(USA 1996 101m) DVD1
Look who got beat with the ugly stick!
p Brad Wyman, Chris Hanley, Oliver Stone d/w Matthew Bright ph John Thomas ed Maysie Hoy m Danny Elfman, Tito Larriva art Pam Warner
Kiefer Sutherland (Bob Wolverton), Reese Witherspoon (Vanessa Lutz), Brooke Shields (Mimi), Dan Hedaya (Det.Wallace), Wolfgang Bodison (Det.Mike Breer), Amanda Plummer (Ramona Lutz), Bokeem Woodbine (Chopper), Brittany Murphy (Rhonda),
Those of a sensitive disposition, skip it; this is not for you. This is one of those personal irrational selections, a guilty pleasure. There is no other film like Freeway; not even its successor, Confessions of a Trick Baby, comes remotely close, and in many ways showcased the very reason why the first film worked and the second never came close. Well, one main reason; the sequel had Natasha Lyonne, a perfectly capable but rather disposable talent. The original, however, had something altogether more than capable and anything but disposable…at least then…
Vanessa Lutz is the sixteen year old white-trash daughter of a crack whore mother and abusive stepfather on parole with a black boyfriend. The same day her parents are both busted by the law, Vanessa makes the decision to escape to grandma’s to avoid falling into the clutches of social services. She says goodbye to her boyfriend – who then proceeds to get himself shot in a drive-by – and sets off. Problem is that her car breaks down on the freeway where the notorious I-5 killer prowls and the only help she gets is from a mysterious psychologist who offers her a lift.
Well, you don’t have to be Stephen Hawking to work out who the killer is. Nor does one have to work hard with the characters, all straight out of, and deliberately taken from, cliché. It causes a wry smirk even before the credits appear, as the logo of Republic Pictures appears. How appropriate that this old producer of poverty row westerns could now be remotely associated with another American folk tale, this dark, twisted, sexually charged infusion of the old Red Riding Hood legends. The opening credits set the scene, with deliciously suggestive cartoons of well-endowed, hot-panted nymphets chased by a sex-hungry wolf not too far removed from Walerian Borowczyk’s beast. All accompanied by Danny Elfman’s most delirious carnyesque score, ‘Alois Previtera’. The name of Oliver Stone on the credits shouldn’t be ignored either, for it has a touch of NBK about it, but it has, if anything, even more anarchic energy. More importantly, like NBK, it’s a satire, and to be taken as a comedy in which the violence is to be laughed at, not shirked from. It’s a rip-roaring, roller-coaster of a fairy-tale extreme makeover. Numerous sequences are laugh-out-loud hilarious, most notoriously a riotous courtroom sequence that has to be witnessed to be appreciated.
Sutherland, Murphy, Hedaya and Bodison all play it perfectly, but this is a one person show, and Witherspoon is just spectacular. Once one appreciates, as she must have done, that it’s a comedy, it becomes a master-class of dark comedy, with Vanessa a foul-mouthed, white-trash, yet disturbingly sexy – especially in her Mexican hooker-wear seen on the poster – piece of flotsam. Sutherland is merely the devil incarnate, so what chance has he got? It all just makes one mourn her, for since 2000 she’s been on a mission toward respectability and wholesome family comedy mediocrity. Yet she was once capable of Freeway, Pleasantville and Election, not one of which would have been remotely the same without her. Essentially, Freeway is utter trash in the Corman vein, but she makes it great, and gives us a creation and a film that will be remembered long after worthier efforts of that year like Sling Blade and Shine are never dusted off at all. I suppose we should be grateful that, at 19, the world was her oyster; don’t get me wrong, Elle Woods was funny, but it was like Katharine Hepburn settling for being Julia Roberts. She’s now got her Oscar, long overdue, and deserved, but in a weak year, and been a fine Becky Sharp in a mediocre Vanity Fair. But Reese, come back, we miss you. If it was Vanessa, we’d be told “fuck all, y’all.” Amen, brother!
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
I think I read a review of this once, a favorable one, and one surprised to find itself favorable. Was Roger Ebert the author? I don’t know.
I do know that trash can be great and that this review makes me want to see this movie right away (and thanks to the wonder of the Wonders queue, it will be so, following disc 2 of The Singing Detective anyway). It’s one of your more enjoyable pieces, far as it is from your usual style (which I also like). I have a feeling your 90s countdown is going to be my favorite yet, not necessarily in terms of containing my favorite movies but just in terms of being an interesting ride we’re in for…
It’s a personal favourite, and I try to worm one or two in in the forties when I can, even if I know deep down others from 51-80 probably merit a place ahead of it. Call it cheering for the underdog.
Me, I always save my personal favorite/off-the-wall choices for top-10’s. If everyone else says you’re going to hit icebergs, you might as well go down with the ship. But if it really is a favorite, Fish, don’t call it a “guilty pleasure”– be proud of those choices which would prompt others to question your sanity. As an old college friend once said while defending his admiration of Bruce Lee movies, “You can’t be above the things you love.”
I don’t really have anything to say about this choice, other than I know that my sister likes it very much (or am I confusing it with “Fear”?). Whenever she watches it on television, I always experience a false sense of deja vu, mistaking it for one of the decade’s slightly-edgy movie or another. Usually Koepp’s “The Trigger Effect” or Tolkin’s “The Rapture”, both of which are also perfectly viewable 90’sploitation flicks. I should say that the opening credits probably owe more the R. Crumb than Borowczyk, but let’s not bother splitting hairs that already have split-ends.
WOW….what a choice. A film that is audacious to say the least and one that I would never in a million years put above Cronenberg’s Crash or Fincher’s Fight Club. But because this is odd cult favorite is one that I too admire, I guess I can’t ridicule this selection. It does feature two highly underrated performances and a very gritty 90s look that, while dated, has its own little charm; truly a time capsule from its decade. Also a fourth of your review is basically praising Reese Witherspoon, who is great in the film, but is not a one person show. I think Kiefer Sutherland steals this film for me. He is just ruthless and creates one of the most unforgettable antagonists in 90s cinema. While this might not be the best film he’s ever been in (Dark City is higher on my list), I don’t think hes given a better performance on film. I remember watching this film right at the height of 24 and being absolutely shocked that it was the same actor. A great performance and a truly freighting character. But as the film goes, I’m still on the fence of whether or not this deserves a spot on the greatest of the decade. Its fun as hell to watch and as I said a forgotten cult gem, but the 90s had it’s share of those and a lot of them were better than Freeway: Happiness, Menace II Society, 12 Monkeys, Total Recall, Office Space, The Big Lebowski, Wild at Heart etc. A good nostalgia choice, but at the same time its hard to justify placing this over Crash, Fight Club, Silence of the Lambs, or Taste of Cherry.
You can’t mock this selection? I can. Allen, I respect you immensely as a moviegoer, but I find this film both trite and superficial. I’ve met many non-American’s that somehow think this film is somehow accurate about America when in fact in as American as the Spice Girls are British. This is a joke script (and the script is all it is), and from this point forward ‘Wannabe’ becomes ‘Pet sounds’. This film means nothing and is nothing.
In all seriousness, I’d take any shit Lucas (hello ‘Phantom Menace’) over this pick. That’s how absurd I think this is. ‘A Taste of Cherry’, ‘Short Cuts’, ‘Millers Crossing’, and ‘Crash’ are all worse then this? OH MY………
My objection may be obtuse, please take no offense….
But Anu, what fun would it be if I didn’t stir up a little controversy? That’s the main reason for these countdowns. I promise you this will be the last such “WTF” entry, though. The rest of the countdown will be fairly straight-forward.
I have no problem with “WTF” entries. In all honesty, I’d love to see a film like Office Space or The Cable Guy or Happiness breach the top 50. I was shocked to see this film but, unlike Jamie, its not one I loathed. There were good performances, interesting characters, a very 90s look, and an insane idea for a plot. I admit I have on occasion grew angry at some choices, like last decade’s number 1 selection and the absence of Dead Ringers, but I always appreciate a random cult selection like This Is Spinal Tap (a film for some reason or another does not have much love on this site) or even the Cat Concerto. Its a nice breath of fresh air from the so called classics and am sad to hear this is it.
“I promise you this will be the last such “WTF” entry, though. The rest of the countdown will be fairly straight-forward.”
Really? That’s disappointing.
Sorry to disappoint, old foe.
I’ll defend this choice. However, I’ll defend it as a valid choice and not a guilty pleasure. Enjoyability is a factor in all the films we choose. Just because SCHINDLERS LIST is about atrocities and one of the darkest periods in history doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy the film. FREEWAY is on par with pictures like THE HITCHER and NEAR DARK. Both of those films are shlocky little flicks that effectively grab the viewer by the throat with their sardonic wit and audacious attitude. Does this mean these films are masterpieces? No. But, does it mean that they aren’t to be enjoyed or loved by a viewer? The answer is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Allan loves FREEWAY. He thinks its a great picture. Its here in the 50. To me, case closed.
I honestly believe Near Dark is a near masterpiece and a much better film than Freeway and the Hitcher. Not sure why anyone would consider it “schlocky?” Its a technical achievement, a great cult film that I was sad not to see on the 80s list, and above all else a great film by a very underrated director.
And I’ll also chime in agreement on Allan’s lament over Reese Witherspoon. This film and, to a lesser extent, PLEASANTVILLE saw a talent for charater acting on the rise. ELECTION is still Witherspoon’s master-class performance and, with these two others in tow, showed she was a force to be reckoned with. The kind of shrill, bitchiness she brings to her characters changes with each character. Here its a white trash slut in jeopardy trying to use the little common sense and brains God was generous enough to give her. ELECTION saw that same bitch, but that time with a schemingly malicious and logical train of thought. Albeit it materialistic, self-centered and greedy. Her June Carter Cash won her the Oscar, but it was films like FREEWAY and ELECTION that brought her to our attention as a truly talented performer. I too, long for her return to this kind of work.
Duly noted Anu. I’m not entirely on the same page with you on that film but I’ll defend your position. I merely used it ti illustrate a point. Sometimes enjoyed, less than classic films make the cut. Most people think FARGO or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the best from the Coen Bros. I, on the other hand, take lesser lauded films like BLOOD SIMPLE and THE BIG LEBOWSKI all the way to the top of their canon and praise them as their finest films. Again, its up to perception, personal taste and what grabs ya.
I haven’t seen Blood Simple, but to my eyes Big Lebowski remains the Coens’ masterpiece. So I’m glad to hear you say so. The film is as complex and intricate and clever as any of their more “serious” films and it has the added bonus of being one of their least misanthropic works – the characters are either endearing or so ridiculous than the sometimes smug cynicism of the auteurs does not feel as bitter as usual. The first time I saw it I was drunk and laughed along with it, thinking it was an absurd, nonsensical, but hilarious movie. The more I saw it the more I realized just how brilliant it was – and part of that brilliance is the extent to which it assumes the Dude’s dazed perspective – the events actually have a coherence and structure but it’s hard to realize upon first viewing; instead we amble along at the Dude’s lost, absen-tminded pace…
The commentary track on “Blood Simple” is better than the movie. Better than a fair number of their movies, actually. To me, their hits are “Miller’s Crossing” & “Barton’s Fink”, can appreciate “O Brother” & “No Country”, and can tolerate “Big Lebowski” & “Hudsucker” in small doses; the rest are all misses or empty rounds.
I’ll go one further to illustrate. Sam wrote a wonderful piece on John Waters FEMALE TROUBLES. Most think that film is barbaric, sloppy, over-the-top and devoid of taste. I happen to think the film is one of the 20 greatest comedies ever concocted (ok, maybe 30). My point is thisn what may be trash to some can be a treasure to others. Just because a film doesn’t calculate high numbers on ROTTEN TOMATOES or grabs a spot as one of the NY TIMES top ten of the year doesn’t mean the picture isn’t good. I like FREEWAY. Maybe I don’t like it as much as Allan. ButN in his eyes its a kinda sorta work of art. I think FEMALE TROUBLES rocks. Anyone gonna dispute my opinion?
Now I hate Female Trouble, but I agree with part of what Dennis is saying because trash masterpieces have their worth. One man’s John Waters is another man’s Russ Meyer is another man’s Kenneth Anger is another man’s chic 70s porn is another man’s Animal House, is another man’s George A.Romero or Dario Argento. Trash can be great, if approached as trash. It’s when you start approaching it as serious art that you can come unstuck. I can put Freeway in the top 50 as I give it ****½, near masterwork status (equivalent the top half of the defunct Halliwell *** rating). But I’d have no trash masterpiece worthy of *****. That’s stretching things too far. Then again, there’s only about 25 works in the entire 1990s that I would give ***** to.
I knew many people would be, if not up in arms, then at least have their flabbers gasted by this selection, and I have to admit to a little devilry in its placement. Let’s stir up a hornet’s nest before we’ve even got started. I also understand that picking it ahead of say A Taste of Cherry was going to cause problems, but somehow A Taste of Cherry is not my favourite Kiarostami, and I have much the same problems with it I have with The Wind Will Carry Us and I don’t actually believe Kiarostami has ever made a ***** masterpiece. His films are superbly done in their minimalist way, and put Iranian cinema on the map which is great, but are they worthy of comparison to what I call masters – Bresson, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Ozu? No. I actually think Bhaman Ghobadi or Samira Makhmalbaf are the ones capable of producing an Iranian masterpiece in the near future. Indeed, the only Iranian film I think was a masterpiece was The House is Black way back in 1963.
I thought you had a complete change of opinion on FEMALE TROUBLE. I’m happy that you are only person I’ve met in this life who has spoken against this laugh riot.
No, I didn’t, I decided to give it another go, and found it as tiresome as before.
This is where I would use your pompous HA! (you need to be an authority to use that, old boy), but instead will ask what your equivalent for ROFLMAO is. The idea that no-one doesn’t think FT a masterpiece is so hilarious I can only ask whether you are aware of the works of Aristophanes?
Female Trouble is a camp classic for many, but I don’t like Waters. That’s just me. I like Russ Meyer, though many wouldn’t – Female Trouble and Desperate Living for you, Mudhoney and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens for me. Others like Romero, Argento, you name it. Trash cults spring up everywhere.
I do not agree with what you say here about Kiarostami, who is one of the world’s greatest directors, period. That’s interesting that you feel Kiarostami never produced a masterpiece, I womnder if there is another serious lover of art house cinema who agrees with that statement.
A TASTE OF CHERRY is a masterpiece as is THE WIND WILL CARRY US. Ghobadi and Makhmalbaf are great, but neither is in Kiarostami’s class.
I can think of one: Roger Ebert, who is on record as finding the Kiarostami cult to be much ado about nothing. I have not yet seen a Kiarostami, but I do look forward to the experience – and will certainly share my thoughts afterwards.
My point is that I cann’t compare Kiarostami to masters who’ve said it before, like Bresson, Kieslowski and Tarkovsky, or to name a contemporary, Tarr. He’s not on their level. He’s the best overall director to come out of Iran for sure, but as with Sembene in Africa, I think the desire to find a masterpiece in different climes has meant several films being rated slightly above their worth. I think Sembene produced several exceptional films of a **** or ****½ level, but never a ***** masterpiece.
And remember I was saying Ghobadi and Makhmalbaf have a masterpiece in them, both are much, much younger than Kiarostami, who is rising 70. I think of Kiarostami’s films as I think of some of the early masterworks made in other countries in formative years. Superb, almost perfect in the way, but just lacking that something that makes something truly profound. I admit to their worth, and there are films from numerous countries in my book, that may not quite be masterpieces but are too important to overlook.
The comment that Sembene “never produced a masterpiece” is again YOURS and no one else’s. it’s just as delinquent as the one about Kiarostami. MOOLAADE is a masterpiece, and for my money so is XALA and CAMP DE THIAROYE. I find it consistently amazing that a man who promotes ecelectic cinema as you do can make such irresponsible statements in public. Sembene and Kiarostami are masters, irregardless of what Bresson, tarr and others did before them. Ask the film scholars at the Masters of Cinema and Criterion forums, not to mention just about all of our best critics (here and abroad, lest you bring the pond thing in).
I kinda get where this is all going. While I understand the trash to some-treasure to another theory is valid, as Allan has proven with this selection, I also feel that (and I think Sam will agree with me here) that there are also what I call “cement” films. These are films that are so resounding great and praised that not including them in a round-up is tantamount to an ethical or moral sin. Personally, I think Kierastami’s TASTE OF CHERRY is for the 90’s what a film like THE WIZARD OF OZ is for the 30’s and THE GODFATHER is for the 70’s. I’m not saying TASTE has to make the top slot, but I’m thinking no list of ten is complete without it. It’s a cement film like SCHINDLER’S LIST, RAISE THE RED LANTERN and Kieslowski’s TRILOGY. IMO of course.
Mortal or venial sin? Because if it’s the former, I might want to remove “Schindler” from my list to make room for something more apropriately damnable. Like another Bond movie.
I agree with you whole-heartedly on LEBOWSKI, MOVIEMAN. I saw it on television the first time. The moment THE DUDE gets out of the fertility doc’s office, driving down the street with Creedence a joint and a beer in hand, his crashing the car into the dumpster and the reaction shot of him with his sunglasses bent into his face was so raucously funny I actually (no shit) laughed myself off the sofa and onto the floor. Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s reactive turn, the musical number to the Latino version of HOTEL CALIFORNIA and JEFF BRIDGES spot-on stoner have never left me since that day. Watch the moment John Turturro rings the door-bell in slow-motion. There’s a little surprise in his tight pants that the Coens added for those that study their films.
Bob, if you remove SCHINDLERS LIST for a Bond flick I’ll knock out your left contact lens!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!!
Well, you’ve tempted me to take it out for something. The whole idea of “cement films” is rather absurd to my eyes. Are there essential films that everyone should at least see? Of course. But no film, no matter how highly praised, should be counted as an obligation, even for the most high-browed cineaste. I’m lookin’ at you, “Gone With the Wind”.
I am completely with you Sam on the Kiarostami/Sembene debate. 99.9% of critics, film-makers, thinkers on cinema find both to be supreme film-makers. I’ll just provide two great examples — Jean-luc Nancy, one of the greatest contemporary French philosophers has devoted a book to Kiarostami, meanwhile Godard went even further to suggest that Taste of Cherry defined the end of a cinematic sequence that began with the Lumiere Bros. In other words the film is so seminal that it bookends the medium!
Allan, the problem is many of the names you mention are hardly recognized universally as belonging to that stratosphere. It’s not as if there’s no debate about Kieslowski. It’s not as if most people place him with Bresson! Not that I have a problem either way. I don’t think one should automatically respect critical majorities but there should be better reasons provided for not doing so. I take what Godard says with a great deal of respect! Most of the time when critics talk about Sembene and Kiarostami they’re not just arguing for distinction but greatness.
I also disagree completely on the minimalism. Because you would never argue against Bresson on those grounds or a host of other filmmakers. Sembene and Kiarostami might not be to your taste, that’s a different issue, you have every right to that opinion but the judgment you’ve rendered is too sweeping without any rationale provide. The ‘minimalist’ charge is descriptive and means nothing on its own.
The other insinuation that people are sort of desperate to find masterpieces from Iran on West Africa is also I think more than a little objectionable.
Kiarostami by the way is not among my favorite contemporary film-makers. Sembene is. But in either case I can certainly understand why each would be considered seminal. I think one should move away from the illusion that every important work of art will be equally acceptable to one’s sensibility and that if this isn’t so this must mean that the artist in question has been overrated. This by the way is also a problem with many lists. The pretense that one is neutral and can really judge all things equally. Leaving this aside some works take more time to comprehend and digest. It requires delving into some of the native traditions and so forth. Specially when the films in question are not obvious ‘tales’ that the viewer can instantly identify with.
One has a right to autobiography when one draws up lists or whatever. But when one puts forth a critical opinion a little more work is needed in terms of letting readers know why one thinks so specially if one’s judgment differs so much from the overwhelming majority. To put it mildly I don’t think you have much a taste for West African cinema or Iranian cinema barring rare exceptions. Which is fine. But you might not be best placed to reflect on these matters in the sweeping way you have here either.
This film is a great pleasure that I will never feel guilty about. To me it’s greater than all Kiarostami, Sembene and Tarr and most Tarkovsky. Clever, very funny, moving and a character, supremely played, who I felt I understood more than almost any other I’ve seen. You put it at no.49 in your films of the 90s; I put it at 35 on my all time list.
Stephen – this gets at our conversation earlier on your blog – is it fair to use a word like great, with its connotations of objectivity when you yourself don’t really believe in that objectivity? Is it really fair to make the word mean the same thing as “favorite”?
If I say something is great, I don’t believe it has those connotations of objectivity (maybe it does in film circles, I’m not really sure). I just use it to mean as very good or a titanic achievement (judged non-objectively).