best movie of his career.

Rated R for adult language throughout and some violence

POSITIVES

– Spirited ensemble. There are no shortage of familiar faces and big name presences to grace the movie’s characters, and offer a variety of dream team dynamics between them to share the screen at any given time. It helps that none of them are phoning it in, particularly that of De Niro and Jones, who have unfortunately attained a safety net quality in the roles they’ve accepted in the last decade. For De Niro, it’s clear that the energy and versatility that made him a cross-genre threat throughout five decades of film is certainly still there. Likewise with Jones, the aspiring drive to fully invest himself and have fun with the picture allows an insatiable indulgence for the audience to engage in, cementing a protagonist whose grit in toughness is complimented by his drive to deliver once more. On top of these two, the work of Hirsch and Zach Braff sprinkle enough charisma in a couple of straight men approaches to leave a lasting impact, and it’s always a delight to see comedian Eddie Griffin back on the screen, even if his lack of dialogue leaves him stilted.

– Art imitating life. As I previously mentioned, it’s something extra special for De Niro and Jones to bring their best to their respective roles, but beyond that it’s a bit cathartic to see each of them play towards character outlines within the film that deal with creative comebacks. Both of them are certainly no stranger to this concept in real life, particularly De Niro, whose choice in uninspired comedic roles have unfortunately typecast him as anything other than the serious character actor he once attained. So in a sense, these roles transcend their work of fiction in favor of a real world commentary that the casting agent is smart enough to grasp at. It gives an extra dynamic to the script that could be easy to overlook if given to the wrong actor, and allows the Hollywood depicted in the film to feel as synonymous to reality as any movie can conjure.

– Nuance production. As a 70’s period piece, the production is smart enough to dabble in enough of the familiarity without oversaturating it to the point of it becoming decade porn in the face of obviousness. For an appreciator of film like myself, it’s the maverick ideals within the fictional production from within the film that especially caught my attention and appreciation, but beyond that the wardrobe and overall costume design generates a subtle nostalgia that serves as the only reminder of such timely designation as the film persists. The film does open by giving us the year in on-screen text, but beyond that it’s up to the audience’s attention to decipher the signs and immerse themselves in the psychology of the times that often gets the best of its colorful protagonist.

– Post credit treat. Anyone checking out the movie in theaters should stay until after the credits roll, in order to see a fictional trailer of “Killer Nuns”, the movie within the movie that looks better than anything this film portrayed. For my money, this trailer said more about the capabilities of De Niro the producer in the movie than anything they shoot for Duke Montana’s movie. As opposed to the movie that I’m unfortunately saddled with and reviewing currently, “Killer Nuns” is something that I would actually see for the B-movie child within me that enjoys intentionally bad cinema for the sake of intentional laughter. It’s brought together with the movie voice that used to be a staple of Hollywood cinema, and is without question my favorite scene and the one I remember most from my experience with this film.

NEGATIVES

– Unnecessary rating. When a movie is given the desirable R-rated that is so difficult to attain by contemporary desires to adhere to a wider age group in audience, it usually does so to add to the material that wouldn’t be the same without it. With that said, the classification here serves no vital purpose or effect on the comedy, dialogue, or adult imagery that is surprisingly absent for a movie revolving around death. The only noticeable aspect of such is in the adult language, which overuses a series of four letter words so frequently that it often feels desperate when it goes to reach for such. On the level of natural dialogue between stressed out filmmakers, it’s fine enough, but the way it’s used is so unnecessarily rampant throughout divides it from the naturalistic quality it was going for in the first place, and makes it a chore to hear when it’s being spit every other word in scenes of tension.

– Humorless. Aside from some physical comedy in the film, which is easily detectable and nothing original when compared to other films contemporary examples, the level of the material in the film is virtually absent from even a singular attempt at reaching for gut-busting gags. Being that this film is a remake of a 1982 film of the same name, it seems like this is the biggest aspect that doesn’t mature naturally in its almost forty years of progressive filmmaking. The attempts of dialogue laughs are ineffective to the level of virtual crickets being heard, and the movie’s second act goes around twenty minutes without even attempting anything that even remotely resembles an intention for humor. It makes so much of the experience so consequentially dry along the way, and dramatically underscores the most genre distinguishing aspect of the film, which makes everything that follows a chore to get through.

– Painfully derivative. There are two films that “The Comeback Trail” obviously borrows from. The first is an obvious one; “Get Shorty”. But as to where the sharp wit produced a resounding punch for that Barry Sonnenfeld film, it’s virtually absent with Gallo’s film, which plays almost every delivery shamefully straight in emitting the bigger picture. The second film is 1998’s “Dead Man on Campus”, which one could certainly say borrows from “The Comeback Trail” considering the 82′ original was conceived first. However, the differences in this remake point to more than a few of the similarities with “Dead Man” that silences this objection, and keeps it from escaping the inevitable comparisons that keep it from ever fully justifying the originality within this version.

– Surface level. Another missed opportunity from a movie like “Get Shorty”, is the lack of attention paid to the economical stratosphere at Hollywood, which could’ve afforded this movie a satirical sting of sorts in the business it depicts. Especially considering so much of the first act delves into the numbers and acquisitions of movie deals, and how they operate, it’s a bit of a disappointment to comprehend that this is as deep as it’s ever going to get, and especially as is the case in the 70’s where the idea of rebel filmmaking often created more legal liabilities. With this aspect, as well as the entire script, there’s a void left unfulfilled by 95 minutes of fluff that only pertains to the essential plot, leaving the additional subplots and economical commentary of the business unexplored without any semblance of depth to compliment it.

– Believability. I base this section entirely on the film that the characters are making, and if it’s really as good as they continuously make it out to be. Frequently throughout the film, it’s mentioned that this film has the ability to win Oscars and change careers for the better. First of all, action films are very rarely, if ever considered for Oscars. Secondly, there’s nothing within the craft or production of this film that is exceptionally shot, even for 1974 standards. The action sequences are flat with a lack of urgency, and there’s maybe three lines of dialogue mumbled throughout every sequence that we are treated to being shot. On top of it, the stuntman looks nothing like Tommy Lee Jones, and the computer generated animals as hollow and lifeless as mannequins. Yet this is somehow the film that gets this producer back on the map? If this is the best of his films, I would hate to see the others.

– Underwhelming direction. There’s many aspects of Gallo’s directing that has always made me a critic of even his finest work. As a screenwriter, he’s solid, but when he has the ultimate control over a film’s presentational aspects, he leaves more to be desired. The problems in “The Comeback Trail” start with his faulty framing devices, which often shoot a facial resonation so close that it brings an unflattering claustrophobia to the movie’s imagery. In addition to this, the tone deaf atmosphere and flat character building throughout leads to a climax without a single shred of urgency or heft to their circumstances, summarizing a bland experience that could’ve used someone of the caliber of the Coen Brothers or Steven Soderbergh to amplify the irony of its personality. It makes for a difficultly dry film towards gaining any kind of momentum that builds between scenes, and undercuts the work of its talented cast, who are surprisingly up for the task.

My Grade: 4/10 or D