THE LAST KISS (2006, Tony Goldwyn)

 

* * * 

Boy, it's tough getting older. Who'd have thought you could have it all, yet still be unhappy about losing your youth?

Starring  Zach Braff, Jacinda Barrett, Casey Affleck, Rachel Bilson, Marley Shelton

Written by  Paul Haggis

Produced by  Gary Lucchesi, Tom Rosenberg, Marcus Viscidi, Andre Lamal

Duration  104 minutes

 

 

Presenting THE LAST KISS: myths vs reality.

Myth: Movies about young people struggling with the transition from carefree adolescence to grown-up responsibilities tend to be insufferable.

Reality: Opening voiceover from Zach Braff: "I'm 29 years old; I'll be 30 next month. So far, I gotta admit that my life has turned out pretty great."

Then, at a dinner with her parents, his girlfriend (Jacinda Barrett) announces that she is pregnant. Cut to: slow zoom-in to a close-up of Braff's bemused and gormless face.

If this plotline had occurred in Braff's star-making sitcom Scrubs (more on which later), we could have cut away to a desk fan that gets hit in the blades with a lump of shit. Just like that bit in disaster spoof AIRPLANE.

Whichever way, we get the point.

It's immediately clear that we have here yet another man-child movie. See any number starring Seth Rogan (KNOCKED UP also features an unexpected pregnancy) or Will Ferrell (especially STEP BROTHERS) or Robin Williams (JACK).


Myth: These kinds of movies are even worse when the narrative is "My life is perfect ... so why am I not happy?"

Reality: It is mightily hard to sympathise with someone whose life is essentially being threatened with a downgrade from 'absolutely brilliant' to 'pretty great, all things considered.'

The worst cinematic offender has to be BRUCE ALMIGHTY (2003). Pity poor Bruce (Jim Carrey): he has a great job as a TV reporter, but craves a promotion to news anchor. When someone else gets the gig, he lashes out petulantly, then sulks off home to his extravagant apartment to be comforted by his gorgeous girlfriend, played by Jennifer Aniston.

Yes, the viewer can find it difficult to care about a protagonist's problems when, to quote CASABLANCA (a movie with genuine jeopardy), they don't amount to a hill of beans. It's especially challenging in something like THE LAST KISS, where the main struggle is letting go of adolescence. Newsflash: you don't have to settle down, get married, buy a house, have kids. No one is forcing you to; plenty of people never tick off all those boxes.

But if you do decide to follow that particular path, then for crying out loud, don't start moaning about it. Try to remember that there are people out there who crave what you have.

Braff's character's main complaint is that his life has become predictable, that there are no more surprises left. As if going out and getting pissed with his mates every weekend to is full of variety, and starting your own family is a straightforward, never-changing bore. Moron.


Myth: Scrubs is the most annoying sitcom of all time.

Reality: How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory are its main competitors, I'd say. Here in the UK, things like Mrs Brown's Boys and Miranda provide stiff competition.

But Scrubs is definitely on the list. It had that cartoonish, Ally McBeal hyper-reality that was inexplicably popular at the turn of the century.

Braff wasn't the only culprit of this irritation-athon, but he takes his share of the blame. And he definitely has the kind of face you'd like to punch. Often, his expression suggests that he is expecting to be punched: features in a grimace, as if bracing for the worst.

Myth: THE LAST KISS was Zach Braff's second movie as director.

Reality: It was actually helmed by another mostly actor, Tony Goldwyn. He's probably still best known for playing Patrick Swayze's supposed friend but actual rival in GHOST. Apparently he was part of OPPENHEIMER's ensemble, too, but so many people were in that I must have missed him. Oh and THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake, too.

No, Braff's actual second turn behind the camera, following on from acclaimed debut GARDEN STATE, was something called WISH I WAS HERE. Nope, me neither.


Myth: THE LAST KISS has a homoerotic subtext.

Reality: I started to suspect this when Casey Affleck, playing one of Braff's mates, warns our hero to not cheat on his girlfriend. What persuasive rhetoric does he employ? "She's perfect! She's just like a guy!" Weird thing to say.

So, naturally I started keeping an eye out for more homoerotica. But there didn’t end up being enough to call it a trend. There is a bit with Affleck on the receiving end this time (ooh-er, etc), when another man tells him "call me!" in a camp voice while making that telephone hand gesture.

Seems like THE LAST KISS would have been quite a different film if they'd put Affleck's character at the centre of it ...


Myth: These mid-noughties comedy-dramas haven't aged well.

Reality: Well, the soundtrack dates it: Snow Patrol, Athlete, Rufus Wainwright, early Coldplay. And some of the fashion: baggy clothes, more spiky hair and sideburns than you see these days, hardly any smart phones.

But it's certainly not as era-specific as things made in the 1990s or 1980s tend to be.


Myth: In fact, they don't really make these kinds of movies at all anymore.

Reality: It does feel like something that nowadays would be a Netflix show.

For one thing, it's very sub-plot-heavy. It's nearly an ensemble piece, like HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU (2009) or WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING (2012). Braff's three friends all get their own arcs; as do Barrett's parents, played by reliable old-handers Blythe Danner and Tom Wilkinson.

Harold Ramis also pops up in a cameo that suggests a bigger role giving way during post-production.

Myth: Zach Braff is able to pull off playing a complex, conflicted character and make them sympathetic, despite their flaws.

Reality: Look, the angst he is going through is not uncommon. The malaise, the quarter-life crisis ... fair enough, fair enough.

But when he, a man in a committed relationship with a partner up the duff, accepts Rachel Bilson's college-age temptress’s flirtations, he erodes our goodwill by not immediately getting the fuck away from her.

Then, he gives her his number when she asks for it.

Then, he goes to meet her outside her college.

Then, he agrees to go to a frat party with her. Where he kisses her! And it's only then that he suddenly pulls away and says "No! This isn't right!"

But that's not the end. Because then, he has a minor tiff with Barrett and immediately runs back to Bilson and only goes and bloody shags her, right in her dorm room! (Not a euphemism.)

Not really endearing yourself to us, are you my man? And of course, Barrett finds out and is justifiably fuming.


Myth: After taking the hero's journey to a point as dire as the above, a film is never going to be able to get the audience back onside – especially with only a short-ish third act left to go.

Reality: OK, so here's the thing. THE LAST KISS did win me over in the end.

Braff doesn't get off the hook easily. He's made to suffer. He's genuinely repentant and seems to have learned his lesson. Everyone makes mistakes, people aren’t perfect and they can change. A good perspective, in my opinion. Actually rather refreshing, when the common dialogue today is more 'one strike and you're out, buddy'. (Am I really looking back on 20 years ago as a lost and more innocent time?)

I also liked how they wrapped it up: with a hint of hope, but no dramatic, cathartic resolution. Only the feeling that this young couple will have to work on things, and it may take a long time, and they might not succeed. But they are going to try.

And hey – at least the guy's not bored anymore! Am I right? Huh? 

Three stars out of five.

 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  It's a a title that makes me think they couldn't come up with one and landed on that late in the day. THE LAST FLING would have been more accurate, but they probably wanted something softer to draw in the romcom crowd.

What would a movie called THE FIRST KISS be about?  I wouldn't have been surprised if that was one of the titles spit-balled for the Drew Barrymore vehicle NEVER BEEN KISSED.

 

Previously:  LAST THREE DAYS

Next time:  UNDISPUTED 2: LAST MAN STANDING 

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

LAST THREE DAYS (2020, Brian Ulrich)

* * 

A rookie narcotics cop inadvertently starts jumping back and forth through time.

Starring  Robert Palmer Watkins, Thomas Wilson Brown, Deborah Lee Smith, Roy Huang

Written by  Brian Ulrich

Produced by  Brian Ulrich, Julianna Ulrich, Jonathan M Black

Duration  86 minutes

 

 

I've tried to avoid doing these reviews in a predicable, bog-standard 'and then this happens, and then that happens' style. But for LAST THREE DAYS, I'm going to do exactly that, for better or for worse. 

Let's see how we get on!

Monday, 22st, a title card tells us. We're in a house, it looks like a crime has taken place. Empty beer bottles, furniture knocked over. Expended shell casings, a discarded handgun. Jack, a police officer and our protagonist, is there, and his colleagues soon burst in and pull their guns on him. Uh-oh; what have you done, Jack? He pleads innocence, but whatever has gone down here, the evidence against the young cop is pretty damning.

Then it's seven years ago. College-student Jack is in shorts, sitting underneath a tree, study books open. Then a pretty girl turns up and tells him that this is her favourite study spot. Jack agrees to let her sit there if he can take her out to dinner. She tells him she's writing an essay on the nature of time and memories; the audience is invited to believe that this is relevant to her nursing degree, not just clumsy plot foreshadowing. Jack, meanwhile, is majoring in criminal law and aspires to be a top detective.

They walk and talk and flirt. He gets her name and number. She's Beth. We montage through their relationship. Soon they're married, moving in together, now indeed working as police officer and nurse.

Then it's seven years later again, this time Wednesday, 17th. Beth comes home from her nursing job to an exposition-rich noticeboard, where she's marked that it's been 'Five days without Jack', and also that it's soon going to be their fifth wedding anniversary.

Then we’re with Jack and his veteran partner, Dave, busting into a drug dealer's house. "Sometimes in life we're given second chances," Jack informs the perp while cuffing him. "What we do with them … is up to us." Philosopher as well as lawman is our Jack.

Meanwhile, Beth is still waiting for Jack to come home. Instead, he goes to play cards with his cop buddies in a bar. They talk about local gang warfare, specifically the Japanese 'Yakus'. (Is ‘Yakuza’ a trademark or something? Or did the filmmakers want to avoid upsetting a real/real dangerous group?). Jack gets a call from the missus, wondering if he is ever coming home. He argues that as the newest member of the team he needs to socialise with his colleagues to build trust.

Beth hangs up. She is working late too, getting relationship advice from an older colleague, who insists that Jack does still love her.

Then it's the next day, Thursday, 18th. Jack assures Beth via text that he will be home tonight. Later, he and Dave meet up with a young Japanese woman to try and find out about the Yakus' next move. 

Davey Boy is a bit too cavalier for Jack: he boasts about not caring about doing a bust without a warrant or breaking any other rules, if it means they gets a result. But Jack nevertheless assures his increasingly dodgy-seeming partner that he does have his back. So, he agrees to go out for yet another drink after work – neglecting poor Beth for the umpteenth time, leaving her alone dressed in her best sexy outfit and nursing (no pun intended) a cold steak dinner. Jack didn't even realise that it's their anniversary today! 

And when he comes home drunk and accuses her of not respecting him, she accuses him of turning into his father, which he’s mentioned is his worst nightmare. So, Jack storms out again and catches up with Dave and the others in a strip bar. You can now mark 'strip bar' off from your cop movie clichés bingo card.

Next morning, Jack wakes up hungover in his own house, but alone: no Beth. And it turns out that rather than being Friday morning like it should be, it's actually Monday, 22nd! So just what the hell has happened to the LAST THREE DAYS?

He goes to Dave's house and finds it dishevelled; in fact, we're now back at the setup from the start of the movie. Jack's own gun is in the vicinity, as is a sexy photo Beth gave him of herself way back in the day. And when he plays Dave's answerphone messages, he hears Beth saying that she's left Jack and that she loves Dave! WTF?

Then a masked man bursts in and tries to shoot Jack, who shoots back. Before he can see if he's tagged him, Jack finds Dave’s bloodied corpse in the bathroom. When Jack's other cop pals turn up, it doesn't look good for our poor rookie. He legs it out the house but, in his haste, doesn't look both ways and is hit by a car.

Then Jack wakes in a dumpster, with no gun and a busted phone. But now when he checks the date on his watch it turns out that it's Sunday, 21st!

Jack happens upon (I guess?) some members of the Yaku and kidnaps one, getting out of him that they killed Dave and have framed Jack. And as for Beth, her whereabouts and whether that "I've left you for Dave" message was genuine? Jack still doesn't know!

After tussling with the Yakus, Jack races home and finds a "I still love you Jack, happy anniversary!" note from Beth. So, determined to piece together what the fuck is going on, Jack pulls down that exposition-tool whiteboard they have in their kitchen and starts doodling on it, lines and names and arrows, with dates and times. It’s a little like that scene with Doc Brown and the blackboard in BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II.

Then Jack wakes up again and it's Saturday now (the 20th – do try to keep up) and Dave is still alive. And Jack's getting into a car with Dave and asking him what's going on, when did he last see Beth? But Dave quickly moves the conversation onto work, specifically the against-protocol methods he wants to use to bust the Yakus.

Those include meeting their female informant (at least I think that’s what she was) with her Yaku pals in a warehouse. Soon, the female big boss Yaku emerges from the shadows. She doesn't trust Dave and at gunpoint forces him to admit that they're cops. (So, I guess they were undercover this whole time?) Then there's a shootout. The informant (?) girl is shot and the two cops run away. Then another shootout, on the pavement this time. Dave is hit, so gives Jack some incriminating evidence he has about the Yakus and tells him to take off. Then the Yakus call Dave "a real piece of shit" and shoot him dead.

Presently, Jack finds a payphone and tries calling Beth but can't get through. So, nursing a Yuka-administered gunshot wound, he goes to the hospital where she works. He doesn't find her, but, after collapsing due to blood loss, he is treated by Beth's nurse friend. The friend tells him that he had an unknown narcotic in his bloodstream – it's 'reaper', the new designer drug that the Yakus are dealing. Could they have slipped Jack some and that's what has been altering his perception of time?

We finally see where Beth is: staying with her dad. Jack rushes to her, but he's not in time to stop her getting kidnapped (pick up that bingo marker again) – and we see the Yaku forcing her at gunpoint to leave that cryptic answerphone message about leaving Jack and loving Dave.

Then it's the morning of Friday, the 19th. Alone again, Jack wakes up in bed and tries to call Beth – no answer! All seems lost. Jack meets Dave and tells him that he's off the case: "I've got a wife, man. It's time I started thinking about her." But Dave threatens him: turns out he's ultimately working for the Yakus, so wants to make sure Jack does what he's told, otherwise Dave will order his Yaku pals to hurt Beth. It's been/is/was/will be Dave who setting Jack up, all along! Damn, some partner!

The two of them tussle in a parking garage and Jack eventually gets the upper hand. He then has just 15 minutes to race to rescue Beth before she's due to be grabbed by one of Dave's/the Yaku's goons. He makes it, but she rejects his attempts at reconciliation.

But, no, wait a minute – in the movie’s final moments she kisses him in their kitchen as the sun sets through the window. These kids are gonna be all right, folks.

Phew, we made it! Blimey, that was hard work. Don't think I'll be doing that again any time soon.

Oh, and the film is OK, if a bit incoherent. Nothing amazing, but not one-star bad.

Two stars out of five.

 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Actually one of the more accurate uses I’ve come across. Although if I were to be pedantic, I'd say they should have gone for 'the previous'.

What would a movie called FIRST THREE DAYS be like?  In terms of cop movies, sounds like it would be a longer version of TRAINING DAY. A movie to which this one has been compared, to the extent that anyone but me has actually bothered writing about LAST THREE DAYS.

 

Previously:  I’LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

Next time:  THE LAST KISS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (2006, Sylvain White)

 

* 

Someone learns about something bad that a different someone did 12 months prior.  

Starring  Brooke Nevin, David Paetkau, Torrey DeVitto, Ben Easter, Don Shanks

Written by  Michael D Weiss

Produced by  Neal H Moritz, Erik Feig, Nancy Kirhoffer, Amanda Lewis

Duration  92 minutes   

 

Years ago, I worked with someone who confessed to always reading the last page of a book first.

"Why?" I asked her, incredulous. 

"Because I can't stand the suspense, I have to know how it ends," came the reply.

This struck me as plainly ridiculous. Not that there would have been any point me arguing with her – in the words of Bobby Brown, that was her prerogative. But certainly it's not something I would ever do myself.

(Although I did once watch a fan edit of PULP FICTION where the scenes had been reordered chronologically. It wasn't as good.)

Here's the thing. One of the least-heralded but most-important aspects of writing is structure. I'm not necessarily talking about nonlinear narratives, or MEMENTO-style trickery. More like, in what order does the audience learn things? Are certain events shown or not shown? How long do we linger over particular incidents? Stuff like that.

The writer (or, since this is now film we're talking about, writers plural) must make these decisions. They make them to serve the story and what they want the impact on the viewer to be. They've chosen to arranged things this way, out of the millions of other possible alternatives; that's their prerogative, their right as an artist.

So, messing around with the structure is kind of disrespectful, in my opinion. I wonder if my ex-colleague also used to skip her DVDs ahead to the final chapter? Shudder.

When it comes to a series of films, that's a structure too. You're supposed to go original first, then any sequels. Sure, some people have come up with other orders to watch things, like with prequels/sequels rosta of the STAR WARS universe, but that's mostly kept to the realms of hardcore geekdom.

I have done it, but not usually by choice. ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2 were both considered to be less intense than their predecessors, so as a youngster I was allowed to watch them years before the originals. And the first HALLOWEEN I saw, round a friend's house, was the controversially Michael Myers-free third one, SEASON OF THE WITCH. And I didn't even realise at the time that it wasn't the first film, so for years I was one of the rare people who didn't associate the franchise with its famous bogeyman.

So, on viewing I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, I tried to imagine I'd watched this film first. If so, would I have gone back and sought out the earlier ones? And to what extent does this reference those films? The answers are 'no' and 'slavishly', respectively. Or, as you'll see if you read on, I should probably say disrespectfully.

We begin in a carnival, like the start of another slasher threequal, FINAL DESTINATION 3, following the predicable gaggle of teenagers. Soon it's all:

"Have you guys heard of the Fisherman? Every fourth of July he gets out his hat and slicker, he sharpens up his hook and runs wild. But only on teenagers, ones with dirty little secrets."

"So he's like Santa in reverse? He goes after the naughty kids?"

In the slasher tradition of THE BURNING, PROM NIGHT, THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW, et al, it's a prank gone wrong that prompts the later killings. Our bland teens want to exploit the Fisherman legend by faking one of their friends receiving death by hook. But it goes wrong and he dies for real, and they make a pact to keep it to themselves.

We jump to next summer and our thinly sketched youths are feeling guilty about their dead buddy, especially lead/final girl Amber. Then everyone starts getting those ominous 'I know' messages, and before you can say 'mind your own business, mate' we get: a succession of kills and near-kills; Fisherman sightings and non-sightings; guilt and defiance. Rinse, repeat.

The cast is populated with unknowns, kids who were at the same auditions as those who made it onto shows like One Tree Hill and The OC, but who had to then watch on jealously as their peers achieved stardom while they instead popped up in things like I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER.

Clearly, the third entry in this almost-franchise isn't a direct follow up. Parts one and two had the connecting tissue of Jennifer Love Hewitt and were released fewer than 12 months apart. No JLC here, and nearly a decade has passed this time.

But I also can't help wondering: when is a sequel really a remake? Because when you get something like this, where it seems like they just dug out the original script and gave it a rewrite, how can you say it is actually a continuation? Yes, the characters are different and so is the location and some details. But that often happens in remakes, too.  They did add a supernatural element this time – but so what? The fact is, we still have the same basic structure and plot beats.

It's like they took a house, stripped off all the wallpaper and threw out the furniture and then redecorated. Except, they used lazy college kids to do the work and went to the local skip for supplies. And in terms of films that blur the line between sequel and remake, this does the opposite of going from EL MARIACHI to DESPERADO or when they redid THE EVIL DEAD as EVIL DEAD II: lower budget, fewer stars, less imagination and flair and filmmaking confidence.

There is a lot of what used to be called MTV-editing, now sometimes labelled 'Avid farts', an expression credited to online critic Outlaw Vern, Avid being the industry-standard editing software. It's not just cutting often to leave micro-short shot lengths, it's also adding white flashes and 'woosh' sounds to manufacture some excitement. Usually without success.

OK, to be fair, there was one sequence in I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER that impressed me. Not really the execution, but the concept. One of our teens, the blond not-Ryan Philippe one, is swimming alone at night. The Fisherman turns up, as is standard, and immediately hooks our boy’s ankle while he's trying to splash away. So, it’s like the Fisherman is actually going fishing!

I'd also like to think that the character name 'Amber Williams' is a tribute to the EVIL DEAD series’ Ash Williams, played by Bruce Campbell.

The only thing I can genuinely recommend I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER for is a drinking game. Do a shot any time someone denies the existence of the killer or you hear the words 'I know'; whenever the edit lets out an Avid fart, down your drink. After about 10 minutes, you won't know who knows what about anything anymore.

One star out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  God, please, please.

What would a movie called I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID FIRST SUMMER be about?  I’m sorry, I can’t. I just … I just can’t get my head around it. Sorry.

 

Previously:  THE LAST MOVIE

Next time:  LAST THREE DAYS

 

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST MOVIE (1971, Dennis Hopper)

 * * 

An American movie crew finishes shooting in Peru and then this one guy hangs around for a bit instead of going home.

Starring  Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda, Kris Kristofferson, Michelle Phillips, Dean Stockwell

Written by  Stewart Stern

Produced by  Paul Lewis

Duration  108 minutes

 

Bruce Willis, HUDSON HAWK. Eddie Murphy, HARLEM NIGHTS. John Travolta, BATTLEFIELD EARTH. Mariah Carey, GLITTER. Steven Seagal, ON DEADLY GROUND. Michael Flatley, BLACKBIRD. Sylvester Stallone, PARADISE ALLEY. Vanilla Ice, COOL AS ICE.

You know what's fun? Listing movies that were embarrassing vanity projects. Especially BLACKBIRD. Wow.

Yes, this is when stars get so big that they are given carte blanche to make their dream project. Of course, they headline it. Often they (supposedly) contribute to the writing. Certainly they have some kind of producer's credit, and many make it their directorial debut: for the likes of Murphy, Seagel and – yes – ‘the Lord of the Dance’, it's been their sole turn behind the camera.

Research suggests that the ultimate vanity project is Jackie Chan's CHINESE ZODIAC (2012). According to Guinness World Records, it has the most credits for a single person in one motion picture, with a staggering 15. Chan is credited as writer, director, actor, producer, executive producer (?), cinematographer, art director, unit production manager, catering coordinator (??), stuntman, stunt coordinator, gaffer, composer, propmaster, and theme tune vocalist.

(Chan's movie – and truly it is his – also holds the title of Most Stunts by a Living Actor. Presumably the record for dead actors is a lot less hotly contested?)

All the vanity projects I mentioned above were critical and/or commercial disasters. But that's not always the case. Think Robert Duvall's THE APOSTLE, or Kevin Costner's DANCES WITH WOLVES. And Prince with PURPLE RAIN, although he did push his luck by subsequently directing UNDER THE CHERRY MOON. Um, wait a sec ... Costner went on to make THE POSTMAN. And Duvall later released something called ASSASSINATION TANGO, for a meagre box office return of $1.013 million. Maybe the trick is to only cut the ego loose once and then rein it back in again.

Anyway, that brings us to THE LAST MOVIE. In 1969, Dennis Hopper, alongside fellow counterculture icon Peter Fonda, unleashed EASY RIDER upon the world. It was an instant classic, defining a (dying) cultural movement with insight and cynicism, and raking in a whopping £60 million from a budget of £400,000.

EASY RIDER was Hopper's directorial debut, and with that level of success (it made 150 times what it cost) he had Universal Pictures clambering to throw £1 million and full creative control at him to make whatever he wanted next.

What he wanted to make was THE LAST MOVIE.

Dennis Hopper directed seven films in his lifetime. That's enough to be considered a body of work. Of course, he was an actor first and foremost, with over 200 credits. His directorial debut came at the relatively young age of 33, after only a handful of movie role and certainly before any as the lead. The final film he directed was 25 years after the first.

And yet despite this, I don't think many people think 'Dennis Hopper: The Director'. It's kind of hard to imagine him actually doing it, to be honest. You can accept EASY RIDER as a wild and loose one-off that didn't need, didn't want a steady hand. But it's hard to picture the spangled photographer in APOCALYPSE NOW or unhinged Frank Booth from BLUE VELVET as the calm, accountable figure in charge of running a movie set.

So, you'd assume THE LAST MOVIE is going to be bad, or at least a mess. Potentially as calamitous a follow-up as Duvall, Costner and Prince managed after their own lauded debuts. And for years, its iffy reputation suggested exactly that.

But wait. There's a twist. THE LAST MOVIE is one of those films that's had a critical reappraisal. No one rated CITIZEN KANE, BLADE RUNNER or THE SHINING on first release. THE THING was a flop. HEAVEN'S GATE was a disaster. Each is now held in high regard. (All correct except for HEAVEN'S GATE, which is still boring. And just for the record, I like THE POSTMAN.)

As ever, I had to watch this thing myself and make up my own mind. And it's fair to say that THE LAST MOVIE didn't convince me.

The signs weren't promising from the get-go. It starts by dropping us into an interminably long parade on the streets of a Peruvian town. Dennis is there, in the lead role (natch), and the poor sod looks as confused as we are as he wonders around among all the chanting and, um, parading. I'd say that the film has lost the plot, but that would be inaccurate, since there's not yet been any sign of one.

Somehow, it feels a bit like a Sam Peckinpah movie in this early stretch, the beginning of THE WILD BUNCH especially. Come to think of it, Hopper's image was pretty similar to Peckinpah's: the hard-drinking, drug-taking, live-wire rebel. He also looks as dishevelled and out-of-sorts as vintage Big Sam, and shares his affinity for shooting south of the border.

And in fact, now that I'm warming up to this kind-of hypothesis: since here our Dennis is playing a filmmaker, maybe THE LAST MOVIE is really some kind of indirect Peckinpah biopic? There's even some of the punctuating moments of slo-mo that the great man loved. And here's something else Peckinpah was known for: westerns. Which THE LAST MOVIE basically is. The dusty, wood-building town. Those shoot-outs. Horses. Hats and ponchos.

But, um, it’s also not. After all the western imagery, we pivot to funkadelic 1970's disco dancing. Someone gets their ear pierced. There's a general free-love, hippy vibe, with much singing along to acoustic guitar – sometimes as strummed by Kris Kristofferson.

Then I realised: the western bits are just the movie that Dennis's character is shooting! Oh right, OK, got it now. The town they're filming in looks like it's from a bygone era, but maybe that's just because it's Peru? Wait, wasn't Peru where Butch Cassidy and Sundance were trying to get to? Is that significant? Probably not.

But this isn't some kind of film-within-film thing. Because after 25 minutes of (pretty interminable) screen time, the movie being filmed wraps and the crew buggers off. Except for Dennis's character, who seems to have fallen in love with a local girl. They go for long walks in mountains straight out of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, including stopping off to romp under a waterfall where we are, um, treated to the sight of our director/star's bony white bottom. Thanks for that, Dennis old chum.

So he gives up his career as a ... whatever job he had on the film crew, to hang around with her, decked out in his ever-present hat/poncho combo. Mostly this involves the couple wandering around town or more mountains while holding hands. It goes on like this for quite a while. 

And as for the last hour of the film, I'm going to let Wikipedia do the work for me:

 

He [Hopper] thinks he has found paradise, but is soon called in to help in a bizarre incident: the Peruvian natives are 'filming' their own movie with 'cameras' made of sticks, and acting out real western movie violence, as they do not understand movie fakery.

It's kind of an interesting idea, I guess? If a bit patronising. But it doesn't really go anywhere. Instead, some vacationing Americans come to town and it becomes a hangout movie. Hopper and his lady start to argue, trouble arriving in paradise. He takes solace in helping the locals make their fake movie. I guess he's retreating into fiction to avoid facing a less-than-perfect reality? Is that the message?

That would probably be giving THE LAST MOVIE too much credit. Because suffice it to say, this is 100% another disastrous vanity project. And in terms of sophomore efforts, sadly director Hopper's is no PULP FICTION. Or THE TERMINATOR. Or SEVEN. Or, I don't know, even UPSTREAM COLOR or THE TOWN or something like that.

Two stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’? Clearly not, either for Hopper or wider culture.

What would a movie called THE FIRST MOVIE be about?  It was that one with the rocket hitting the moon, right? Or the train coming towards the screen and making the audience lose their shit?

Previously:  LAST DANCE 

Next time:  I’LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com