Apocalypse Cinema

Serenity

2012-01-01T14:30:00.000-05:00

I have just completed reviewing Firefly at the Eye of Polyphemus, so it is only natural to review the film based on the series. By all accounts, Serenity serves as the de facto final episode of the short lived, but much loved series. That may be the film’s most significant issue. It clearly exists for the purpose of wrapping up loose ends from the show’s dangling story arcs without much to justify a big screen venue to do it. That is not a huge detriment to the fans of the series, but it does not offer much to movie goers who were not.

Serenity does wrap up the two major mysteries left unresolved by the series cancellation. One is the mystery surrounding what the alliance had planned for the troubled genius river and two, what are the Reavers? These are completely opinionated film reviews, so I should note the arc involving River’s suffering medical tests at the hands of the alliance was not one of the more compelling questions the series dealt with as far as I am concerned, so while it is good to have that wrapped up, I am far more pleased to have a more satisfying answer to the origins of the reavers than the series explanation they came to the edge of the universe, found nothing, and became feral rapists out of despair. All that to say the two revelations are not created equal.

Since the series ended, River has apparently gained enough status to join on heists. Against her brother Simon’s wishes, she joins Mal on a bank job. They are attacked by Reavers and barely escape with their lives. Simon decides it would be best to leave Serenity, so he requests to be let off at the next port with his sister. However, River becomes mesmerized by a television commercial and savagely attacks everyone until Simon utters a safe word to pacify her. A hacker named Mr. Universe reveals the Alliance has attached a subliminal message to the commercial broadcast specifically to trigger River.

River whispered the word Miranda before flipping out. Miranda is the name of a planet upon which the alliance used a chemical agent meant to suppress aggressive behavior. Instead it killed off all but a tiny portion of the population. Those who survived became the savage reavers. Only bigwig politicians knew about the outcome, and they are afraid river read their minds when they visited her in the institution in which she was hospitalized, so they want her dead. Forthat job, they sent the film’s antagonist--the operative.

Have you got all that? It ties up all loose ends, but it is really just an excuse to set up a scenario in which mal can revisit old friends. The Operative is hunting down his former associates so that he has no refuge other than to give up River. The reavers attack as Serenity discovers the truth abourt Miranda. River goes crazy one final time to kill them all. Mal wants mr. Universe to broadcast the story of Miranda across the universe. Once The Operative learns the truth himself, he lets river go. The Serenity crew buries their dead, but otherwise live happily ever after. Unless there is a sequel.

Serenity is not a bad film, especially if you are a Firefly fan seeking closure. I am certain fans felt the tug on ye old heartstrings at the deaths of two main characters, too. The problerm is there is not an epic feel to it. Serenity could have easily been a television movie or a straight to DVD sort of deal. It is a family reunion, not a major event for anyone who is not already part of the family. None of this makes the film bad, mind you. Just uneventful for a big screen outing. If you are a Firefly fan, you will love it. If you are not, you will probably like it, but wonder what all the fuss is about. Truth be told< I just reviewed the entire series and am still wondering that myself.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Damnation Alley

2011-10-12T01:55:00.000-04:00

Damnation Alley is a post-apocalyptic thriller loosely based on a short story and novel by science fiction writer Roger Zelazny. Zelazny learned the hard way that Hollywood is not big on being faithful to source material, though rumors he demanded his name be taken off the film are not true. Nevertheless, stories of post-apocalyptic survival have been done far better. Not to mention with a budget much large than the $23.35 with which this one was obviously made.

The film opens up with the end of the world. Two Air Force officers, Tannen and Denton, in charge of a missile silo in California get the call to launch the arsenal according to the MAD strategy of mutually assured destruction. Three years later, the silo is still in operation, but the command structure has fallen apart. Tannen has resigned his commission and indulged his misfit ways. Denton, his former superior, is a hardnosed major still holding things together. An explosion at the silo kills all but four men, so Denton decides to take the survivors on a trip to Albany in search of a lone radio transmission.

The four take off in two Landmaster, twelve-wheeled all terrain transport vehicles. They are supposed to be impressive, but again, low budget problems. The prop is still enough of a novelty that it is part of a San Francisco based show featuring famous vehicles from movies and television. Do a Google search and you will find a load of photos with tourists posing with it.

The Damnation Alley refers to a path of lower radiation throughout the central United States in which the two Landmasters travel. It is the path of least resistance, which is a peculiar concept considering one of the Landmasters is loat immediately in a storm, then the survivors encounter carnivorous cockroaches, vicious rednecks, weird, violent storms, and a flood before making it to Albany.

Much of their trouble is caused by the earth tilting off its axis due to the nuclear war. Thus, we get giant scorpions, as well as the aforementioned carnivorous cockroaches and violent storms. The problem with them is they are too ambitious for the budget to handle. The photo above is actually one of the better attempts to make a regular sized scorpion large like a giant using the same camera tricks that had been around for nearly forty years at the time Damnation Alley was made. The storms are also psychodelic falashes of color amidst high winds. They look more like a bad acid trip than anything else.

These silly effects contrast so starkly with some truly ethereal moments that they actually diminish those moments. There is a scene when the survivors reach Las Vegas and take the time to play the slor machines. It is a ghost town, and there is no money to be won, but they laugh and have a good time all while fantasizing the place is packed with people enjoying themselves. But then you get bad camera tricks showing cockroaches eating Paul Winfield. Not that watching Winfield devoured by cockroaches does not have a certain amusement factor. Darmok and Gillard when the cockroaches feast.

To add a human element, Tannen and Denton pick up two survivors, a beautiful girl and a kid. They both bond quickly with Tannen as opposed to the more authoritative Denton. There is a quick scene in which the kid subtlety emulates Denton, as though he admires him, but Denton pays no mind and that is pretty much the end of it. There appears to be a mized ,essage in the film. On the one hand, the more misfit characters say the world would not have been destroyed if everyone had been like them. Well, okay. Pretty much every character but Denton does act that way. Yet Denton is the guy who gets them safely across the united states and into Albany, so he did save the day. Exactly whose philosophy of life is best? We are apparently not supposed to dwell on that, because this is not a particularly introspective film.

It is a not a very good one, either, which is a surprise as far as the cast is concerned. George Peppard, Jan-Michael Vincent, Paul Winfield, Jackie Earle Haley, and Dominique Sanda do what they can with the bare bones script with which they have to work. What few bright spots they can muster are completely overshadowed by terrible special effects. What the filmmakers wanted to do was too ambitious for their resources. The cast was there to make this a small, personal film about survival, but instead it is a gaudy science fiction film. So bad it is good? Not especially, but I do not hate it. Watch it only after you have run out of far better films in the genre.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Bordello of Blood

2011-10-11T01:28:00.002-04:00

There is not much to be said about Bordello of Blood It was supposed to become a horror/comedy cult classic, but it is too--if you will pardon the vampiric pun--anemic with both the horror and the comedy. But really, how can a film starring Dennis Miller and corey Feldman hope to succeed?

The film begins with Lilith, the mother of all vampires, being brought back from the dead by heart restoration. Lilith is played by super model Angie Everhart. She cannot act her way out of a paper bag and speaks her dialogue as though English is her second language. Such problems translate poorly into job skills. About the best ever hart could do is start a brothel, so that is what Lilith does. Everhart may be brilliant casting in that regard, when you really think about it.

Next we meet Katherine, an employee of the local mega church whose delinquent brother, Caleb, has gone missing. Caleb is played by corey Feldman, who is essentially playing himself. The police are not much interested in helping her find Caleb because he has been a notorious troublemaker, so she hires a sarcastic private detective named rafe to find him. Rafe is played by Dennis Miller. We hit the trifecta here. Miller is also playing himself. It is a real shame all three of the main characters do not have to slide into a new persona, yet are all awful. None of the three must be comfortable in their own skin.

Rafe discovers Lilith’s brothel is being run beneath a funeral home. The brothel is staffed by vampires. Caleb is a client and eventually becomes a vampire. He is part of an elaborate scheme to funnel the brothel money into the mega church scam operation at which Katherine works. There is also some wild bit about Lilith regaining her immortality. Katherine is kidnapped. Rafe eventually rescues her and destroys the operation with a squirt gun full of holy water. You think the two are going to live happily ever after, but Katherine has become a vampire who kills him in the end.

The big problem with Bordello of Blood is that it is a Tales from the Crypt movie. Its failure can be chalked up to two points. One, Miller obviously thought he was bigger than the franchise. It is a humorous point considering how many bigger Hollywood stars starred in and worked on the HBO series. Miller tossed aside the dialogue written for him so he could do his usual brand of cynical wit and obscure references. I am a Miller fan. I found many of his adlibbed jokes funny. But I do not watch horror movies to see a Miller routine. His antics ruin the tension. If I had to guess, I would imagine writer/director held some animosity with Miller upon losing a lot of creative control. Feldman complained to Howard Stern during an interview while promoting the film that miller had refused to write any bits with him. The second point is Tales from the Crypt stories always end in a gruesome O. Henry manner. The bad guys have to win. In Bordello of Blood the bad guys lose and while Rafe meets a grisly end, after two hours of his smarting off, it is a relief. The ending just is not dark enough.

I cannot recommend Bordello of Blood. It does not even qualify as being so bad, it is entertaining to mock. It might have been that had another actor played Rafe and stuck to the script, but I have doubts. The film cannot decide what it wants to be--an absurd comedy or a post modern vampire mythology. The CGI is pretty decent for a 1996 release, but that is not enough reason to seek the movie out. It killed the planned franchise, save for a small DVD released film in 2001 which flopped badly. Skip Bordello of Blood and leave it up to the imagination why the storied franchise ended with it.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Seventh Sign

2011-10-10T03:05:00.000-04:00

The Seventh Sign is the first of a handful of late ‘80’s-early ‘90’s films that were popular with customers back in the days when my mother owned a video store. I do not recall this one ever being considering a classic among renters aside from the Demi moore nude scene. I have never been a big Moore fan, but after having seen her naked numerous times before watching this film for the first time, I am not hugely impressed by her early skin exposure. It does not elevate the film any.

I am still surprised I missed The Seventh Sign back in the day. It was released in 1988 during my sixth grade year when my class was tormented by a Bob Jones University educated teacher who was obsessed with finding Satanism in anything and everything. Some of the less rigid classmates at our Christian school developed a taste for horror films just to spite her. I could barely get into many slasher flicks, but the constant speculation about the coming apocalypse the BJU trained teachers enjoyed indulging in had me seeking out all sorts of end of the world films, particularly if they were laced with spiritual elements. The Seventh Sign would have been right up my alley at 12. At 34, it is a fun, confusing watch.

When signs of the apocalypse begin following a wandering stranger, the Vatican sends a priest, Father Lucas, to investigate. In n interesting twist, he is a skeptic that end time prophecy is being fulfilled, but the pregnant Abby, played by Moore, believes differently. Usually in these kind of movies, the priest is a rogue true believer going against the skepticism of his superiors. that is an original twist.

As are the flashbacks in which we learn the wanderer is revealed to be Jesus come back to earth to judge mankind while Father Lucas, was Pontius Pilate’s porter who struck Jesus before he was condemned and had to wander the Earth--the Wandering jew legend, methinks--until Jesus’ return. Abby is also reborn. She is a woman who offered jesus water while he hung on the cross. Her baby is, naturally, the Seventh Sign of the apocalypse.

The Seventh Sign is light on horror, which is fine with me. I prefer thrillers to gore films in the genre. There is a lot of tension early on when you know these two man are interested in Abby’s baby, but you are not certain which one has the unborn child’s best interests at heart. The revelation of who all the players really are comes across as corny, but it still fits in with the tone of the rest of the movie. It is the end of the world as we know it, but nothing is being taken too seriously. In fact, there is one sequence in which Abby is channel suffering through images of the four Horseman’s work: war, Famine, Pestilence, and Death. Interspersed is a scene from a gaudy game show. It would be reality television that is considered a more apt sign of the apocalypse.

I liked The Seventh Sign. It is way too pedestrian for horror fans to enjoy, even if those fans like apocalyptic films. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, either. It has a good cast. The story plays out plausibly even with its corny elements. Some viewers might be upset a villain has down’s syndrome and winds up killed himself. I was not too rattled by it, but I did find it a strange story element. I advise watching if you have nothing better to do, but there are better films in the genre if you want something scarier or at least with more substance.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Scream 4

2011-10-09T04:16:00.001-04:00

I watched Scream 4 solely because I am a completist. Nature abhors a vacuum, although there was really no big hole to be filled from the lackluster Scream 3. my big issue coming into the film is how its motif would fit in with today’s horror. The Scream series is as much a satire on horror as it is horror itself. The genre has changed a lot in the last decade with torture porn, found footage, zombie flicks, and ghosts of creepy kids replacing the hack and slash films of which the series used to poke fun.

I am not especially hip to today’s popular horror themes, so I was not even certain how much a satire would resonate. Turns out, I need not worry. There was very little updated beyond some jokes about the abundance of remakes that have come down the line in recent years. Ghostface is his usual self stabbing a bunch of pretty people. While I need not to have worried whether I could get into the satire of today’s horror, I found myself bored by the same old, same old. There was nothing new.

The bad thing is Scream 4’s weakness is the strength of the other installments--the returning cast. Sidney, Dewey, and Gail are back for a fourth go around with a brand new Ghostface who needs yet another reason to murder his victims. Seriously, what do these guys and girls have to have done in life to get three different people willing to don a costume in order to murder them? Someone else thinks Sidney has ruined his life enough to merit murdering her? Geez, hon. Maybe its you who are the problem. Not that I could blame sweet Neve Campbell for anything. I still have a thing for her lingering from the ‘90’s.

When I said there was nothing new, I think that was meant to be part of the idea behind the film. The current ghost face is rebooting the original film with a bunh of new kids who mirror the original cast. It was possible to have fun with the idea, but its falls flat in execution. I chalk it up to dividing screen time between the new kids and the old guard. There was not enough crossover between their respective plights to merit such a thing. It is another reason the old guard should not have appeared. The spotlight would have been exclusively on the new kids. The audience was bound to be full of dedicated fans. They would have gotten the homage to the original film without the old cast there. Probably would have been more amusing, to boot.

So the homage often fails. The films drags quite a bit in places which evaporate the tension. It does not help either that Scream 4 has more jokes than the others. They tend to be about the remakes and reboots that have filled the horror genre as of late. I said above I am not that big on today’s horror, so I did not laugh as often as I did in the previous films when the trappings of slasher flicks and pop culture in general were being skewered. Maybe I am just getting old, huh/ I would have preferred less humor and more tension. Some creative kills, too. There is a serious been there, done that vibe to them. It is Ghostface and a knife. The killer’s true identity is ridiculous and his motives even worse, so the entertainment value of the kills is more important. So much for that, then.

Scream 4 barely recupped its budget at the box office, so I assume I am not alone in being under whelmed by it. Nostalgia just does not carry the film as much as was obviously intended. Much of that can be blamed on the script. It was heavily rewritten from an original draft by Kevin Williamson. Hans Zimmer is gone as well. The music helps tighten the screws in these films. The absence of the master is keenly felt. But hey, Alison Brie and Hayden Panettiere are pretty to look at, so there’s that.

Bottom line is Scream fans ought to watch, but lower their expectations. This will most certainly be the last one unless Wes Craven can pump one out on half the budget. Frankly, it is struggling with the resources already at hand. Worth watching, but could have been better.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

American History X

2011-09-07T09:59:00.001-04:00

Let us get this out of the way before diving into some very deep waters. I am a big Ed Norton fan. One of the things I like most about him is he is not afraid to play an unsympathetic character. I admire this because certain actors--Ralph Fiennes after playing the sadistic Nazi commandant in Schindler’s List is a big example--can completely ruin their ability to play morally decent characters in other films as far as I am concerned. No Fiennes here. It really just means he played the commandant very well. What it means for Notton is he is such a fine actor, I can enjou him in anything and believe his character no matter how polar opposite the character might be from other roles Norton has played.

That said, American History X is one of those films I do not particularly enjoy outside of Norton’s performance. Even with that, I think the film features his worst performance ever. I blame it mostly on the material. American History X wants to say something profound, but just does not have the voice. Some elements come off as far too convenient to be believed. Others are far too preachy. The original ending is so cynical, it wound up being dialed down to the tragedy of the main character’s effort to fail. How depressing is that?

Norton plays Derek Vinyard, the older brother to Daniel, played by the just as troubled in real life as his character here Edward furlong. Derek and daniel’s father was a firefighter killed by a black drug dealer when he was battling a blaze in south Central Los Angeles. His father’s murder compels Derek to join the skinhead movement, for which he fully immerses himself. He hates blacks and immigrants of all races, and justifies his racism by rationalizing they are all prone to criminal behavior and mooching off the wealth of whites.

Derek is arrested one night for curtb stomping a young black man who is attempting to steal his late father’s truck. Derek is convicted of voluntarily manslaughter and sent to prison. In prison, he befriends a black0 inmate. Despite some brutal bullying by the white supremacist population, he shuns them for his new friend. He gains a new perspective on life. When he is released, however, he discovers daniel is headed down the same path towards joining the skinheads as he did. Derek determines to stop him.

I can appreciate much of Derek’s struggle and even some of the hokey symbolism. For example, the film is in black and white until Derek abandons his racist philosophy. The remainder of the film is shown in color enter--assuming you have seen the original ending rather than the usual edit--he reverts in the final scene. But I have a tough time accepting his journey as plausible. Derek is a hardcore racist who gives no quarter and is ready, willing, and able--not to mention does--kill a black man for attempting to steal his father’s truck. Yet in a snap, he befriends a black man in prison and eschews his old ways in a snap. What is the catalust for that/ there is not one other than the necessity of furthering the main plot, which is to save his brother.

The main plot is not particularly dealt with other than scattered bits until halfway through the film. This is still Derek’s story to the point I was not as interested in his brother’s turn towards the skinhead movement as I was Derek’s attempt to shed his old life and fit in with his new. It is not a good thing when you are not as interested in the heart of the story as you are the set up that gets you there. It is doublt bad when Derek fails. Daniel is eventually murdered because of his racist activities. That is sad enough, but if you have seen the original ending in which Derek is shaving his head again, obviously in preparation to rejoin the skinhead movement, even the absorbing part wound up meaningless.

American History X could have been a whole lot more than it is with a better script. There is a profound lack of understanding of human nature on display. I do not believe Derek can cast off his hatred as easily as he did. Nor do I think he would shun other imprisoned skinheads, much less befriend a black guy. I am skeptical a black guy would make friends with him, either, particularly in a prison environment in which inmates of various races watch out for their own. It is a far too optimistic development. However, the course correction towards the opposite direction for the ending is jarring to the point of melodrama.

One often disturbing aspect of the film is how often the racist ideology, spoken adamantly by Derek, Daniel, et al, is not always counterbalanced. In the very first scene, Derek offers an a strong speech about how much illegal immigrants are costing the state of California. Then he complains about immigrants taking jobs away from whites before leading an assault on a grovery store owned and operated by minorities. You can almost hear people agreeing with his sentiments before the brutalization of his violent act tears it all down. But that is a rare moment. In many other instances, racist demagoguery goes unanswered outside of the implausibly fast changing of Derek’s mind, which I do not feel is enough to carry the film.

I do not necessarily recommend American History X. There are other films that deal will racial issues in a far more competent, mature manner. If you want to see a good exploration of the absurdity of racism, seek out just about anything else that does not qualify as blaxploitation and you will be better off. Norton is good in this, mind you, and if you are a fan, you should not miss him. Watching the film will leave you longing for a better creative team to have built the film around him, however.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

North Dallas Forty

2011-09-06T06:56:00.002-04:00

When it comes to sports themed movies, I am as a big baseball guy as I am when talking about sports in general. Nevertheless, north Dallas Forty ranks as one of my favorite sports movies. The following confession may alienate some, but a lot of my fondness for the film comes from a longtime soft spot for the Dallas Cowboys, whose ‘60’s era team the film is loosely based upon. These days, I home home team loyalty for the Carolina Panther, but I still feel compelled to root for the cowboys when I can.

North Dallas Forty features Nick Nolte as aging wide receiver for the North Dallas Bulls Phil Elliott. He has been brutally battered over his years of playing. As a result, he is forced to do anything he can to drag himself out on the field, including popping painkillers like candy. All he really wants to do at this point is settle down with his new girlfriend while he is still in one piece. His struggle occurs against the backdrop of hard partying football players who drink, do drugs, and use/abuse women as they see fit. They are rich and they are winning, so they run on a long leash barely held by their legendary coach.

The film is loosely based on the semi-autobiographical novel written by former Cowboy’s wide receiver Peter Gent and his experiences playing with the late ‘60’s era team under legendary coach Tom Landry. Characters in the novel are said to closely resemble real members of the cowboys organization of the time, but having never read the novel, I cannot vouch for that or how well the novel translates to the dying disco era of the late ’70’s.

I do find the combination of drama, comedy, and satire generally satisfying. If there is any major flaw, it is that the satirical elements often go overboard. The question of whether football is a game or a business is pondered to the point of melodrama. Elliott struggles with the corrupt system from every angle, from the barbaric behavior of his teammates to how the owners use up players for their bottom line. Perhaps one with a greater emotional attachment to professional football feels Elliott’s plight is more seriously dramatic than I do, but I feel like I am watching something being given a greater degree of importance than it merits. Money runs professional sports, and rich athletes think they are above the law. Did elliott not know this when he signed on the dotted line/

I do not want to be too harsh, however. The over the top elements regarding drama are a small gripe compared to how well the exaggerated instances of players decadence are done. These guys booze it up when they are not drugging it up and cause general mayhem for innocent bystanders. Their behavior is presented as being gritty rather than glamorized, and when you see the toll playing football takes on them physically, you cannot help but sympathize with their emotional issues. Even if you would not want to be in a room with any of them. Making unsympathetic characters sympathetic is the mark of good storytelling.

As I said above, I am confident football fans will like North Dallas Forty better than those who have no interest in the game. There is a lot of football culture that only a fan could appreciate. But for the average movie viwer, there is still of lot of bawdy humor and heart mixed in. Elliot is falling in love, but he really does not know how. It is tough to care for many of his teammates considering their wild behavior, yet when you see them carried off on a stretcher, you do. The moral crusade bits wherein Elliott jousts against greedy owners and their lawyers gets tiresome because of its over the top emotion, but there are enough good points to make up for it.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

White Zombie

2011-09-05T07:47:00.004-04:00

We have to make a little history here. This 1932 independent horror film is considered to be the first, full length zombie film ever released. Zombies have made a big come back in recent years, but for my money, they often rely too much on gore. Unlike the classics here in which tone suspense make up for a lack of make up know how.

Brother, do not be deceived. The make up and special effects in White Zombie would be ripe for mocking if the rest of the film were not so good. Bela Lugosi does not look like anyone you would want to hang around. His main xombie henchmen pictured above is a frightening looking man mountain, but tell the truth--you would mock him from a safe distance, right? Maybe if he was in chains? While pondering that question, also wonder why all the Haitian natives are white. It certainly has something to do with the racial attitudes of the day, but one wonders why background extras could not have been black.

Two young lovebirds, Neil and Madeleine, have reunited in Haiti of all places with plans to get married. Their plans are complicated when the two are spotted by local voodoo master, Murder Legendre. Geez, a name like that should be warning enough, but this guy is also played by Bela Lugosi. How much proof do these kids need to know they should stay away? Not enough at this point, I suppose.

Neil and Madeleine are staying at the plantation of wealthy Charles Beaumont. Beaumont has a thing for Madeleine. He cannot bare to see her marry Nell, so he strikes deal with Murder to use voodoo to make her fall in love with him. Murder says the only thing he can do is turn her into a zombie. Beaumont thinks that is better than nothing, so he agrees to give Madeleine a potion that will do the trick.

Madeleine drinks the potion. For the sake of utmost drama, it takes effect during her wedding ceremony. She dies and is buried. In Haiti. Where she does not live. Murder and Beaumont retrieve her from the tomb a little later and turn her into a zombie. The distraught Neil begins to see ghostly images of Madeleine. Once he decides it is not the alcohol talking, he visits her tomb to find it empty.

Meanwhile, Beaumont has discovered necrophilia is not as much fun as he thought it would be. Perhaps he had not thought this cunning plan all the way through. He certainly had a lack of foresight in trusting a guy named murder, because when he asks for him to bring Madeleine back to life, he learns he is being turned into a zombie, too. Luckily for him, Neil recruit’s a missionary named Dr. Bruner to assist him in rescuing Madeleine.

The climactic battle is very cool for the time period and low budget. Murder uses Madeleine to attempt to kill Neil, but she is stopped by Bruner. It is not said, but his Christianity gives him an edge against the devilish voodoo. Good thing, too, because he and neil pursue Madeleine right into Murder’s zombie army. Bruner knocks murder out, which releases his hold on them so they run off a cliff like lemmings. But the rules of cinema dictate two things; the villain must die and the love birds must be reunited. Since the Christian Bruner cannot kill Murder, (Heh.) Beaumont rebels and throws Murder and himself off the cliff. Murder’s death (Heh, part deux.) not only un-zombifies Madeleine, but brings her bsck to life. The Christian Bruner has no comment on the spiritual implications, so I suggest just going along with it.

At a scant 72 minutes, White Zombie barely qualifies as full length. However, its short run is a definite plus. The film is surprisingly tense and scary considering some of the goofy elements, not the least of which is the make up effects. Gore fans may not like it unless they have an appreciation for the history of the genre, but as a bigger fan of classic horror than slasher flicks, I am all for it. White Zombie is spooky fun with Lugosi at his evil best.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

(NOTE: I have written a review of The Wild Wild West third season episode "The Night of the Undead," which is something of an homage to White Zombie. Or a rip off, if you are not feeling charitable. Check it out and a lot of other cool stuff over at Eye of Polyphemus)

The Elephant Man

2011-07-07T22:44:00.003-04:00

I have made no secret in my previous reviews of Freaks and Mask that I have a fascination with sincere films regarding people who cannot fit comfortably into society because of physical abnormalities. To be more honest, I usually have a love/hate relationship with them. As a disabled person who gets public stares everywhere he goes at best to ignorant personal question, unsolicited advice on how to handle my disabilities, and outright scoffing at best, I both learn from, but revile the memories dredged up by said films.

But The Elephant Man different. It is definitely a difficult film to watch even if you do not possess the empathy for Joseph Merrick that I do. The film is an earnest effort to examine how people react to a severely deformed man, and how such reactions affect his psyche. Take it from me, it is about as accurate with both efforts as a film can get without having been made by someone in Merrick’s position.

Merrick, called John here rather than Joseph because Dr. Frederick Treves change it in his notes while managing Merrick’s medical care, suffers from a severely deforming disease. The disease the real Merrick suffered from is as hotly debated among doctors and forensic experts today as the true identity of Jack the Ripper is with historians and criminologist. But for get that. It is not a important point. What is important is Merrick’s place in the world and how he reacts in his journey to finding it.

Merrick finds himself in three different worlds. At one point, he is a freak to be gawked at by onlookers. In another, he is a charity case boy well intentioned caregivers, but still essentially imprisoned in a hospital. Finally, he ends up as the toast of British high society. He is a fad to them. Someone cool to know, but never accepting him fully into their world. Those are the only three possible things Merrick can be. He realizes none of the choices are all that great, so he takes matters into his own hands, indulging in the one bit of normalcy which he can--sleeping on his back. He knows it will be fatal because of his head deformities, but he also knows there is nothing left for him in this life, either. He will forever be apart from it.

The famous line in which he screams at a mocking crowd,"’I am not an animal!” tells the whole story. He has to convince himself he is truly a human being as much as he does anyone else. The phrase normal is what everyone else is and you are not is poppycock. There are people for whom any semblance of life is out of reach. There is no way to convince them otherwise.

The Elephant Man would make my all time top five list of films. It would probably be in the top three. John Hurt as Merrick and Anthony Hopkins as Treves have wonderful performances. The film is directed by David Lunch, who tones down his usual existential style of filmmaking for something far more approachable, yet very powerful. If you watch The Elephant Man, and I highly recommend you do, it will weigh on your mind for a long time. It was a critical and financial success back in 1980, and has withstood the test of time. The Elephant Man, still gnaws at me no matter how many times I watch it.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

X-Files: I Want to Believe

2011-06-03T10:58:00.006-04:00

I am wrapping up reviewing the entire run of The X-Files at Eye of Polyphemus, so it seems like a good idea to review the last bit of The X-Files, I Want to Believe. It sounds good in theory, at any rate. In execution is another matter altogether. You would think the film was thrown together in a few weeks because everyone involved was desperate for a paycheck.

The film takes place six years after the series finale. Mulder and Scully are living together on a farm somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. Scully has a job as a surgeon at a Catholic hospital Mulder stays at home in isolation thanks to his death sentence. He spends his days collecting newspaper clippings od suspected paranormal activity. Through Scully, the FBI requests his consultation with a psychic former priest who claims he can help find a missing FBI agent. Muler is reluctant, but eventually acquiesces when he is reminded of Samantha, his kidnapped sister.

Thus begins a very small story about suddenly very small characters. By small, I do not mean intimately personal. I mean tiny, as in two lackluster episodes of the series edited together and released to theaters. Both Mulder and Scully appear to be at the lowest points in their lives. He is a hermit who rarely leaves his home office. She is a burnt out surgeon who acts like one more point of stress could send her into a nervous breakdown. The series had ended on a less than positive note, but mercy, what darkness the two descended into while we were apart.

The fate of our two favorite former Fbi agents is not the only dark element. The priest, played by one of Europe’s most vulgar exports, comedian Billy Connelly, is a convicted pedophile seeking redemption by helping locate the missing FBI agent. What he helps the FBI find is random, severed body parts buried in the snow. Father Joe rattles Scully’s religious faith, not only with his past crimes, but how he inadvertently appears to be guiding her in a decision to operate on a terminal patient of hers using treatment derived from embryonic stem cell research, something she is doing in spite of trepidations from the devoutly Christian parents and the hospital itself. Rather than enrich the story, the overly gruesome gore and disturbing treatment of Christianity are thrown in just to make the audience squirm. Why does Father Joe have to be a former pedophile? Why does he have to inadvertently encourage Scully to pursue a medical treatment for her patient that many Christians object? Other than to encourage discomfort, there is not one. Take those elements out, and the movie does not suffer. \

The heart of the film, as much as it has one, is redemption. Mulder feels alive again pursuing a paranormal case which involves saving someone. He quickly loses his animosity for the FBI as his old obsessive personality resurfaces. Father Joe earns his own bit of redemption for his part, although you do not want to give him his due in consideration of what he has done. For that, we stick with Scully’s opinion that nothing could redeem a serial pedophile.

The villain of I Want to Believe is a Russian neurologist who is working on head transplants, but thus far failing miserably. He is not a memorable villain in the slightest. We do not even see much of him until the last act when Mulder has tracked down his latest kidnap victim to his isolated farmhouse/laboratory. I would rank him in the lower tier of monster of the week villains of I Want to Believe was an episode of the series. That it is a movie forces me to downgrade him even more.

Here is the real head scratching element of I Want to Believe. the story of Mulder hunting for the kidnap victims converges with Scully’s agonizing over treatment for her patient when she stumbles across old news coverage of the neorologist’s illegal experiments in Russia while researching stem cell treatment online. It dawns on her to seek out skinner at that point, and go looking for Mulder. He is in trouble by that point, anyway. The convergence of the two stories is hinted to be divine guidance prompted in some way by Father Joe. It really is not all that convincing. Shoddy writing is more like it.

Some elements from the television series are thrown in haphazardly to remind you what this is all about. I counted a Clyde Bruckman name drop, Scully complaining that Mulder is obsessed with saving Samantha by proxy, Mulder complaining Scully is determined to save her patient because she reminds him of their son who she gave up for adoption, and Mulder looking suspiciously at a portrait of George W. Bush, a suspected super soldier. There may have been more, but those jumped out at me. I was disappointed Mitch Pileggi only showed up for ten minutes towards the end of the film. It not only violates narrative rules to bring in a pivotal character at that late a point in the story, but he and the character deserve better.

Amanda Peet and Xzibit show up as two forgettable FBI agents. Peet has a little frush on Mulder, but gets killed halfway through the film. Xzibit has anger management problems while being astoundingly uncooperative throughout. His animosity for Mulder is so inexplicably over the top it is cartoonish. What the heck does he care if Mulder joins the case? Things are at a dead end anyway. These are two very poor characters. Skinner could have been running the show from the beginning without them and would have been an improvement. Heck, what about Doggett and Reyes? They were not that popular, but they were miles ahead of the new characters.

If you are a devoted X-Phile, by al means see I Want to Believe. Once is all you will ever want. I would consider it a bad two part episode of the series, however. Seeing the characters you love again will suit you on some level, although I was disappointed in the direction Mulder and Scully had taken in the six years between the end of the series and the movie. At least there is a happy ending if you stuck around through the end credits. If you are just looking for a movie to watch, skip it. I Want to Believe is poorly crafted and visibly cheap.

As an X-Phile, I am still holding out hope for a third film which will end the alien invasion mythology. I have doubts these days it will happen thanks to the lukewarm I Want to Believe. I did not need the film to deal with the mythology in order to enjoy it, but I expected a far better monster of the week story than it is. The movie is a terrible way to end the franchise, if it winds up being the concluding chapter.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Man Who Saw Tomorrow

2011-05-19T23:54:00.002-04:00

Harold Camping, Christian founder of Family Radio, has predicted the rapture will occur this Saturday. What better way to celebrate the beginning of the end than watching one of my favorite documentaries from my youth/ I am talking about The Man Who Saw Tomorrow, a 1981 docudrama that chronicles the alleged predictions of French astrologer and physician Michele Nostradamas.

The film combines footage from obscure films, cheap new action scenes, and the occasional interview from “experts” like alleged psychic Jean Dixon to lay out a history of Nostradamus’ predictions, generally offering only wild interpretations of the famous quatrains to match them up with major historical events. But the docudrama is hosted with effective creepiness by the grave Orson Welles. The man can sell doomsday prophecies every bit as well as he can frozen peas. With nary a drop of alcohol present, I might add. He certainly had to be tanked when he agreed to star in this thing.

This is the fourth time I have sat through The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. The first time I watched it was in 1986 when it was one of those odd filler films Cinemax showed on two or three odd afternoons a month. At nine years old, I was already a budding history buff who was fascinated by the historical elements in the first half. But I was also a student at a fundamentalist Christian school which adhered to the bob Jones University favored pastime of constantly fretting over the Antichrist’s identity and his role as the harbinger of the end times. So the latter half of the film, which named events taking place in the far flung future of 1988 onward, were frighteningly mesmerizing. Ever notice how predictions of the future make the horrors of the past look like a dress rehearsal?

Fret not, boys and girls. Los Angeles was not destroyed by an earthquake in 1988. The antichrist did not arise out of the former Persia--Iran these days--to begin a 27 year war with the West beginning in 1994 that will be so devastating, much of the civilized world resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. One also must assume the united states and soviet union will not set aside their differences by 2021 to combine forces and defeat the Antichrist, either. We can only guess if the world will actually end in 3997 as predicted, but that is pretty close to when taylor sets off the nuke in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, so maybe.

Subsequent viewings by my older self have taken the youthful sting out of waiting for a bleak future in which iran is going to force me to eat my neighbor in order to survive a nuclear holocaust. These days, the latter half of the film has given way to a camp factor, particularly with Welles’ ominous delivery. The fan of dystopian science fiction still finds it amusing. While still incredulous over claims Nostradamus predicted the past any better than the future, I still find the historical bits every bit as interesting as the first time I watched the film.

One thing that strikes me is the heavy Christian overtones. It is not just my christian upbringing. Nostradamus allegedly refers to three Antichrists coming to power. They are said to be napoleon, Hitler, and this Persian, who will naturally be far worse than the previous. The final war will begin in the middle East as the Bible predicts, depending upon your prophetic leanings. Islam is predicted as a bitter enemy of Christianity. You cannot argue much with that these days. There will be a thousand years of peace, which mirrors the Pre-Millennialist concept of the Thousand Year Reign. All that to say I bet nothing like this film could be made today considering the Christian elements.

You may be recalling a remake of this film NBC did in 1991 right after the Gulf War. Hosted by Charlton Heston, it was otherwise a condensed version of the original with Welless taken out and new footage added to claim the 1988 Los angeles earthquake was meant to be the 1989 quake in san Francisco, and Saddam Hussein was the now toned down third Antichrist. The term Antichrist was dropped, as were references to Christianity and Islam so as not to offend anyone. The original is far more fun with its sincerity. Faked or not.

I recommend seeing The Man Who Saw Tomorrow for the total over the top cheese factor. It is made even funnier by Welles’ absolute sincerity. I am confident he was in it solely for the paycheck, but nevertheless, listen to him closely in the second half as he warns of terrible calamities far and wide. What you will not get is any serious scholarship on Nostradamus, so if that is what you are looking for, skip it. The Man Who Saw Tomorrow is pure Chariots of the Gods level comedy gold.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

(Cross posted, with minor style changes, to Eye of Polyphemus)

Cruel Intentions

2011-05-03T18:58:00.000-04:00

It is difficult to believe I have gone this long at Apocalypse Cinema without reviewing a Reese Witherspoon film, but strangely enough, it has. Cruel Intentions is a fine introduction to the lovely Witherspoon. It is not necessarily my favorite of hers, but the film solidified her as one of my favorite actresses.

Cruel Intentions is a loose adaptation of the 18th century French novel Dangerous Liaisons. rather than France of the time period, the story is transferred to a modern day New York prep school to feature the manipulation of wealthy teenagers. The movie fits into the then popular genre of twenty-somethings playing teenagers who are having sex with each other. Popular then, but never really falls out of favor, does it?

Sarah Michelle Gellar stars as Kathryn, a manipulative girl who takes a shelter new bie Cecile, played by Selma Blair, under her wing to show her the ropes. In reality, Kathryn wants revenge on Cecile for unintentionally stealing her boyfriend. She plans to turn Cecile into a slut. Oftentimes, she has been aided in these schemes by her equally amoral stepbrother Sebastian, played by Ryan Phillippe, but he has his sights set on Annette. Annette, played by my baby Reese, recently wrote a manifesto for a teen magazine in which she promised to wait for true love before having sex. Sebastian bets Kathryn he can seduce Annette, with the prize being roll in the hay with her. If he loses, she gets his vintage Jaguar.

Their machinations run towards the darkly comedic as they both destroy Cecile while Sebastian slowly but surely falls for Annette even though she has been warned of his sexual appetite. The whole affair is rather cynical. Cecile’s fall, for which Sebastian is largely responsible, occurs simultaneously with his redemptive act of falling in love with Annette, thereby becoming a better man. He and Kathryn do earn their deserved respective fate, and in the end, Annette is not quite the innocent little sweetheart she was made out to be. Such cynical turns of events appeal to my jaded view of people, so your mileage may vary.

Cruel Intentions has some major flaws. The script is a pedestrian affair which serves only to introduce sexual innuendo into every possible situation. If innuendo is not enough for you, there is plenty of sex, though nothing more than implied nudity. There is nothing particularly graphic about any of it. In fact, the cinematography when sebastion and Annette finally make the beast with two backs is so well done, the fine hairs on Annette’s tummy are visible. Atmosphere andf attention to detail, folks.

The biggest flaw surrounds the dialogue. It is dry and cliché. The actors often deliver it in such a wooden manner, you swear they are doing it on purpose as though it adds something to their character. Phillippe in particular plods through his lines as though he is reading text he has never seen before off a teleprompter.

But quality filmmaking is not why you see a movie like Cruel Intentions. you want to see the pretty people. You will not be disappointed. The film is a who’s who of young Hollywood sex symbols of 1999: Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Selma Blair, Ryan Phillippe, and Joshua Jackson being the most prominent. Guys and girls can find can find at least one they have an interest in. In just about any combination, too. There is lesbian kissing, gay trysts, taking virginity, interracial, and lots of heterosexual. So it does not really matter the script is lacking. There is an abundance of what you are really after in a teenage sex film.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Billy Madison

2011-05-02T17:59:00.000-04:00

Why do I do this to myself? Why do I keep going back to the parched dry well that is the Adam Sandler flexography for reviews? It is because sandler is the most bankable star in Hollywood. His last twelve films have grossed at least $100 million each. He has fans out threre. It is inexplicable to me, but there is obviously something people see in him. Credit where credit is due, Billy Madison is as close as I have come to appreciating Sandler’s brand of comedy.

Sandler plays the title character, a drunken, dumb slacker--surprise, surprise--why agrees to repeat elementary through high school in order to prove to his mogul father he can handle taking over the hotel chain. His nemesis is a pre-Josh Lyman Bradley Whitford. If you are wondering what Whitford is doing in a film like this, so was I. Believe it or not, there are traces of Lyman in the character. He is a sharp, intelligent guy who arrogance allows him to at times be cruel. Here, the character is exaggerated for comedic effect, but that is Lymon all over.

Madison’s task is to devote two weeks to each grade. He spends most of his time being the most immature kid amongst the rest while ogling his cute fourth grade teacher. Madison see saws from being a goof to a bully, generally abusing much smaller children. There is really no heart in the film until high school when Madison realizes what a bully he was back then and attempts to make amends to those to whom he gave a hard time. Even that sequence is little more than to set up a joke and a surprise element to the ending.

No heart is pretty much how Billy Madison goes. Its primary function is to generate laughs in any way possible. While some of the humor flirts with satire, most of it relies on absurd bits like a giant penguin hallucination, cartton violence, and the old standby of bathroom humor. Typical Sandler fare for the typical Sandler fan.

A saving grace for me is that much of Sandler’s more unpleasant man-child shtick is kept to a minimum. He does not have an anger management problem. The violence is slapstick without an ounce of seriousness. Some of the twists in the story are quite clever by Sandler standards. It is a smart, dumb movie.

But not really smart enough. It is not a classic of the genre of idiots being forced to prove themselves under absurd circumstances. Billy Madison is frivolous viewing a fan of this kind of movie should watch on a boring afternoon when nothing else is on. There are better choices out there, but I doubt someone who likes modern screwball comedies would hate it. I do not, for what it is worth, and I think most Sandler movies could be used as an advanced interrogation technique at Gitmo.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Untraceable

2011-05-01T16:52:00.002-04:00

Thanks to writing reviews for The X-Files, I have developed a sudden interest in the FBI. By what turned out to be an unfortunate stroke of luck, I happened upon Untraceable on cable and decided to give the cyber age FBI procedural film a view. It is not something I recommend.

Diane Lane stars as an FBI cyber crimes guru who is after a serial killer who captures people to put them in eventually fatal torture devices as part of a regular web show. The gimmick is the more people who click on his website to watch the murders, the faster the victims are killed. His message is that we are all accessories to murder. If no one watched, the victims would not die.

The film is a mix of technical police procedure, techno babble, and gruesome scenes of torture. Those three elements combine to make boring sequences of gathering evidence and the completely fanciful way computers work in Hollywood’s view interrupted by extreme violent deaths of the Edgar Alan poe variety. It does not take long to realize the last bits are meant to be a distraction from hoqw dry and boring the other two elements are.

Why are they dry and boring/ for one, the typical trappings of these kinds of films are hinted at, but never utilized. Lane is given a potential love interest in her partner, played by billy Burke, but nothing ever happens between them. Lane herself plays a single mother who lives with her mother and daughter in a creaky old house. You assume at some point her mother or daughter will be caught by the killer, but that does not happen, either. Where is the emotion in the story? There really is not any. It is all a moraL about voyeurism. The audience is supposed to feel guilty we would watch people being brutally murdered live on the internet, but we are all denying that we ever watch such a thing, so big deal, right?

The computer oriented aspects are glossed over. Why is the killer’s website untraceable? There is some excuse given, but even with my limited knowledge of how all this stuff works, I did not buy it. Neither will anyone who actually does know a lot about computers. You have to get this sort of thing right in a movie whose plot hinges on a subject in which lots of people are obsessively knowledgeable.

I am not a big fan of gore, but I can accept it when it adds to a story. Sometimes it is necessary in order to accentuate the sadism of an evil character. But here, gore is for the sake of gore. I doubt even fans of this sort of thing will go for what Untraceable puts on screen. It is not even on par with some of the laughably bad torture devices of the contemporary Saw series.

All the above criticism is a matter of personal taste. Someone else may find such highly entertaining. But for me, the ending blows any chance Untraceable had at a potential re-watch down the road to see if I have a new perspective at a later viewing. Since I have warned I can and will spoil the heck out of any film I review, I am going to spell it all out for you. If you are bound and determined to watch Untraceable against my advice, skip the next two paragraphs.

Lane is captured by the killer in the climax. She is hung up by her ankles and slowly lowered into spinning saw blades on a live show. It is noted 27 million people are watching, which I find hard to believe, but the numbers speed up her slow decent into the blades. At this point, Burke has figured out how to trace the killer’s whereabouts, so he and a team of agents are coming to her rescue. No need, though. The killer is distracted enough that she can swing on the rope around her ankles enough to grab unto something so she can hold herself away from the saw blades, free herself, and then shoot the guy. Roll credits.

Yes, roll credits.

The movie abruptly ends on his corpse. There is no wrap up. No reuniting of Lane and Burke. In fact, the whole bit about the FBI agents coming to her rescue is unresolved. It is literally as though the producers ran out of money and just had to end the movie right now. The only good aspect of the ending is that it is such an abrupt surprise, you will forget how dumb it is the killer, standing five feet away, does not notice Lane is swinging her way to freedom. Oh, and there is gun nearby. He should have enabled comments. That way a viewer could have told him to turn around for a moment.

Think what you will about how well the film is made up until that point, the ending is a dud. What is further disappointing is one expects better from director Gregory Hoblit, who was a producer for Hill Street Blue, LA Law, and NYPAD Blue. How can a talented guy with a history of creative success drop the ball so badly with a feature film? It boggles the mind.

At the risk of piling on, I think lane was severely miscast. An actress with an action movie pedigree might have improved things marginally. Hers was a role more suited for Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Garner, or Uma Thurman. I am not certain any of those actresses could have salvaged the film, but one might have made watching the main character more interesting. Or forced the powers that be to spruce up the love interest aspect. Or shown some nudity. Or appealed to the bondage crowd. Something--anything--more than the final product as it is now would have been appreciated. Untraceable wants to be Seven meets Saw. Fans of neither will enjoy it.

Rating: * (out of 5)

Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

2011-04-06T23:43:00.001-04:00

We will not stray too far from the theme of the possible destruction of civilization in a cold war allegory, but we are going to take a darker, far more satirical turn with Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop worrying and Love the Bomb. I am a relative newcomer to the film. I first saw it nine years ago during a film festival to raise awareness of the American Film Institute’s film preservation efforts. It immediately appealed to my off kilter sense of humor, cynical view of human nature, and weariness over the game playing aspects of international relations.

Stanley Kubrick, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, initially wanted to do a straightforward thriller about nuclear brinkmanship. He got the rights to peter George’s novel Red Alert and began adapting it for the screen. Early on, Kubrick had an epiphany regarding the absurdity of mutually assured destruction as the only true safeguard against the use of nuclear weapons. He re-envisioned his film as a black comedy about how men of influence getting the wrong idea, no matter how well intentioned, can be disastrous.

The story is about the unhinged Air Force Gen. Jack D. Ripper who launches a nuclear assault on the Soviet Union after he is convinced the fluoridization of water is a Communist plot to destroy our precious bodily fluids. Ripper’s bombers, lead by over the top maj. T. J. “King” Kong, dutifully carrying out their orders while Ripper’s executive officer tries to get the recall code from him and the powers that be debate exactly how best to handle the situation. Unbeknownst to all but the Soviets, the USSR has a doomsday device which will set off the final nuclear war if the country is attacked.

It is the colorful characters that make Dr. Strangelove such an amusing film. Peter Sellers portrays three characters: Ripper’s XO, British exchange officer Lionel Mandrake, Pres. Merkin Muffley, and the wheelchair bound former Nazi Dr. Strangelove who hand has a Nazi mind of its own. Each character is distinctive and hilarious in his own way. Mandrake and Muffley are both desperate to defuse the situation peacefully, but wind up frustrated at every turn because everyone around them has other ideas, for better or worse. For Strangelove, the idea of destroying the current human race only to rebuild it later from the best and brightest of the survivors is a dream come true.

Also hilarious are George C. Scott and Slim Pickens, as Gen. Buck Turgidson and Maj. Kong receptively. Scott plays Turgidson as a gung ho American soldier without falling into the typical Hollywood trap of making such characters into sadists or idiots. Turgidson is proud of the American military’s capabilities of wiping out the Soviet Union, and is not adverse to thinking a devastating attack would not be for the greater good, even if the United States gets its hair mussed by the deaths of twenty million Americans. Turgidson occasionally lapses into slapstick comedy with pratfalls and the like, but is still one of the most memorable in film history. Pickens was not told the film was a comedy, so he played Kong as a straightforward, patriotic warhorse doing his duty no matter what the cost. It is his dedication that prompts the fateful field decision to drop his nuclear bomb and unwittingly set off the doomsday device.

Dr. Strangelove is a conspicuously low budget film. There are only three major sets: Ripper’s office, the war room, and Kong’s bomber. But Kubrick manages to do much with very little. The sparse settings actually enhance the claustrophobic feel. The fate of the entire planet rests on the actions of just a few men in terribly confined spaces.

I do mean men. If you have not been able to tell by the sexually suggestive character names, Dr. Strangelove is as much a satire on male potency worries as it is the Cold War. You cannot deny bombs are shaped like penises. If that image is not strong enough for you, Kong rides a bomb down to its target, legs straddled around, in the climactic scene. There is only one actress in the film--Turgidson’s bikini clad secretary and mistress. She is played by Playboy model Tracey Reed, and is featured in only one scene.

Dr. Strangelove was originally intended to end with a pie fight in the war room. The ending was filmed, but never used. Kubrick subsequently stated the pie fight was too farcical. I am inclined to agree. The ending as it is in the final film, with nuclear bombs dropping to the sounds of Vera lynn’s “We’ll Meet Again’ is perfect. Far more so than a Three Stuuges-esque ending. The table with all the pies still makes an appearance early on, but is never seen again. Such violates Anton Chekov’s axiom that if you introduce a gun in act one, someone has to have fired it by the end of act two, but Dr. Strangelove is such a good film, you will not care about that minor quibble.

Granted, as good as Dr. Strangelove is, dark comedy is not everyone’s cup of tea. I have recommended the film to friends who have come back to complain the characters’ humorous demeanors were too much to take in light of what was at stake in the story, and the downer ending made viewing the film an unpleasant experience. I freely admit you have to have an appreciation for satire and a cynical view of people in order to enjoy it. If that sounds like you, you should definitely see it. The film holds up well nearly fifty year after its release and twenty-one after the end of the Cold War. I list it as one of my alll time favorite films.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

2011-04-04T21:03:00.002-04:00

I had a fitful night of sleep last night. I wound up sprawled in my chair watching one of my all time favorite movies, The Day the Earth Stood Still, at 3 AM before tip toeing into the kitchen for some cereal, which I ate in the pitch black dark at the breakfast table. I am a wold man, let me tell you. The movie was every bit the classic I remembered. Rumors are floating about of a remake, although there is no script or director, with Angelina Jolie attached to play the heroine. I think TDTESS is one of those untouchable films it would be blasphemous to remake, but thinking about it even further, it just cannot updated to modern times,

The story is a Cold War allegory filmed in 1951. At that point, the brutality of world War II was still fresh in everyone’s mind. Pearl Harbor still stung, the Nazi death camps were etched vividly in collective memory, as was the different kind of Holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Cold War was then in full swing with the idea that a hundred Hiroshimas could occur on either or both sides of the ocean at any point. It was a world that seemed likely to destroy itself if given half the chance and there had been recent, bloody confirmation of the possibility. The alien Klaatu, visited Earth with the message that carrying out conflicts beyond our world would ensure our destruction by a race of robots, of which his eight foot tall companion Gort was, who policed a collection of worlds.

Every time I watch the movie, I get a new vibe from it. First off, this time around I was contemplating a possible remake and why it would not work. We have gone from an ideological struggle with the potential to be settled by nuclear arms to a religious struggle with extremists using with amounts to random acts of personalized brutality. Bin laden is not involved, nor would he ever be involved, in a space race. Our conflict just would not resonate with the message of TDTESS.

Truth be told, I had a few new flashes about the message it does send while watching it last night. Klaatu explains that a large number of planets have surrendered there policing to a race of giant robots. These robots wipe out any form of aggression with extreme prejudice, which is emonstrated several times throughout the course of the movie. It is made clear that if Klaatu is killed by humans, Gort will destroy the planet. It struck me and my Political Science/law degree holding mind how philosophically wrong that it is. I am skeptical of human nature without a doubt. I think the only way to keep a mass of people on the straight and narrow I through an authoritative force. But what Klaatu describes amounts to velvet cage slavery mized with random brutality.

He says there is no war, but that is because the robots immediately eliminate any aggressor. By klaatu’s own definition, this mean anyone from a n armyr unlawfully invading another country to a mugger slapping an old lady around. All dead in an instant. When Klaatu warns Earth to keep its destructive ways to itself, he is implying the other planets do not want their utopia destroyed. But there is no utopia. Their lives are controlled under a brutal dictatorship which will eliminate any dissenters. I am not certain why it just struck me last night how cynical a movie TDTESS is, but this was the first time the light went off in my head. Interting, because I do not generally miss cynical themes, especially in stories I have seen numerous times. I must really be in an odd mindset.

Rating; ***** (out of 5)

X-Files: Fight the Future

2011-03-12T05:48:00.002-05:00

If you have been following Eye of Polyphemus, you will know I have been reviewing The X-Files and episode a day. I am now up to the fifth season finale, which leads into the first feature film. Ergo, it is a good time to review 1998’s The X-Files: Fight the Future.

Fight the Future, more so than any Star Wars or Star Trek film, is made specifically for X-Philes. It is not a general interest film, and while I have a hunch it may have brought in some first time fans to the series, I doubt most anyone who was not either a fan or inclined to be cared much at all. For my review, I am going to have to cast my devoted X-Phile ways and take that into a ccount.

The film introduces the vicious aliens, beginning in north Texas during the first ice age when one attacks two cave men with Purity, aka the black oil. In the modern day, a young boy playing falls through the ground in the same spot to find the remains and the black oil, by which he is infected. The Syndicate opt o cover the discovery up by staging a terrorist bombing at a Dallas skyscraper in which the boy’s body and several firemen are being kept by FEMA. Mulder and Scully, now on general assignment after the destruction of the X-Files, are hinting the bomb. A Syndicate mole with the FBI intervenes, so the bomb explodes. The agents wind up facing a disciplinary and reassignment hearing because in the aftermath.

Scully feels rather bone weary over the hearings. She informs Mulder she is thinking about quitting the FBI to practice medicine rather than be assigned mundane work out some field office. Distraught, Mulder heads off for a drink and runs into Alvin Kurtzweil (Martin Landau) an old kook who claims to know the Dallas bombing was all a cover up.

He leads Mulder and Scully to the corpses, after which they find the plot to use bees to carry an alien virus after which Scully is stung by a bee before mulder can finally, after five long years, smooch her, upon which an infected scully is kidnapped, the lobe gun show up to help mulder escape the hospital to find her, but not before the Well manicured man shows up with the cure to the virus which he stole from Alex Krycek, who does not show up, oddly enough. Mulder makes it took Antarctica--your guess is as good as mine how--finds Scully stuck on a spaceship run by the Cigarette Smoking Man, gives her the vaccine, saves her, but she miraculously does not witness the space ship taking off. They return to Washington, where upon Scully pledges loyalty to mulder as the X-Files are reopened.

Got all that? If you have not watched the series religiously since at least the second season, the odds are you do not get all that without a Cliffs Notes. There are probably no worries about that. Anyone who would need a primer course in x-Files mythology would never come anywhere near the movie.

It is a two hour episode of the series, no doubt. Elements are thrown in from the show without rhyme or reason for the sole purpose of letting fans see them on the big screen. Why purpose did the Lone Gunmen serve other than that? There is no easing of the audience into the conspiracy of the alien colonization or who the syndicate are. Frankly, it must be bewildering for anyone who is not already an x-File.

As a standalone film for someone who is not already a fan, Fight the Future is a complete failure. It is like coming into the middle of a trilogy without being given any clue where to find the other two parts. For fans, it is a big budget, two part episode which ranks above average in terms of furthering the mythology. Whether that merit’s a big screen story is debatable, but it is still a must see for x-Philes.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Mask

2011-02-24T07:41:00.005-05:00

I like to coordinate themes between Eye of Polyphemus with Apocalypse Cinema whenever possible, so when The X-Files episode “The Post-Modern Prometheus” came up over there, I knew I should review mask over here. The episode features a deformed young man who is obsessed with Cher because she loved a deformed child in Mask. If you are an X-Phile, please check out my thoughts on the episode. Here are my thoughts on Mask.

Mask gets high marks from me. It is a blatantly manipulative film in terms of tugging at your heartstrings, so much so that if the actors could not sell the material as well as they do, Mask would wind up no better than some sappy Lifetime movie of the week. But Cher, Eric Stoltz, and Sam Elliot are all wonderful. If Mask does not stick with you for days after watching it, you have no heart.

Stoltz plays Rocky Dennis, a teenager afflicted with the rare disease Craniodiaphyseal dysphasia, which causes the growth of calcium deposits in the head and face. We are informed right off the bat the growths are putting pressure on his brain, so Rocky is not expected to reach adulthood. All right, he is definitely not going to survive the film. See what I mean by emotionally manipulative? Rocky has a close knit support network, including his free-spirited, though drug addicted mother, her biker friends, and his best buddy with whom he plans a motorcycle tour of Europe after high school graduation.

Rocky is nothing but virtuous. He is smart, kind-hearted, and patient with a sardonic, but still gentle sense of humor that wins people over when they give him a chance. The problem is most do not. Rocky is met with fear and pity. The only new relationships he makes during the film are with those who want to pick his brain for their schoolwork and blind kids who cannot see his physical appearance. More manipulation, that. Rocky is nigh perfect; everyone else is so shallow, they cannot get passed his face to value anything else.

There is a lot of truth to that. We live in a beauty obsessed culture. Someone like Rocky would likely hide himself away from most people, particularly if he indulged the inevitability of his short life expectancy. It would be easy to fall into the mindset of thinking it is not worth suffering through what is, unfortunately, the natural reaction of people to things we do not find aesthetically pleasing in spite of whatever virtues it may have. Call it one of the inherent cruelties of life.

What elevates Mask beyond a preachy film about a completely without other fault deformed kid abused by the bigoted masses is the realistic way his small circle of associates handle circumstances. Though depressed and drug addicted, Rocky’s mother goes the distance to see to his physical and emotional well-being. At one point, rocky is depressed because he sees his classmates having fun in romantic relationships, so she finds him a pretty hooker. He does not indulge, but the act demonstrates his mother does her best to see to his normalcy, even though her flawed nature often makes her go about it all wrong.

As the film progresses, so does the gulf between Rocky and the people around him. He feels the need to get away from his mother as she becomes more overwhelmed by her demons. He is motivated by tough love. Rocky becomes the most popular member at the camp by helping all the kids who cannot see his appearance. He falls for a girl, Diana, played by Laura Dern. Diana, of course, can appreciate Rocky’s inner beauty because she cannot see his outer ugliness. His mother considers rehab, but his best friend moves away, ending their plans for a trip to Europe and Diana’s father forbids him to see her. Just when things look the bleakest for rocky, he dies in his sleep.

You can see most all this coming from the very beginning, but it still sucker punches you in the gut as you watch it unfold. Fate can be very cruel when one is born, and life is not any more merciful as it goes along. It is nice to see a film in which a character struggles against the poor hand life dealt him, without much hope of better things to come, because of the flawed, but genuine support of a small circle of those who love him unconditionally. Mask is, ironically enough, a lovely movie about ugly things. I strongly recommend it.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Happy Gilmore

2011-02-17T23:56:00.001-05:00

Why do I keep doing this to myself? I must be some sort of masochist to go back to the bone dry well that is Adam Sandler comedies for a drink. Surprisingly enough, Happy Gilmore holds up much better than most Sandler films. I am trying to be nostalgic about in my review. In 1996, his anger management impaired man child routine was still relatively new. Any comedian in his nascent movie career is bound to start with low brow efforts which are guilty pleasures. The big problem with Sandler is the poor hack is a one trick pony. Fortunately, Happy Gilmore is the best time he performed the trick.

Sandler plays Happy Gilmore, a blue collar loser who dreams of playing professional hockey, but lacks the skill. He inadvertently discovers he has a knack from driving a golf ball when he takesa bet with some movers who kicking his widowed grandmother out of her house. Gilmore begins taking driving bets with other golfers to earn money to save his grandmother’s house. He catches the eye of former pro golfer Chubbs Peterson (Carl Weathers) who convinces Gilmore to go pro.

What we have is a square peg in a round hole plot in which the immature Gilmore, fantastic knack for driving the ball he has, does not fit in with the PGA tou. He does bring in the young crowd, so the powers that be reluctantly tolerate him. He makes an enemy in the smarmy Shooter McGavin (Christopher McDonald) McGavin is an amusing antagonist, though one who engages Gilmore too often in the sarcastic remark department in which he is outclassed. The conflict of Gilmore improving his golf game in order to beat McGavin would have been sweeter had Gilmore not already gotten the best of him in other areas.

Happy Gilmore mixes a lot of vulgar sex jokes and slapstick humor with some incredibly absurd elements. It is the absurdity which saves the film. His grandmother is trapped in a slave labor nursing home run by the hilariously sinister unaccredited Ben Stiller playing the mustache twirling villain to a tee. The famous fist fight with bob barker is the biggest highlight, but it is followed closely by Gilmore’s ’Happy place” featuring the lovely Julie Bowen in her underwear.

Happy Gilmore is a predictable brain cell killing romp that could have been written by a thirteen year old. The movie rests on several hilarious scenes and the hope that sandler’s shtick has not worn thin on you yet. A little of said shtick goes a long way, indeed. Happy Gilmore is better than you probably remember, but still only for when you feel the need to go comedy slumming.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Dead Poets Society

2011-02-16T05:59:00.003-05:00

I have been incredibly rough on the recent films I have reviewed. To avoid the reputation of a grumpy reviewer writing with poison pen, I am going to review one of my favorite films of a all time, Dead Poets Society. it was a joy to watch again on a sleepless night.

Dead Poets Society qualifies as personal favorite in what is a formulaic genre. You have seen the story a hundred times before. Rich, uptight kids at a prep school get a new teacher who inspires them to rebel against conformity so they can find themselves. Their rebellion, which we are supposed to cheerr, leads to tragedy as one kid cannot escape the path laid out for him and makes a drastic choice. The teacher is blamed for the consequences of the kid’s action and fired. The students stand up for him in solidarity as he is forced to leave. The end.

If I sound dismissive there, I am not. Dead Poets Society may be one of many films of the type. It is probably not the best, either. But it is the version of the story that is foremost in my mind. There, it is better to me than it probably is to other fans of the genre.

I think it is a generational phenomenon. Every generation of kids has their coming of age films about teenagers in love, struggles with authority figures, and finding their place in the world. Viewed cross generationally in comparison, those films are bound to be up and down in quality. But on a personal level, this is my movie about finding my own voice. It speaks to me. Therefore, it is good, even if it is a paint by numbers story in which events are products of the drama rather than drama itself.

Sure, it is a given the new teacher, Mr. Keating, played by an unusually subdued robin Williams, is a free spirit who will run afoul of the powers that be. Of course his students will slowly grow to rebel against the expectations of the school administration, their parents, etc. most definitely said rebellion will lead one kid to decide he would rather die with the slight taste of freedom he has experienced than go to military school like his father wants. Yes, Keating will pay for the boy’s suicide. Yes, his students will stand up for him anyway.

Also assured is that I watch Dead Poets Society, predictable as it is, as hypocritical as it is with the students conforming to Keating’s style of rebelling against conformity, with as much enjoyment as I did back in 1989 as a child stuck in a fundamentalist Christian school with very little encouragement to find my own voice. That is the baggage I bring to the film, and that is why I love it.

I realize Dead Poets Society is idealized to the point of melodrama. It is not true that there lies within all of us a Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Yeats, Wilde, or any other writer or artists whose work will be immortal. Most of us could not pen an episode of Two and a Half Men for that matter. What happens when you have gone too far down that road and finally realize it? To put it bluntly, there ain’t nothing wrong with being an accountant or selling real estate and yes, even practicing law like I eventually chose to do. Every now and then, it is good to be reminded there was once a time when much more seemed possible.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Fight Club

2011-02-15T23:45:00.001-05:00

I am a later comer to Fight Club. I did not see it until buying the DVD on a whim in 2003. Somehow, I also managed to avoid the spoilerr of Tyler Durden’s true identity-- how I managed that is a mystery in itself--but it came as a total shock. Said shock made the movie a novel experience. I had to watch again to look for clues for the truth laid throughout. They were indeed. But after scouring the film to find the pay phone accepted no incoming calls and a bus passenger bumped into Durden, but did not apologize like he did after bumping into others, I find the repeat viewing value of Fight Club lacking.

Let us get something straight right off the bat: I do not relate to Fight Club in the slightest. I do not feel trapped by the middle class notion of manhood. I am not angry that I am not a rock star or famous baseball player. I do not believe God has it out for me. Chuck Palahaniuk, upon whose novel the movie is based on, rages against the inherent cruelties of life--other people pigeonhole you, getting the necessities of life means getting a job you likely hate, and bad things happen regardless, among others--and comes across looking like a whiny child, as do many of his characters in Fight Club.

There is a certain awareness of that fact. There are several instances after a fight in which the combatants look at one another as if to ask, ’What were we fighting about again?” But there really is not enough of that to save the film from its inherent philosophy that destruction is liberating.

We are talking about destruction on all levels. The Narrator, who is not given a name, breaks himself down indulging his insomnia, faking deep personal problems so he can finally cry at 12 step program meetings, form Fight Club rto beat up other men and eventually become a terrorist movement to satisfy his need to ’destroy something beautiful.” Marla, played by Helena Bonham Carter, is a severely damaged, suicidal woman who still maintains a stark air of self-abuse even when her death wish subsides. Then there is Durden, played by Brad Pitt. He is the Narrator’s unrestrained id. Everything the Narrator would like to be, but his pesky ego keeps restrained. Durden is the ultimate destructive force.

What that can best be defined as is nihilism. The notion that these enlightened souls have found nothing as meaning in this dehumanizing consumer society. They congratulate themselves for achieving this intellectual epiphany that appears to have escaped the rest of the sheep, and declare an all out war on society as a result. It is done in a celebratory tone, as well. The Narrator is a mild mannered white collar worker who used to spend time thumbing through catalogues until the excitement of Durden’s free spirit attitude captivated him. As Durden’s schemes become more violent, the Narrator still goes along even though he clearly has moral issues. In other words, the ego is not surpressing the id. Let immorality reign, people, because life has been unfair!

While I assume I am going against conventional wisdom Fight Club is great as an earnest study of the suffering of modern masculinity, I think it fails on that level because masculinity is not suffering that brutally. Or, at the very least, not suffering because of the consumer culture. Political correctness and feminism are more likely culprits. Nevertheless, adopting an anti-materialistic philosophy, then morphing it in a violent crusade for no discernible no purpose is an incredibly dumb message.

Conversely, if you take Fight Club as a farce on the rebellion of men against consumerism--considering all parties wanted the movie to be a hit, it is not a stretch--then it is passably entertaining. Yes, I am killing it with faint praise. The self-aware looks certain characters give each other at the absurdity of their own actions are too far and few between to consider Fight Club a satire rebellion against society.

Fight Club is, however, a masterfully made film. I praised director David Fincher for the far superior Se7en. He utilizes the dull, shades of blues and grays in Fight Club as effectively as in Se7en. The script by Jim Uhls is tight, progressing at a steady pace in spite of the pretentious material. Norton turns in a brilliant performance as a somnambulistic cubicle drone caught up in something far beyond his control. I am not a big fan of Pitt or Carter. Both their reputations as sex symbols are not well earned as far as I am concerned, but they do not ruin it for me, either.

Fight Club should definitely be seen at least once. Once will go along way unless you buy into the film’s pseudo intellectual message. Lord help you if you do. The characters go from the polar opposites of anti-materialistic free spirits to storm troopers ready to tear down all that is sacred within the space of an hour without the slightest hint of self-awareness on behalf of any of the players involved. I need to call that satire in order to give it a decent rating, so I am. Though I am being generous in doing so.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

8mm

2011-01-14T23:09:00.001-05:00

The expression on my face watching 8mm mirrored Nicholas Cage’s. What a dark, disturbing film. The thing is, this is not the first time I have seen it. I first watched 8m around ten years ago on HBO. It was the kind of viewing experience I did not find entertaining, yet hoped it was attempting to put forth some message to justify its vulgar content. I just worked up my nerve to watch again to watch with a critical eye to see what I could glean.

Nicholas Cage stars as Tom Welles, a private detective who is hired by a wealthy widow who discovers a snuff film among her deceased husband’s possessions. She wants Welles to find out if it is real. Welles identifies the girlstarring in the film as Mary Ann Matthews. Matthews supposedly went off to Hollywood to become a legitimate actress, but her mother has heard nothing from her in quite some time. Welles tells her mother he will determine her fate. Does she want to know regardless of the outcome? Mrs. Matthews says she does.

Welles’ quest leads him on an odyssey through the underground world of illegal pornography in the big city. He is accompanied by an intellectual adult video store clerk named max California. California is played to the hilt by Joaquin Phoenix, one of the few bright spots in the film. Together, they discover the snuff film was real. Mary Ann was killed on screen. Welles, with Mrs. Matthews permission, murders everyone involved in the making of the snuff film.

I like classic, hard boiled private eye stories. It has been a long time since a good one has made it to film. Magnum PI is the most recent example period, but as far as theatrical releases go, I think you have to go all the way back to 1974’s Chinatown. Even then, e of the key elements that makes Chinatown great is its setting during the golden age of detective films--the ‘30’s-’40’s.

To be fair, 8mm puts forth a decent effort to mimic the tone and style of films of the era. It does so with the general coarseness of the modern day era, with a lot of perversion thrown in for good measure. I am not kidding about that, either. Snippets of actual DSM films are sprinkled throughout Welles journey through the underground world of pornography. It is like descending into hell. The further he goes, more sinister it gets until he finds the people producing literal snuff films for the sexual pleasure of those who can afford them. I am an a traditionalist. I do not appreciate modern day nihilistic horror creeping into to favored movie genres just for the sake of making it edgy and contemporary.

That explains why I did not like the film years ago. On the second viewing, I still do not like it, but I see a dichotomy I missed the first time around. Welles is a classic PI in the model of Sam Spade. He lives in a world of catching cheating spouses and recovering stolen property for clients. Traveling into the world of pornography that only exists in urban legends is far out of his comfort zone. It dawned on me, then, that 8mm is a lament the classic detective genre has to be dragged into a much harsher world rather than proudly representing the change. With that in mind, I am more forgiving of the film.\

I have drawn this conclusion because it is made very clear Welles is desperately attempting to hold on to the real world as he immerses himself in this new, harsher one. He is frequently seen talking on a cell phone with his wife, which lay in stark contrast to the leather bondage freaks he has to talk to in between calls. At one point, California even questions why a guy with ‘A wife, kids, and a dog named Champ” living in the suburbs wants to subject himself to this sort of thing. In the end, he is completely corrupted as he murders everyone involved with the snuff film in cold blood.. The most brutal realization is these people are normal, average folks getting their jollies watching a girl die. Hence, the normal and the perverse are one and the same these days.

What a poisoned box of candy that is.

8mm is all about innocence lost. It is not just about Mary Ann, whose dreams of being an actress lead her to film pornography which eventually lead to her death, but Welles, the rich widow, Mary Ann’s mother, and every other person in the film. How cynical and depressing. Not mention not worth watching. I am going to give 8mm some kudos for Phoenix’s performance and a better effort to possess some artistic merit than I previously thought, but it is not worth two hours of your time just to worsen your view of humanity. There is no sense of redemption to be had in the whole darn thing.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Point Break

2010-12-27T13:45:00.000-05:00

Just to prove I can appreciate mindless fun as much as the next guy, I shall review Point Break. If there is a major action movie cornier or more pretentious in its mindless action and philosophy, I have yet to encounter it. As a connection to the previous film Navy SEALS, the main character was to be played originally by Charlie Sheen. We got Keanu Reeves instead. How lucky are we?

Reeves FBI Special Agent Johnny Utah, a former college football star who blew out his knee, missing his chance to play in the NFL. So he decided to join the FBI instead as an undercover agent. Because college football players who are potentially high NFL draft picks are rarely recognizable. Tim Tebow should take note id his run with the Denver Broncos continues to falter. Utah is teamed with Angelo Pappas, played by Gary Busey. Pappas conveys such wisdom as he has been working bank robberies since Utah was taking crap out of his diaper and smearing it on his face. I do not get it, either.

The pair are assigned to investigate a string of bank robberies committed by a gang wearing the masks of ex-presidents. Pappas theorizes the gang are surfers, so Utah goes undercover as a surfing newbie to ingratiate himself into the subculture. He eventually makes contact with Bohdi, played by Patrick Swayze. Bodhi is a surfing philosopher, adrenaline freak, and head of the Ex Presidents.

Utah becomes enamored with Bodki’s lifestyle. He slowly shifts towards being an amoral, risk taking thrill seeker himself. His downhill slide does not truly stop until Bodhi threatens Rosie (lori Petty), his girlfriend who has taken liking to Utah. Somehow, Utah and Bodhi survive a skydiving fall in which their parachute just does open in time before Bodhi gets away with his last big score of stolen loot.

Utah catches up with Bohi in Australia just as he is about to surf on the killer wave of the century. He convinces Utah to let him ride out the hurricane generated waves rather than send him to jail, knowing full well he will drown out there. Utah still cannot quite get over his spiritual connection with bodhi. He throws away his FBI badge in disgust with himself over his corruption.

Point Break is dumb, has some glorious continuity errors, such as Utah’s injured knee switching legs from scene to scene, and expresses such a cornball philosophy, you wonder how the actors could keep straight faces. But somehow they do. Even stranger, it all makes for a fun romp. The action scenes are generally exciting, if farfetched, but excitingly tense. I highly doubt the film is an accurate anthropological look into surfing culture, but neither was anything Frankie and Annette did. Point Break is a dumb, but good action film. Hard to believe it is nearly twenty years old.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Navy SEALS

2010-12-26T12:45:00.000-05:00

We have not had a whole lot of luck reviewing films about covert military operatives as of yet at Apocalypse Cinema. With Navy SEALS, the trend continues. I would call it mindless fun, but that would be an insult to other mindlessly fun films. Navy SEALS is a beer commmercial interrupted by a misleading military recruiting video.

Charlie Sheen--your first warning to stay away--stars as Dale Hawkins, a brash Navy SEAL who leads a team on several dangerous missions. The first two missions interrupt a wedding of one of the SEALS who will--surprise, surprise--eventually die because of Hawkins’ reckless behavior. The second mission interrupts a game of golf cart polo. It is macho man Miller Time, one assumes.

Hawkins has a brief drunken pity party over his buddy's death as well as a love interest in a woman of lebonese descent in front of whom whom he freely uses the word "raghead,' though out of love, he stops and snaps out of his alcohol pity party. That is as close to real human emotions as the fiilm gets.

The main plot of the film is the SEALS searching for a cache of stinger anti-aircraft missiles hidden somewhere in Beirut. I will give the film its due: the climactic battle in downtown Beirut is impressive. However, it is ruined by a couple issues. One, I cannot tell how they differentiate between their rebel allies and the bad guys. It is a question I asked out loud while watching. How they heck do they know who they are shooting at? They are all dressed like civilians! Two, when they do find a bad guy, said villain waits for a second or two without shooting so the SEAL can get off a one liner. Pure, bad Hollywood right there.

Unless you need to indulge an incredibly fanciful view of combat situations, I would skip Navy SEALS. I do not know if Sheen thought he was following up on the success of Platoon, with this clunker, but he sorely misjudged if so. It is laughably bad.

Rating: * (out of 5)

It's a Wonderful Life

2010-12-25T00:09:00.001-05:00

It is that time of year again when virtually every television channel that does not want to cough up the cash to produce new holiday programming airs It’s a Wonderful Life in every available timeslot. You know the drill. The beloved Jimmy Stewart is a beleaguered everyman, constantly put upon and feeling unappreciated until an angel shows him how terrible life would be without him. To top it all off, the town comes through for him in the end, thereby proving they do love and need him. It is all great, feel good holiday cheer, right?

Good heavens, no. It’s a Wonderful Life, more than just about any other film, has the greatest disparity between its actual message and the way people perceive it. How can anyone think this movie has any sort of positive message? There is no cheer. The movie is all about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, watching everyone else get what you want, seeing your father drive himself to an early grave, suffering at the hands of other, inconsiderate relatives, and languishing through all this mess in a town full of small minded bigots who exist to take advantage of you.

Believe me, the characters in the movie do. George Bailey’s brother, his uncle, his wife, Potter, and even Clarence, who essentially uses him to earn his wings. Do we discover in the end they all love George? Of course we do. They love him because he is a sucker. If you do not believe they are going to hang it over his head forever they sacrificed their Christmas for him, you are too naïve for your own good. If George felt downtrodden before, now he will never be able to say or do a thing without someone reminding him of the Christmas of ’45.

There are two real kickers to this. First, as it was shown, life without George was not that. Bedford Falls became Pottersville, a swinging town full of night clubs, loud music, and attractive women. Is that not the kind of excitement George wanted in the first place? Pottersville is a thriving resort town rather than the old, rusty, and poor manufacturing town of Bedford falls. Think of the future as theamerican economy shifted from manufacturing to the service industry which city has fared better, car manufacturing Detroit or resort town Orlando? Pottersville had a better chance of growing than Bedford falls, but since George was born, no such luck.

Second, George is in serious trouble. Even though the $ 8,000 is replaced by the townspeople, he has committed a federal crime—a class D felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. But you know what? I do not sympathize. George humiliates his wife continually to the point you have to wonder what she sees in him. He yells at his kids and tells his senile old uncle off. No wonder people do not mind taking advantage of him. He is a jerk as well as a sucker!

I have to think about that final scene, when George’s brother returns and toasts him as the richest man in town. See, everyone thinks that is because he knows he is now loved. Nah. George is happy because he knows that because he is around, everyone is going to be just as miserable as he is. Misery loves company. That is the reall message of It’s a Wonderful Life.

Merry Christmas, everybody!

Rsating: * (out of 5)

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians

2010-12-24T22:59:00.001-05:00

It does not seem right to go through the holidays writing a movie review blog and not feature a Christmas movie or two. Why I chose Santa Claus Conquers the Martians to start with is beyond me. It is not like I have imbibed any eggnog to inhibit my judgment. Perhaps I am simply a masochist. I did not even use the MST3000 Dvd release, so I did not even have the gang’s mockery to amuse me.

If you have not seen Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, let me assure you it is every bit as bad as you have heard. The plot, the acting, the cheap budget--they are all stinkeroos. Nevertheless, there is a certain notion your pop culture education is not complete until you have seen it. As I loathe to have any education incomplete, I felt compelled to sit through it.

The story takes place mostly on Mars. Parents fear their children are watching too much Earth television. The wise elder says the children are becoming distracted because their society is too rigid and strict for the kids. It is not so strict the kids cannot watch t far too much television, but I shall bow to the superior wisdom of the elder. His name is Chochem, a Yiddish word for genius. Who would argue with such a person? Chochem says the kids need to have fun and apparently Dr. Phil and soap operas do not count.

The Martian leaders decide the best solution to their lack of fun problem is too kidnap Santa Claus, whom they saw on television, and bring him to Mars in order to make toys for Martian children. They successfully kidnap Santa and two children. They build a toy factory and get to work.

Not everyone on Mars is happy with the arrangement. Voldar thinks santa is corrupting the children of Mars, so he sets out to kill Santa. Failing that, he sabotages the toy factory. Just to prove there is a counterpoint to every point, a Martian named Dropo takes a liking to Santa and wants to play him himself. Voldar, proving what a sharp cookie he is, kidnaps Dropo thinking he is Santa. Voldar needs LASIK for Christmas.

Voldar plans to hold Dropo as a hostage for the ransom of ending this silly Christmas on Mars plan. But Dropo escapes. Santa realizes Dropo would make a good martian Santa, so he arranges for it on the condition he and the kids can return to Earth. Everything works out swell, except that Mars is a completely lifeless planet, so something terrible must have happened after Santa left.

I put on my goofy, non-discerning childhood hat for watching Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I am afraid watching this thing even with the eyes of a child is not enough to make it enjoyable. I suppose its heart is in the right place, but the very idea of the movie is dumb. It goes without saying that it is executed poorly, too. If you decide to see it in order to complete your pop culture education, do not say I did not warn you. In this case, ignorance is truly bliss.

Rating: * (out of 5)

Pee Wee's Big Adventure

2010-12-23T22:11:00.001-05:00

You either love the manchild known as Pee Wee Herman, or you hate him. I have fond memories of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and Pee Wee’s Playhouse from my younger days. I must confess some of his real life issues have been troubling enough to give me pause about what might be going on in that obviously off kilter head of his, but nothing has yet hampered my enjoyment of much of his work.

Pee Wee’s Big Adventure is my favorite of all his work. Having just watched it for this review, I can safely say my fondness is not all about childhood nostalgia. The film is a cult classic which still stands up today. I appreciate the weird atmosphere of it all. The colors of the film are all basic, giving the adventure a playroom fantasy atmosphere. Add to that real adult characters as they would be envisioned by a small child and you have an absurd artistic vision that is great escapism.

I have been quite harsh towards Tim Burton in the few reviews I have given to his films thus far. The problem with him is that he cannot do a mainstream film that will not let his inner weirdo run on a long leash. The problem with me is I do not have an ounce of goth in me. When those two problems collide, Burton and I do not get along. Pee Wee’s Big Adventure is different. He was allowed to put enough of his strange vision without turning the film into a gothic mess that I can really enjoy it. Credit where credit is due, I think Paul Reubens is probably more responsible for the enjoyable elements. But hey, I tried complimenting Burton for once.

Pee Wee Herman is a grown man who acts completely like a child. He cares about nothing more in the world than his bicycle. A girl at the bike shop has a thing for him, but he pays her no romantic mind whatsoever. Pee wEe’s neighbor, Francis, is also a manchild, but he refuses to grow up because, with his rich daddy, he does not have to. Francis wants Pee Wee’s bike, he will not give or sell it to him.

The bike winds up stolen. A distraught Pee Wee eventually goes to a psychic for help. She is a fraud who sends Pee Wee on a cross country escapade to the Alamo, where she claims his bike is being kept in the basement.

Along the way, Pee Wee meets a menagerie of colorful characters. They include Simone, a waitress with dreams of visiting Paris, her violent tempered, jealous boyfriend, Large Marge, a truck driving ghost whose shocking revelation scared the bejebus out of me as a nine year old, a bunch of nasty bikers who could be won over by a dance to “Tequila,” and an escaped convict who tore the do not remove tag off a mattress. Pee Wee reacts to all these people with the mind of a child.

Pee Wee discovers his bike now belongs to a child star who is using it as a prop in a blockbuster movie. Pee Wee sneaks onto the studio lot to steal it back. What results is a climactic chase through various, stereotypical movie sets, with an unexpected cameo by Twisted sister. I am often bemused by Hollywood’s self-importance in adding moviemaking to a film, but this time it is a laugh riot. Pee Wee winds up saving a pet shop full of animals from a fire, thereby becoming a hero after his escape from the studio lot.

The studio instead wants to make a film of Pee Wee’s story. It becomes a James Bond style adventure with James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild starring as Pee Wee and Dottie. In the film, his bike is stolen by the Soviets, just as Pee Wee first speculated. Oddly enough, I had most nostalgia about this point. Movies had far better bad guys during the Cold War, no?

At the creaky old age of 34, I still love Pere Wee’s Big Adventure. It is so fantastically peculiar that I wish more films would be made with such a unique vision. I am afraid the film may have caught lightning in a bottle. Neither Burton, nor Reubens have come close to entertaining me quite like this with any other project.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Wild Wild West

2010-12-22T01:20:00.005-05:00

I have reviewed the entire run of The Wild Wild West series at Eye of Polyphemus. It is one of my childhood favorites. It seems only fair to review this travesty of a film adaptation for the sake of thoroughness. Whether you like the original series, if you enjoy this movie, I probably do not like you as a person.

The plot revolves around army capt. Jim West (Will Smith), a black man in 1869 who has managed to become a top secret agent for Pres. Ulysses S. Grant even though he is so incredibly reckless, Grant does nothing but trash him. Rightfully so. West is the first in a string of unlikable characters we are going to meet. Grant must have been drunk when he hired the guy. West is assigned to investigate the disappearance of scientist. Who are obviously being forced to work on something diabolical that will certainly be used to assassinate Grant when he drives in the inaugural transcontinental railroad spike in one week.

He is teamed up with Artemus Gordon. Gordon is played by Kevin Kline. He is the only bright spot in the film That is like saying it is a good thing you will save money on shoes because your feet have been chopped off. The bright side is sometimes overwhelmed by the dark.

West and Gordon go up against Arliss Loveless, played by Brit Kenneth Branagh. Loveless is a bitter Confederate loyalist who was mutilated during the Civil War. Because he has lost his legs, he has developed a strange fascination with spiders which serves only to set up the dumbest climax in movie history. In the interim, Branagh’s fake southern accent will have to suffice as the dumbest aspect in association with the Loveless character.

Along the way, West and Gordon are joined by Rita Escobar, who was being held prisoner by Loveless. Rita says she was looking for her kidnapped father, but it is a lie solely to create a sexual competition between West and Gordon. We do not find out until later the missing scientist is her husband. But in the interim, we get an eyeful of her Botticelli buttocks, as they are called, so I suppose that is consolation for the unfunny rivalry between the two competing for her affection.

There is a ridiculously long sequence in which Loveless captures all three, separates Escobar from the with the promise of creating a device to rape her, and placing super powered magnetic callars around Jim and Gordon’s necks which attracts flying saw blades. The two defy all laws of physics and good humor in extricating themselves from their predicament. Additional scenes were filmed to be placed here, which is why the sequence runs way too long, because test audiences could not decide if the movie was a comedy. The additional scenes do not add any additional laughs.

It does not get any better from there. Loveless is going to use an eighty foot mechanical spider to kill Grant. West not only survives a fall off the top of the spider, but decides to pose as a harem girl in order to sneak back on later. None of the bad guys notice no harem girls are supposed to be on the thing in the first place.

I am not going to pile on. I know this is a bad movie. You know it is a bad movie. The premise of a black Secret Service agent in 1869 is dumb. The script is awful. The characters are unlikable. It is still difficult to tell if The Wild Wild West is supposed to be a comedy even with the allegedly additional yuks. The numerous racist jokes make you squirm in your seat. The bit with the harem disguise would ruin the climax if you had any expectations for it. By that point, you do not.

Those are all solely the marks of a bad feel, and therefore nothing to get too worked up about. The problem for me is how much I love the original television series. The film is a complete betrayal for anyone who loves the series. West and Gordon are supposed to be like brothers, not fighting all the time. West is a suave gentleman, not a trigger happy jackass with no scruples. Dr. Loveless is a dwarf with a genius IQ and epicurean tastes who wants to rule the world, not some petty racist who wants to revive the South. The changes made between the series and film would not make non-fans more likely to see it and served only to make true fans angry. What was the point?

Robert Conrad, the star of the original series, refused a cameo, trashed the film, and eventually accepted several Razzies on behalf of it in order to protest what had been done to the material. Last year, Will Smith publicly apologized to Conrad, saying he now understood that he had been a part of not only a terrible movie, but of insulting fans of the original series. Anyone who watches movies will still be offended by The Wild Wild West.

Rating: * (out of 5--and I am being generous.)

Kelly's Heroes

2010-12-21T23:56:00.002-05:00

I said in my Three Kings review the plot of a renegade military force secretly going AWOL into enemy territory to steal captured gold has been done better before. Well, here is where it was done better. Kelly’s Heroes hits every mark: directing, writing, acting, action, and comedy. There is nary a flaw to be found.

Such is not an easy task. Kelly’s Heroes was released in 1970 when the nation was growing sick of the Vietnam War raging on the nightly news. War was not a heroic subject at the time, even when the war is against villains like the Nazis. The only way to pull of a war movie under those circumstances was to make it an irreverent romp full of anti-heroes out to serve themselves during a less ambiguously moral war. Perhaps surprisingly, the formula worked.

Kelly’s Heroes is a simple story. A group of American Gis on occupation duty in a liberated part of France discovers there are cases of Nazi gold in A Bank in a nearby, Nazi occupied town. They launch a full scale operation under the noses of the Nazis and their own commanders to steal it. What results is a good mix of comedy, drama, and action. The film is laugh out loud funny when mocking the absurdities of war and those who cluelessly command it from a safe distance. Not everyone survives the operation. While that adds a dose of reality, it does not ruin the comedy. In fact, the casualties the tension. Said tension is ratcheted up further by bombings, explosions, gunplay, and tank battles which all combine to make Kelly’s Heroes the best action movie of the era.

The main highlight is Donald Sutherland’s character, Oddball. He is an anachronism==a hippe twenty some odd years too early. Often, something like that would bug me, but I enjoy the character. He is a concession to the audience of the time which is entertaining enough to forgive his being a generation out of place. Something tells me if he had a kid after the war ended, he would grow up to be Tommy Chong. But maybe I am generating negative waves and should say something righteous and positive for a change.

Sutherland is the man, but one can certainly not overlook the rest of the cast--Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, and Carroll O’Connor among others all play well-defined, memorable characters who each get their moment to be amusing. Even the German actors are not just playing generic bad guys.. Granted, the full extent of Nazi evil is not on display, but it is difficult to criticize the film for the omission.

Kelly’s Heroes certainly does not inspire any sense of patriotism, but it is a fun romp that patriots can still enjoy. It is anti-war, but not preachy. A comedic satire that has loads of action. Something for just about everyone, really. I give it my highest recommendation without trepidation.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Three Kings

2010-12-09T12:59:00.001-05:00

I do not believe there has been a quintessential Gulf War movie. I suspect after Operation Iraqi Freedom and its lingering aftermath taking precedence over the original conflict that we ever will. Three Kings is as close as we have come the cinematic representation of the war. I am willing to retract that statement if someone can convince me otherwise.

Here is why I think so--the Gulf War was a CNN/Nintendo war. I certainly do not want to detract from anyone who served in the conflict, nor do I question the merit of it. Oil runs the western world. Its free flow is vital to the gears of the planet. What I actually mean is how the war was packaged to the American public as almost a sporting event. The human factor was far removed from our eyes as we followed the Scud Stud Arthur Kent while munching pop corn on the living room couch.

At the same time, the anti-war movement, such that it was, was farcical. This was not Vietnam in which kids are running the risk of being drafted and dying while doing a job the French and South Vietnamese out to have been doing. The protests were anemic, had no soul, and were generally too late. Victory was quickly achieved.

So it is difficult to create any kind of serious satire of the Gulf War. Civilians never took it seriously, so the antiwar sentiments look ridiculous. Hence, David o. Russell, who is very clearly dead set against the war, cannot create a very compelling film about it. Without looking overly pretentious. Of course, we are talking about Russell here. He is overly pretentious.

He is also a jerk with no scruples. There are two conflicts regarding the film that are more famous than the film itself. For one, Russell took the script from writer John Ridley, rewrote it to his liking without any input from Ridley, then took his name off the finished product. The studio forced a written by credit for Ridley, but he ought to have been treated far better. Two, Russell had a big falling out with star George Clooney. The crux of their animosity involved an extra who has an epileptic seizure onset for which Russell showed indifference and another in which he allegedly assaulted another extra who was having trouble with a fight scene. Needless to say, the production was troubled.

It does not show on screen, however. I chalk that up exclusively to the cast. Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, ice Cube, and Spike Jonz are superb as regular guys thrust into a combat situation they do not fully understand. The film is worth watching just for them, particularly how they progress from joining in with Archie Gates’ (Clooney’s0 plan to steal a shipment of Kuwait gold from Iraq to learning empathy for the Iraqi refugees Saddam Hussein is now slaughtering in the post-war environment.

The film places the blame for the slaughter squarely on the shoulders of George Bush. His call for the Iraqi people to rise up was interpreted as the creation of an alliance between dissidents and the united States in a military sense. Said alliance never materialized. Yet Russell would not want the US to support such an effort, either, so what is the message he is trying to send?

I do not know and that is the problem. Three Kings is farcical, occasionally inappropriate humor interrupted by nihilistic horror. The violence is brutal, the wounds suffered by characters are savagely stomach churning, yet the comedy often borders on slapstick because of how stupid virtually every American other than Gates is. The Americans are thieves who are never true to their words, yet help save refugees from the Iraqi military. It is not a feel good story by any means.

I would probably watch it again at some point down the road, but it is largely an unpleasant experience. I get the impression it is supposed to be that way. If so, kudos to a mission accomplished. My emotions regarding the gluf war have long since faded to the point I do not care one way or the other who activist artists feel about it. The best I can muster is mild ambivalence .

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Delta Force

2010-11-25T04:50:00.000-05:00

I randomly got the whim to watch The Delta Force for the first time in at least fifteen years. I recall seeing it as a Saturday matinee in 1996 or so on a FOX station. It struck me the film might take on a different meaning in the post-9/11 era. Alas, it only took about twenty minutes of film before I remembered it is too shallow to make any kind of real statement.

The first half The Delta Force is based loosely on the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985. Some of the real events which are fictionalized for the film are the Cairo-Athens-Rome flight path, there were two hijackers with a third arrested in Athens, flying between Lebanon and Algiers to impede any rescue attempts, a German stewardess is asked to separate the Jews from the other passengers by passport names, a Navy pilot tortured, murdered, and thrown onto the tarmac, and passengers being taken off the plane and hidden in sites around Beirut.

I have mixed emotions about the first half. There is nothing wrong with a dramatization of real events, even one that comes soon after the event it dramatizes. Perspective may suffer. A lot of films like that do not age well as history reveals more of what really went on. In terms of The Delta Force, I wonder two things. One, how does Uli Derrickson, the real Flight 847 stewardess, feel about her ’portrayal? Derrickson served as translator because German was the only common language between the terrorists and any passengers, she hid the Jewish passports in an effort to save the Jews, and paid for jet fuel herself in Algiers when officials refused the terrorists’ demand for a free fill up. Two, how does the family of murdered navy diver Robert Stethem feel about how his fictional counterpart was brutalized and murdered?

The reason I wonder about those two points is not because they are presented in The Delta Force, but the second half of the movie is so bad, it cheapens what happened to the real people involved. The similarities to the TWA 847 hijacking end with a completely fictional, outrageously jingoistic war in downtown Beirut that does not elevate itself beyond Rambo-level sincerity. At one point, Chuck Norris has a fistfight with one of the escaping terrorists, then blows him up with a missile firing motorcycle. A Japanese made Suzyuki, no less. The real TWA 847 crisis ended without a rescue. The Delta Force resolves the crisis with an Entebbe like assault that plays out like a revenge fantasy. Indeed, the beginning of the film is about the failed rescue of the embassy hostages in Iran, so there is a notion from the beginning the film is making up for not kicking terrorist butt when we had the chance.

There were some bits that were laugh out loud absurd. The terrorists are incredibly tough when brutalizing hostages, but act like completely stereotypical wusses when the Delta force attacks. Not to say terrorists are necessarily tough. They are attacking unarmed civilians, after all. But it is made out to be the American military is completely invincible and the terrorists know it. I believe in the US armed forces, but come on. War is brutal. American soldiers get killed. The violence needs to be presented more seriously.

The second absurd moment is small, I suppose, but it completely destroys the tension. The Delta force has to load up nearly 200 rescued passengers onto the plane in broad daylight with both militias and civilians shooting at them. Somehow, they manage to do this. With no one getting shot, even though some passengers are elderly and/or wounded already. The delta Force are the last to get on the plane. They are in such a hurry to escape gunfire, the staircase are removed before every can get in, so some have to jump. Those on the plane dangle a rope down so the remaining stragglers can climb aboard as the plane starts rolling down the runway. Amid all this panic, a stewardess is calmly making coffee. I know it is dumb, but that is an unintentionally hilarious moment at a time when the screws ought to be tightening.

Do not even get me started on Chuck Norris’ catching up with the speeding plane on his missile equipped Suzuki and acrobatics in order to get onboard right before it takes off. I have already stopped thinking and just try to enjoy the movie long before that point. I also try not to remember this was Lee Marvin’s last film. I am certain the pain of starring in it finally killed him.

The Delta Force is a dumb action movie. It attempts to generate the same feeling of American pride in viewers as Red Dawn. It fails in that regard, but if you enjoy mindless violence and rah rah jingoism, check it out. The Delta force has a lot of red meat if that is your thing. For me, it is just a mediocre action flick. It is Shakespeare compared to its two sequels, however. But those are for (perhaps) another time.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Shallow Hal

2010-11-24T16:46:00.000-05:00

I said yesterday that Jack Black is often better as a supporting character than the main. That is not meant to be a sweeping generalization. He is up and down as the lead character, but when he is up, he flies high. Case in point is Shallow Hal, a film with some big laughs, a few awkward ones, and a strange poignancy at times.

Black plays Hal Larson, who, along with his buddy Mauricio (Jason Alexander), spends all his spare time acting like an obnoxious jerk while trying to pick up gorgeous women out of his league. Both of them are superficial and--hypocritically, if you ask me--contemptuous towards unattractive people. By accident, Hal becomes trapped in an elevator with self-help scam artist (Hush. He is.) Tony Robbins. Robbins hypnotizes Hal to see the inner beauty of people in hopes he can find true love.

The plan works. Hal begins hanging around with fat, ugly girls, whom only he sees as gorgeous. Mauricio cannot understand the change in his friend. Hal begins dating his boss’ daughter, Rosemary She is morbidly obese, but he sees her as Gweneth Paltrow. The two build a meaningful relationship together until Maurice, who wants the old Hal back, gets Robbins to break the hypnotic spell. Hal no longer recognizes rosemary. It breaks her heart to think she has been dumped.

Hal has a change of heart as he begins to recognize the outward appearance of all the beautiful people he has met under the hypnosis. He decides he loves Rosemary anyway and reconciles with her before she leaves the country on a peace Corps assignment with her old, evidently less desirable than Hal, boyfriend.

If Shallow Hal has a problem, it is that it often takes the easy way out, either for laughs or tears. The predictable fat jokes are abundant. I expect and thought quite a few were hilarious. The tugging at the heart strings was a bit much. You have to buy into the idea that every fat, unattractive, and crippled person has a heart of gold while anyone who is not like that looks normal. Looking normal in Shallow Hal means being an unsavory type on some level. That is hard to swallow. People are people, with all virtues and flaws intact. The most blatant attempt to choke the audience up is when Hal visits Rosemary as she volunteers at the hospital working with kids. He does not realize--and neither do we--until the hypnotic spell is gone the kids are horribly scarred children in the burn unit. I confess it was a poignant revelation, but they were trying too hard there. Maybe I just do not like being manipulated emotionally.

The Farrelly brothers for absurd, often offensive comedies with enough heart thrown in to usually keep them from collapsing into childish farce. They do not always succeed. Shallow Hal has its flaws, but it perhaps surprisingly hits quite a few marks. It is worth watching if you do not mind not taking a romantic comedy very seriously. Shallow Hal is not a full fledged chick flick.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

School of Rock

2010-11-23T05:07:00.000-05:00

I generally like Jack Black when he plays supporting roles. He has been uneven when he has to carry a film himself. School of Rock is one of the times he pulls off a lead role well. Black plays a man/child with a heck of a lot more brains than Adam Sandler. Therefore, he is a heck of a lot more entertaining.

Finn has no clue how to handle these prep school fifth graders, so he gives them all recess until he overhears them in music class. Realizing they have big musical talent, he turns the class into a hard rock band with full management staff behind the back of the stuffy principal, Mrs. Mullins. (Joan Cusack) finn plans to enter the kids’ band into the rock contest he was originally planning to play in with hopes of a large cash prize. The kids take to rock and roll fast, but soon Finn is discovered to be a fraud. When the principal gets rid of him, the kids decide to compete in the contest anyway, taking a now very depressed Finn along.

They lose, but an encore is demanded by the crowd. Everything predictably works out in the end. The parents forgive finn for derailing their kids’ education. Mrs. Mullins comes around. Finn is hired to run an after school music program. No harm is done. It is a trite, happy ending, but fits perfectly well with the tone of the rest of the film.

I liked School of Rock overall. The story is awfully implausible, but some of the jokes about the touchy feely, child psychology method of teaching these days were amusing. I also give kudos for letting the kids be kids without making them purposefully cute or vulgar for shock value. It is a decent, funny family movie that does not talk down to kids or bore adults. Classic rock fans have to appreciate the soundtrack and finn’s enthusiasm for what rock and roll is all about--sticking it to the Man..

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Bucket List

2010-11-22T16:21:00.003-05:00

Just a note to those of you who might be reading Apocalypse Cinema on a regular basis. If you found this review through a search engine or clicked on it out of curiosity, please skip ahead to the next paragraph. That is where the actual review of The Bucket List begins. For those of you still with me here, I had a plan to review a horror movie a day throughout the month of October. Ill health has thrown me off schedule twice to the point I would have to go nearly into December in order to finish. Frankly, I have watched other kinds of movies since September that I want to write about . I do not feel like these horror movie reviews are all that popular anyway, so I am just going to move on. There will be plenty more horror movie reviews in the future, but for now, I want more variety in what I write about.

I want to like The Bucket List. I really do. But it just tries too hard to tug on my heartstrings with both the comedic and the tearjerker moments that I feel blatantly manipulated rather than going with the narrative flow. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are great, but it feels like they have taken characters they have played in the past and put them in this film. Nicholson is the grumpy misanthrope who learns to love and find jjoy in his life. Freeman is the wizened, articulate man who has been held back in life by the social realities of when he was born. Where have they played those respective characters before? In practically every movie they have been in over the last twenty years.

Nicholson plays hospital tycoon Edward Cole, a man who cuts costs by demanding every patient share a room. When he contracts cancer, he is forced to share a room with Carter Chambers (Freeman), a terminally ill mechanic who wanted to be a history professor, but family obligations and racism stood in his way. Their relationship is naturally hostile at first. Edward does not want to share a room. He is only doing so to avoid a public relations nightmare. But the two develop a fast friendship as they struggle through their treatment and eventual discovery they are both terminal.

When carter finds out how much time he has left, he crumples up the bucket list he was writing. Such is a list of things to do before one kicks the bucket. Edward finds the crumpled list and offers to bankroll the trip to cross items off. The two set out to see the world and do incredibly dangerous things like skydiving and race car driving. Edward even hires a hooker for Carter when he discovers he has only ever been with his wife. Carter declines and asks to return home, but requests Edward reconcile with his estranged daughter as a favor to him. Their first reunion does not go well.

Carter gets the terrible news his cancer has spread to his brain. He dies on the operating table during a voice over montage that also has Edward finally winning over his daughter. The problem for me is twofold. First, a Morgan Freeman voiceover is so been there, done that at this point. He has enhanced a number of great movies by narrating them, but The Bucket List is so maudlin, it feels like the powers that be were trying too hard for sincerity. Two, there is no dialogue heard between Edward, his daughter, and granddaughter. It is left up to the imagination to figure out how he patched things up. Sometimes, that works. Here, it does not.

All the pieces are there for a great movie, but they just do not fit together. The humor gets lost in the drama--these two are dying, for heaven’s sake--while the drama often gets lost in the exaggerated effort to make the audience sad. The Bucket List cannot decide exactly what it wants to be, so it winds up being a movie you feel bad for the few times you laughed and irritated at the scenes they could have flashed Cry now across the scene and been more subtle. I am curious whether cancer patients or their families have been offended by the film. That thought ran through my mind for the final two-thirds. I assume that is not what they wanted me to take away from it.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Freaks

2010-11-19T15:45:00.002-05:00

The reputation for Freaks is legendary among film buffs. Rumored to have been banned since audiences were far too disturbed by the film’s content to remain in theaters more than a few weeks, the film was only officially banned in the United Kingdom and shelved by MGM in the United States. Nevertheless, a heavily edited version of Freaks become popular in midnight showings at various small venues. The film has since been declared culturally significant by the National Film Registry, paving the way for wider acceptance. A Dvd was released in 2004, which is what I viewed for this review.

I knew Freaks by reputation only. Cheap VHS copies had been floating around the comic book convention circuit for as long ass I had been frequenting them, but I never saw anything more than box cover art. We are talking about a time period in which I was in late elementary to junior high age, a period in which I was particularly sensitive about my disabilities and the reaction of other people to them. I was not emotionally ready fo see this sort of thing.

Now that I have, I am wondering if I or anyone else can truly be prepared to watch Freaks. It is a horrifying disturbing film which destroyed the career of director Tod Browng, a man who had worked with the great Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi, but still absolutely fascinating.

If you do not know the film by reputation, perhaps you have heard the most frequent pop cultural reference from the film--someone clapping while chanting, “One of us! One of us!” in context, it is an insult to the person being taunted because he or she is now part of an undesirable group. Most recently, Howard made this joke in reference to Penny hanging out with the geeks on The Big Bang Theory.

So what is the big issues with Freaks? There are several, actually. First, Browning cast actual deformed people to play the sideshows freaks. While the film makes an effort to humanize the deformed people, often by showing how they deal with slice of life situations, there is a highly exploitive vibe running throughout. Second, there are no redeeming characters. The general plot is that normal people are ugly on the inside, but the freaks are good. But by the end, we learn that everyone is unspeakably cruel. Finally, the ending is insanely violent even by today’s standards. I can only imagine what audiences thought in 1932.

The plot is a trapeze artist named Cleopatra and a strongman named Hercules plot to steal the dwarf’s fortune. He is smiyyen with Cleopatra,, even though she is a beautiful, tall woman. She pretends to return his love so they can get married, then poisons him once she is his wife. Pone of the freaks overhears her talking about her and Hercules’ plan to run away with the money, so the freaks plot revenge.

In the climax, the freaks attack Cleopatra and Hercules with any sharp object they can get ahold. It is strongly implied they castrate Hercules and maim Cleopatra until she becomes a freak dubbed the duck Woman herself. So they live out their days among the freaks for whom they had nothing but contempt as one of them.

There are a half dozen or so scenes in Freaks that will linger with you as aggressively as the revelation of what Victor has become in Se7en most notably, the climax, in which all sorts of deformed freaks crawl towards Hercules and Cleopatra with knives held in any way they are capable. You lose all sympathy for them subsequently because of their brutality. Hence, there are no good guys ultimately in the film.

It ends with you feeling unsettled about everything you have just seen. Yet, I recommen watching it once. Once is all you will ever need to experience this dark, dark film. if you need an expert's opinion, legend has it the Siamese twins entered the MGM cafeteria at the same time fledgling screenwriter F. Scott Fitagerald was eating lunch. Upon seeing them, Fitzgerald rushed to the bathroom to vomit. So you do not have to take my word for it alone.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Mummy

2010-11-18T02:12:00.000-05:00

Since I covered Universal’s The Mummyyesterday, I thought the Hammer version from 1959 would be an interesting choice for comparison. Upon viewing, I note that, like the Frankenstein series, Hammer takes its update into a startlingly different direction which does not quite resonate as well as Universal’s Frankenstein or Dracula films.

The plot is remarkably similar to the 1932 original. An ancient Egyptian has the hots for a woman destined to be given to the main Egyptian god. Being the devout sort of guy who does not want to tick off the powers that be, he lets his love go until after her death because he thinks her obligation will have ended by then. ‘til death do we part and all that good stuff. It turns out he is wrong. When he is caught in her tomb trying to bring her back to life, he is buried alive to serve as her protector for all eternity.

The film shift gears from the original when the mummy is revived in modern day London to be used as an instrument of revenge by an Egyptian angry that British archeologists have robbed a tomb of sacred artifacts. Whereas Boris Karloff was far more subtle, spending most of the original film as the sinister Imhotep going about his plan, This mummy is Jason Vorhees’ grand pappy. He beats down doors, snaps bones, and generally messes people up.

Is it fun to watch? Yes. Is there anything particularly interesting about it? No, not unless you count the subtle attempt to mirror the mummy to the hero, played, of course, by the great Peter Cushing. The mummy has a slow, painful gait. So does Cushing.. His is the result of suffering a broken leg which was not set properly. But the dichotomy does not go any deeper than that, so whatever the filmmakers were aiming for, they missed as far as I am concerned. Perhaps a wiser head than mine can decipher the nuance.

Speaking of nuance, Christopher Lee does a good job with playing the mummy. He is essentially a silent golem with his face mostly covered by bandages, so it is not easy to give the character a personality as he goes on his killing spree, but Lee pulls it off.

Alas, Lee is no Karloff. That is not a knock on Lee. No one is Karloff when it comes to portraying monster. I said above universal and hammer took their franchises in different directions in order to distinguish their brands. Hammer’s mummy is the least of the franchises to me. For Hammer, Frankenstein is more a psychological study of Dr. Frankenstein. For Dracula, Lee creates a dark character often more frightening than Bela Lugosi. But the mummy turns out to be a less bloody precursor the the Friday the 13th/Halloween/Nightmare on Elm Street flicks on the late ’70’s-80’s. Ther movie does not rely as much on gore, but there is not as much cleverness in it, either.

The Mummy is fun to watch, but disappointing compared to what Hammer has done with other franchises.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Mummy

2010-11-17T17:06:00.003-05:00

I am a big Boris Karloff fan. So have many other film buffs over the decades, so much so that Karloff was often billed only as Karloff the Uncanny. The Mummy, which was a big hit, but not considered as fondly as Karloff’s Frankenstein, is nevertheless a personal favorite.

An archeological expedition uncovers the tomb of Imhotep, a high priest who was buried alive 3,700 years ago. Imhotep, wrapped up tight as a mummy, is accidentally awakened by an archeologist who inadvertently reads an incantation from a scroll. The archeologist goes mad upon seeing the revived mummy as the creature heads off into the desrt.

Imhotep returns a decade later, sans wrappings, with plans to revive his main squeeze. She is now an exhibit at the Cairo Museum. His effort at reviving her fails. He then realizes her soul has departed the shell of her corpse. It now resides in the body a beautiful, young socialite Helen Grosvenor. Grosvenor is played by the lovely Broadway actress Zita Johan.n Johann ranks right up there with Thelma Todd in classic Hollywood beauty in my book.The only way to be reunited with his true love is to mummify Grosvenor, then bring her back with the same incantation that originally revived him. The archeologists discover his true identity and destroy the appropriate scroll, turning him to dust before he can mummify Grosvenor.

I may not enjoy most of what passes for horror these days, but I really dig the classics. As such, The Mummy is one of my all-time favorites. I cannot say the script is full of surprises. It predictably goes from point A to B to C, in fact. But the journey is still good fun. Karloff is great as usual. His make up job as the mummy is quite impressive. Rumor is it took eight hours a day to put on and was incredibly painful to remove. I believe it. It looks like a perfect blend of skin and bandages. Exactly what you would expect from a nearly 4,000 year old corpse.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Gremlins

2010-11-16T12:23:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, we saw what happened to Zack Galligan when the Gremlins money finally ran out. He was forced to star in Waxwork Let us see how he earned that cash in the first place.

Gremlins is a classic 80’s movies and one of the favorites from my childhood. Is there anyone my age who did not want a Mogwai > We all swore we could handle the rules of owning one a heck of a lot better than Billy did. Even if they were rather illogical. I cannot feed one after midnight? Okay, but when can I serve him breakfast? When does the prohibition end? What if I cross the International Date Line? How do I clean him if he cannot get wet? You never know what these critters might get into.

Okay, I am anal. I think about these things. Fortunately, I think about them more in 2010 than I did in 1984, so I have a lot of fond nostalgia to make up for some of the logical issues.

Randall Peltzer, played oddly enough by Hoyt Atkins, buys his son a Mogwai, a strange little ball of fur, from a Chinese curiosity shop over the owner’s protests. Billy takes to the critter enthusiastically in spite of being warned of the dare consequences of getting him wet, feeding him after midnight, or exposing him to light.

Naturally, all three of those things happen as the movie progresses. When Gizmo, as Billy names it, gets wet, he spawns a group of hellion Mogwai who wreak mischievous havoc. When they trick Billy into feeding them after midnight by cutting the wire to his clock, they become far more sinister creatures who terrorize the town before being destroyed in the climax.

The film is wonderfully paced. We get to know and like Gizmo enough to want a Mogwai ourselves, but the one accident of him getting wet snowballs the entire story into an increasingly violent black comedy. There is brutal mauling, a microwaved gremlin, decapitated gremlin, and a final confrontation between Billy and a gremlin that used to scare the heck out of me as a tyke. I still jumped at the final bit watching the movie again 26 years later.

The violence prompted the MPAA to revamp its ratings system a couple moths after the film’s release. The revamp lead to the Pg-13 rating, which is an effort to keep kids from seeing unusually violent material. It has worked out really well for them over the years.

I will admit for a movie aimed at a younger audience, the violence is pretty graphic. There is a lot of comedic elements to temper things, such as the stereotypical mean old lady being launched out a window by a malfunctioning stair lift, but the body count and the means by which they are killed is most impressive. I have already mentioned the horrific final confrontation.

Some of the stop motion effects are awfully dated, but Gremlins is still a fun view today. Phoebe Cates in her heyday as Billy’s girlfriend Kate is also a joy to behold. And yes, that is Howie Mandel “voicing” Gizmo. That is also Tom Bergeron as a TV news reporter. Watch for producer Steven Spielberg as a man in an electric wheelchair. But do watch. Gremlins is a sometimes gruesome, but always fun classic

I have to note the allegations of racism that have plqued the film over the years. Some have claimed the final, most evil version of gremlins were a negative steretype of blacks. They ate fried chicken, listened to loud music, break danced, and were generally unruly and perverted--all racost stereotypes of blacks. If one is attwempting to see that sort of thing in it, then yes, it looks that way.

But I highly doubt producers of a big budget film would purposefully do something so malicious that would risk their reputations and box office success. And really, producer Speilberg has created such positive black themed films like The Color Purple and Amistad. I do not believe accusations of racism have any merit.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Waxwork

2010-11-15T09:29:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, we hit the horror/crime genre with From Dusk ‘til dawn. Today, he hit the horror/comedy/genre with Waxwork. True fans of horror, which I am not, would dare not include Waxwork among horror films, even within the cheesy flicks of the late ’80’s era. I will grant them Waxwork is a Goosebumps script with some minor gore and BDSM (!) thrown in to elevate it beyond kiddie fare, but it is still an enjoyable film to watch.

Right off the bat, the film loses credibility because of its leads. Waxwork’s hero is Mark, played by Zach Galligan after the Gremlins money ran out, and Sarah, played by Deborah Foreman of Valley Girl fame. So that is two early ’80’s icons relegated to a low budget escape from a wax museum with living exhibits.

Poor foreman has the longest fall. she is part of the most memorable sequence in the film which involves a long, barebacked whipping from the Marquis de Sade, for whom she winds up developing a strange attraction. Women suffering degradation in horror films is nothing unusual, but what I dismaying here is that she never earns any revenge or redemption. Sarah is rescued by Mark, but as she came to enjoy the torture, she does not want to leave. He snatches her up, anyway. Definite proof the screenwriter is a guy who knows very few real women.

The plot is pretty straightforward. A wax museum appears over night in a small town. Local kids go inside and discover they can enter the exhibits where they will be transported to another dimension in which the exhibit is real. Unfortunately, the exhibits are all classic horror displays, from Dracula to pods from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The kids have to rescue missing friends and find their way out while dealing with Sarah’s newfound fascination with being tied up and whipped.

What ensues is a predictable romp. It is mostly tame kills as far as horror films go, but there is the occasional impressive bit of gore. The perverts out there will probably dig Sarah’s ordeal. It is cleaned up enough she has no markings from the beating, nor does she react appropriately to the punishment she is supposedly suffering. But the sequence lasts a good ten minutes with other scenes interspersed to ratchet up the tension. For better or worse, it is what you will takee away from the film as a whole.

Waxwork is trite fun. I thought, as a non-horror fan, it was fun, but not anything special. I would not even call it a comedy. There were few laughs. Most of those were at the absurdity of it all. They might as well have made it a time travel movie in which Mark has to rescue Sarah from the Marquis de Sade, all things considered.

Ratings: *** (out of 5)

From Dusk 'til Dawn

2010-11-14T09:53:00.001-05:00

From ‘til Dawn is the first Quentin Tarantino film to show up on Apocalypse Cinema. Not the most auspicious film to start with, but I am certain many more Tarantino offerings with appear before it is all said and done. I have to bow to my 31 horror film reviews plan, which has already been thrown for a loop enough already.

The movie is a collaboration between director Robert Rodriguez and writer Quentin Tarantino. I have mixed feelings about Rodriguez as a filmmaker. He runs hot and cold for me. But Tarantino’s contributions, save for his acting, are classic Tarantino. The cynical sensibilities, the crisp, rapid dialogue, and excessive violence are all present. Why his turn as the psychotic Richie Gecko is so lacking is anyone’s guess, but he is the worst character in the film.

From Dusk ’til Sawn begins as a typical criminals on the run flick, with George Clooney and Tarantino playing Seth and Richie Gecko, bank robbers who are forced to kill a convenience store clerk and a Texas police officer during their escape. When they stop into a motel in order to plan their escape to Mexico where they will meet their contact, it is revealred they have taken a bank teller hostage. When left alone with her, Richie, the most psychotic of the brothers, rapes and murders her.

Now more desperate than ever to flee the country, the Geckos hijack an RV driven by a pastor and his two children. The pastor is suffering from a crisis of faith since his wife was brutally killed in a random car accident--an act of God, so to speak. The pastor is played to the hilt by Harvey Keitel and is one of my favorite characters in the film. His daughter, Kate, played by Juliette Lewis is near the top, too. A typically rebellious preacher’s kid, she is fascinated by the dangerous Seth.

They make it across the border and to the bar where they are to meet their contact. It is when the sun goes down the movie transforms from a crime to action/horror film. The bart is a haven for vampires. Everyone is forced to battle the bloodsuckers until sunlight can seep through the numerous bullet holes left by the gunfire in the morning. By then, only Seth and kate are left alive.

Is there anything special about this film? No, not really. It is quite straightforward in both its action and horror parts. It is still highly entertaining if you have a penchant for both genres. They do not exactly go together like chocolate and peanut butter, but it is a good time if you do not think about it too much. From Dusk ’til Dawn is a grind house homage not meant to be a great film. But it is still an amusing little flick.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Fly

2010-11-13T08:13:00.002-05:00

To go from the classic original version of The Fly yesterday to the 1986 gross out directed by David Cronenberg is quite a fall. The things we do in the name of cinema criticism.

Beyond the building of teleportation devices which a brilliant scientist uses on himself and an unfortunate fly who happened to get caught in with him, the movie bears little resemblance to the original in either plot or entertainment value. Geena Davis’ bare breasts do not make up for the film’s obvious intent, which is to gross out, rather than entertain, the audience. Mission accomplished.

From Brundle Fly’s physical deterioration, to his barfing on food in order to eat it, to a dream sequence in which Davis gives birth to a larvae, to Brundle Fly finally getting his head blown off in full, gloriously bloody explosion, >The Fly exists for no other reason than to make your seat while biting your lower lip to keep from barfing yourself.

It is not just that. Lord bless him, Jeff Goldblum solidifies his motif as the stuttering brilliant, eccentric scientist, but Seth Brundle has no charm whatsoever. He is a paranoid alcoholic who screws up his experiment because he is suspicious Veronica (Davis) is about to go back to her old lover. Veronica is not all that great, either. Call personal ax grinding, but her immediate decision to get an abortion after the dream sequence mentioned above is a huge knock against her.

Critics who view The Fly positively have made two points in its favor. One, it is an allegory for the AIDS “epidemic” of the time. I can how they think that. While I am sympathetic to AIDS victims, there is no fire in my belly over the issue, so the poignancy is lost on me. Two, the film played off the real budding romance between Goldblum and Davis. With that in mind, it must not have been much of a relationship. Considering Davis is now married to Remy Harlin, I think I have a point. Neither of these are selling points as far as I am concerned.

Pkay, so I do not like the film. The only point I will give in its favor is the special effects. The make up jobs are disgusting, but done very well. Fans of gore fests may think this is a classic film, but there is nothing in it for me.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Fly

2010-11-12T07:38:00.001-05:00

The original 1958 version of The Fly may very well be the greatest film in the science fiction/horror genre. It is effectively scary because of what it does and does not show, but it is also one of, if not the, best written films of the genre.

The story is told in flashback, as widow Helene Delamber explains how her scientist husband, Francois, lost his head and arm in a hydrolic press. The cops do not buy her story that it was suicide, so she is about to be nailed for murder.

The truth is her husband invented teleportation devices that worked, but a fly was caught in with him, so their atoms were mixed. Francois has the head and arm of a fly. Somewhere out there, there is a fly with the mini-head and arm of Vincent Price. Francois tries to keep his deformity a secret from Helene and the audience by wearing a hood.

Francois thinks he can reverse the process if the fly can be found, but the search takes too long. While Francois maintains his intelligence and, more poignantly, his love for Helene, the fly’s instincts begin taking over until he sees no choice but to die. He convinces Helene he is a hopeless case , so she uses the press to kill him.

For a science fiction film of the era, the scene in which Francois convinces Helene to put him out of his misery is quite moving. His death is enormously horrific, as well, largely because it is largely left up to the imagination. We are left to wonder what it must be like to have one’s head and arm crushed because it is not shown. These days, blood would have slpattered everywhere, particularly on Helene. Remember kids, true horror is implied, not shown.

That said, let me contradict myself. The following scene in which the fly with Francois’ head and arm trapped in a spider web about to be devoured is a masterpiece of terror. Something like that could not have been effectively implied. The imagination could not have pictured the man/fly hybrid as horrific as it was. The police detective kills both the fly hybrid and the spider with a rock, then alters the facts to save Helene and himself from murder raps.

Simply put, The Fly is one of the best science fiction/horror films of all time. Vincent price is at his best, the script is unusually tight and emotional for a ’50’s science fiction film, and even the special effects hold up today. It is a masterpiece.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

The Gorgon

2010-10-23T18:52:00.001-04:00

I started this Halloween list by crowding in some Hammer Films. I am generally a fan, when in the right mood, of their interpretations of my preferred Universal filmed monsters. Occasionally, Hammer took a step away from the traditional Dracula and Frankenstein to feature some lesser known critters. Hence, we have The Gorgon here.

If you are not familiar, a Gorgon is a snake headed creature who will turn you to stone if you look at her. Think Medusa. You should think too much about the Gorgon for this film, though. The wig of rubber snakes is laughably pathetic. At least the powers that be knew it. Every effort I made to keep her in the shadows, to imply rather than show directly. It is quite effective, all things considered. But make no mistake--the gorgon is the worst aspect of the film.

One interesting touch is that victims do not automatically turn to stone. The process takes about an hour or so. Characters have time to further the plot with exposition and emote about the tragedy of their fate. At least that appears to be the main purpose. The Gorgon herself is going after the members of a certain family in some streak of revenge. Peter Cushing, as the town doctor, os altering the death certificates in order to hide her rampage.

Cushing is playing the villain to Christopher Lee’s good guy professor, who isa friend an protector of the family. The interplay between these two is always great, but it isstrange that Lee does ot show up until halfway through the film in order to play the hero. It violates conventional wisdom is have the hero come in so late and it did bug me. Though not as much as the goofy looking Gorgon.

Those two strikes take The Gorgon down a couple pegs. I thought it was entertaining in spite of some flaws, but not a classic. Hammer definitely did traditional Universal monster much better.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Creepshow II

2010-10-22T03:31:00.001-04:00

The moderate box office success of Creepshow allowed for a cheaper, more scaled down sequel to be released in 1987. There are only three stories this time around, cut down from the planned five because of budgetary restrictions. The budget also limited the number of high profile actors who would appear. Nevertheless, Creepshow II is Dorothy Lamour’s final film.

Yeah. Sad end to an otherwise great career.

“Old Chief Wood’nhead”

Also like the original, the first segment is the weakest. It is a straightforward revenge flick as a wooden Indian outside an old couple’s store comes to life and scalps a group of sadistic hooligans who torture and murder them after robbing the store. The young guys robbing the place are more vicious than Chief Wood’nhead, but the special effects are pretty neat, considering the budget.

“The Raft”

Tis segment makes the film for me. It may be my favorite out of all eight. A group o sprig break vacationers go to a remote lake. They find a wooden raft floating out in the middle, so they swim out to it. One of tem spots what appears to be a living oil slick approaching the raft. It reaches up between the cracks and grabs each one of them, dragging them into itself. The final kid thinks he has escaped when he buys enough time to make it to shore by sacrificing his girlfriend, but he as not. “The Raft“ definitely as the best ending of all eight segments.

“The Hitchhiker”

A lady hits a hitchhiker on a remote road while going home, but dries off in order to save herself from a murder wrap. Not tat the guy is actually dead. He keeps turning up, either in front of or on her car, while progressively more mangled and bloodied as she fights him off with her car. I cannot do just in writing how chilling his repeated, “Tanks for the ride, lady! Thanks for the ride!” You can probably guess where and how this one ends.

I am not as big a fan of Creepshow Ii as I am the original. This one does not feel like it was done as the lovingly homage to EC Comics the first is. The lower budget is clearly evident. With only three stories, the flaws carry more weight. “The Raft” makes the Film.” The other two are nothing special, save for that incredibly disturbing, “Thanks for the ride, lady! Thanks for the ride!” A disappointment overall.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Creepshow

2010-10-21T02:57:00.002-04:00

I am a big comic book enthusiast. My tastes run more towards super heroics and science fiction, but any panelologist worth his salt holds the classic EC Comics horror titles in high regard. Said comics inspired Stephen King ad George A Romero to create tis darkly humorous box of poison bon bons as an homage to those comics of yore.

As I have said before, I am not a big fan of 80’s slasher flicks that relied exclusively on blood, gore, ad the occasional bouncing pair of boobs to sell tickets. Creepshow is a major exception. There is more than enough blood and gore to go around, but it is the clever stories and gruesome plot twists just like EC comics like make this my favorite modern day horror flick.

There are five separate stories:

“Father’s Day”

The first story is the weakest of the bunch. It is a revenge tale about a daughter driven to madness by the death of her husband. He was killed by her father, so she takes revenge by killing him. Daddy dearest return from the grave and makes her severed head the centerpiece of his father’s day cake. “father’s Day’ relies too much on gore to be interesting.

“The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”

Written by and starring Stephen King, this one is a classic. Jordy, a lonely not too bright hick, gets infected by outer space kudzu when he touches a crashed meteorite out in the desert. His imagination runs wild as he is slowly covered by the stuff. The horror of this one is accentuated by Jordy’s dumb reaction to his own plight. It is bot funny and terrifying that he does not understand any of what is happening to him.

I defy you to not shout, “Meteor sh*t!” every time you accidentally et something on your hand after watching tis segment.

“Something to Tide You Over”

This one stuc with me more than ay other. It is revenge plot involving Leslie Neilson burying two people up to their necks on the beach, then letting them slowly drown as the tide comes in. The two including Ted Danson, return as undead creatures who bury Neilson in the same manner. But it is not the zombies that keep this one fresh in your mind. It is the claustrophobia of being buried up to your neck and the fear of drowning that get you.

“The Crate”

‘The Crate” may well be the bloodiest horror story I have ever seen. A college professor discovers a monster trapped in a crate. He uses the creature to dispatch his annoying, uncouth wife. There is more blood in this than a Red Cross storage unit. It is unsettling, but intriguing viewing.

“They’re Creeping Up on You”

A Howard Hughes type mycophobic who is killed when his hermetically sealed apartment is over run by cockroaches. I do not have a particular bug phobia, but I am told by many who have seen this film this segment creeps them out the most. To each his own disturbances, I suppose.

I love this movie. It is certainly not one to dive into if you cannot handle ’80’s horror or are unfamiliar with the tone of EC comics stories. Even HBO’s Tales from the Crypt seven years later was tamer tan Creepshow.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Black Cat

2010-10-20T22:18:00.000-04:00

I am both a fan of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi horror films as well as an ailulophile, so I figured this film would be right up my alley. My suspicions were correct. I liked this one a lot, even tough Lugosi‘s character, who suffers from a near paralyzing fear of cats, kills Karloff’s cat with a knife. Gruesome happenings for a 1934 film.

The interesting twist about this film, other than it bearing no resemblance whatsoever to the Edgar Allen Poe that supposedly inspired it, is that Lugosi is a good guy. He is a World War I veteran who has come to Europe to confront te mn who stole his wife. That would be Karloff, who is a brilliant architect and Satanist. Not necessarily in that order, of course.

While on a Lugosi meets an young American couple. They are the stereotypical innocents abroad. Their “aw, shucks” demeanor is annoying even for the time period. But they serve as a means to get us to like Lugosi. He is a charming fellow who befriends them both. He winds up reluctantly taking them to Karloff’s house when an accident injures the girl.

Karloff, as a High Priest of Satan, wants to sacrifice the girl as he did Lugosi’s wife, whom we discover as a corpse in the dungeon.. Lugosi does not get much credit for being a fine actor, but when he sees his dead wife, you can literally see his soul die. Having no soul is convenient, too, considering what he does to Karloff in revvege.

Lugosi does save the girl. He wagers her life on the outcome of a chess game. But that is irrelevant compared to what he does to Karloff. Lugosi makes a ritualistic sacrifice of Karloff. The deed is done mostly in the shadows, ut it is disturbingly sadistic even by today’s standards.

I love this movie. You can feel the tension between the two actors as their characters spar with one another. There I some dispute as to whether the pair had a friendly rivalry or truly did dislike one another. Whichever the case, the raw emotion helps make The Black Cat a classic.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

The Mephisto Waltz

2010-10-19T21:25:00.000-04:00

The Mephisto Waltz used to be o heavy rotation at odd hours during the early, much more interesting days of the Sci F Channel. I watched it once or twice back then, mostly because I was amazed Alan Alda would star in such a thing. How one goes from this to MASH is beyond me. I see now after watching the DVD quite a bit of interesting stuff was edited out of the televised version. By lots of interesting stuff, I mean Jacqueline Bissett stark naked.

Frankly, the movie drags on and on. About halfway through, you have figured out the entire plot and are just waiting for the film to hit its marks. And for Bissette to take off her clothes again.

Alda plays a failed musician who has resorted to journalism to make a living. When he gets a call from a famous, aging pianist granting an interview, Alda jumps at the chance. The old man takes a disturbing interest in the two. He befriends Alda while encouraging him to resume his piano playing.

Here is the catch--the old pianist and all his friends are bona fide Satan worshippers. To make sure the audience gets the message, they throw a party featuring a do with a human face. If that does not convince you of their devotion to old scratch, the ol man has sex with his daughter to punctuate the affair. the whole deal is the pianist is on the ere of death, so he wants to transfer his soul into Alda’s body. Which he successfully does well into the film.

This is when The Mephisto Waltz loses it way in reams of exposition and a meandering affair Bisset engage in with another man. If you have to explain your movie so flat out, you have not done a good job with the narrative. As for adding te affair to the story--I do not now. Maybe it is an excuse for Bisset to take off her clothes again? It is not worth complaining too much about, with that in mind.

In spite of the dragging, the ending has always freaked me out. Bisset, realizing it is not her husband inhabiting his body any longer, decides she wants him anyway. So she stries a deal with Satan, too. She takes over the daughter’s body so the two can continue o as lovers. I kid thee not. A happy ending with a Satanic twist.

The Mephisto Waltz is fairly typical of low budget Hollywood’s flirtation with real Satanism in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. it tries to make up for the cheap budget with shock value--dogs with human faces, incest, dead children, weird nightmare sequences, and pacts with the devil. But unless you are a hue fan of the genre, which I am not, it falls flat.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Omega Man

2010-10-18T19:09:00.001-04:00

You have heard me say this before, and you will definitely hear me say it again, but The Omega Man is a film I watched at an age far too young to be watching something like it. An indelible impression was left. It is low budget shlock, but a sentimental favorite. It is easily the best adaptation of Richard Matheson’s novel I Am Legend out of Vincent Price’s Last Man on Earth The Omega Man, Will smith’s inexplicably 2007 big hit, the only one to carry the original title.

None of the films are particularly faithful to Matheson’s novel. The Omega Man is more a product of its era than anything else. Charlton Heston plays Robert Neville, a scientist who appears to be the only survivor of a biological war which has wiped out humanity. Neville spends his days cruising around the ruins of Lo Angeles in the far flung future of 1975 by day, but by night, he has to hold up in a barricaded luxury sky rise apartment in order to avoid being killed by a group of albino mutants. They consider Neville as reminder of the corrupt society which created them. So he has to die.

The first third of the film is the est. You watch Neville desperately try to hold onto his sanity by maintaining as much normalcy as possible. He is safe I the daylight. Ut contrat that with night, when the mutants come out and completely devote themselves to lurig him out of his sanctuary. It is a nerve-racking terrifying existence. It is to the extremes of both lonely and suffocating, depending on the time of the day.

The film begins to drift one Neville is captured by the mutants. He is rescued by Rosalind Cash, who plays a giant Afro sporting radical feminist while delivering some o the most dated black power slogans this side of Good Tmes. The two begin an implausible romance which would brig the film to a screeching halt if the appearance of more survivors and incredibly heavy imagery of Neville as Jesus did not already beat it to the punch.

The Omega Man is worth seeing for its atmosphere. It does produce the appropriate emotional response remarkably well for a low budget picture for the first bit. But the film falls apart pretty quickly amid some of the sillier aspects of the sunshade wearing mutants and all the jive turkey comments from cash. It was probably cool in 1971. Perhaps even a serious cautionary tale about the dangers of total war. But it has definitely lost something in the last 39 years.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Mad Love

2010-10-17T18:12:00.001-04:00

Mad Love is the great Peter Lorre’s American film debut. What a beginning to a career that will pair him up with Humphrey Bogart and give him his own detective series.in Mad Love, he cuts a brilliant, but tragic figure. He plays Dr. Golgol, a brilliant surgeon who has, as is noted, saved countless children and maimed soldiers in his career. But Golgol has been cursed with a short, stocky frame with a bald head and bulging eyes. He may appear to have it all, but the one thing perpetually out of his reach is true love. He is just too darn freakish.

His behavior has much to do with that. When we first meet him, e distending a theater performance by Yvonne Orlac, played by the scrumptious Frances Drake, for the fortieth night in a row. He is carrying a torch for her desperately. On this night, he finally meets her face to face after sending gifts. The meeting does not result in her falling in love. In fact, he feels patronized. What is worse, he learns she is married to a gifted pianist. So she is totally out of his grasp anyway.

Gogol sees his chance to win her over when her husband’s hands are crushed in a train accident. He secretly transplants the hands of a recently executed knife murderer onto his body after every doctor has advised amputation instead. Performing the ‘miracle” of saving her husband’s hands still does not impress her. Gogol descends even further into madness. He now wants to frame her husband for murder.

The plan becomes extraordinarily easy to pull off as the man egins demonstratig an expertise with throwing knives and a growing temper. Gogol meets the man one night after he thinks he has murdered his father over an argument about money. Gogol is wearing the disguise pictured above. He claims to be the knife murderer with is ead reattached by Gogol, but metal hands in the place of those attached to the pianist husband. Their confrontation is theocracies bit in the film. It really makes the whole movie.

Not that Mad Love is not packed with such moments. Gogol has a conversation with himself in a mirror to represent the conflict between his sane and insane selves. He also talks to a wax stature of Yvonne he stole from the theater. He keeps it upstairs I his home and talks to it frequently. The husband’s new found penchant for knife throwing factors into the climax in a surprising way.

Mad Love is genuinely terrifying, particularly for 1935. The scary parts are contrasted by infrequent, but effective comic relief. Te bits usually involve Golgol’s alcoholic housekeeper, who is completely oblivious to everything that is going on around her. She appears to only be aware of the parrot perpetually perched on her shoulder. Te rest are from Ted Healey, who plays a journalist digging for the whole story. You may recall Healey was originally teamed with The Three Stooges in Vaudeville before they struck out on their own.

I loved this film. For me, this was what horror is all about. No blood orguts, just tightening the screws as horrible things happen to people in seemingly ordinary situations. Mad Love runs at a very brisk pace, so some may feel like the story is not well developed. That is an unfair criticism considering how quickly you get the feel for the characters. No onw in the film is a particularly good or bad person, so you have mixed emotions about the thins that apen to tem. Watch the film, and you will be transfixed on trying to decide with whom you sympathize. You will not notice the too quick time jumps. In fact, you will have an 9u)righteously good time.

Rating; ***** (out of 5)

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

2010-10-16T17:29:00.001-04:00

Frankenstein must Be Destroyed is often cosidered the most compelling of the Hammer Films featuring the character, but I am afraid I must defer from popular opinion. The two main themes of the film, the tracing of a brain transplant from plot to completion ad the preservation of genius rather than the creation of life, are well executed, but not really knew within the series.

In a spectacularly odd sequence, Frankenstein defends his laboratory against a thief by fighting him off while wearing a grotesque mask. Weird, but highly effective. Frankenstein opts to move to a safer place for his experiments, so he moves into the cellar of Anna Spengler, your typical buxom blonde. Frankenstein learns her fiance, a doctor at the asylum, as been stealing drugs and selling them in order to support his future mother-in-law. He uses the knowledge to blackmail Dr. Karl Holst into serving as his assistant.

The brain transplant is successful. The monster is not a lumbering, misunderstood creature this time around, but an intelligent, yet tragic figure. Before his finale confrontation with Frankenstein, he tells off his wife for being the cold, heartless woman she was in his previous life. The monster is no less psychtic, in spite of Frankenstin’s best efforts. It sets the house o fire and gives Frankenstein a choice--fire or the police.

I am still less enthused with Frankenstein Must be Destroyed than the two previous films in the series. Peter Cushing is great in his third turn as Frankenstein, but I feel like the character was deeper and more interesting in the previous two. But there is nothing new. It is not a bad movie, but it taes the best elements of its predecessors and combines them Such may satisfy many fans, but I was let down.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

The Revenge of Frankenstein

2010-10-15T16:40:00.000-04:00

There will be a bit of change of plans for the horror movie theme throughout October. I was just released from the hospital after a lengthy stay, so I have not had the opportunity to view, muc less review, the movies I have lined up. I am still going to do them, but the horror movie theme is going to spill into November rather than end on Halloween. Not a big deal, ut it is not as neat as originally planned. Such is the way things go.

The Revenge of Frankenstein is Hammer films second turn with peter Cushig as Baron Victor Frankenstein. Once again, the emphasis is on Frankenstein rather than his monstrous creation. The opening scenes set the tone, as Frankenstein is headed for the guillotine as he was at the end of The Curse of Frankenstein. Someone is executed, though we do not know who. The next scene is of two thieves I a tavern. One dares the other to rob the grave of a recently deceased baron. When they open the grave, they find a priest, not the expected Frankenstein.

Three years pass. Frankenstein, living under an assumed name, has two thriing medical practices. One is for the wealthy, who get the utmost care. The other is for the poor, who wind up having limbs amputated at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, e is the most popular doctor I town. The local association of doctors is not thrilled, so they visit to either force him to join, or shut down his practice.

The meeting is not productive for them, but one doctor stays behind. He knows who Frankenstein really is and blackmails to become his assistant. Frankenstein shows him the experients he is working on. Most involve severed limbs, of course. The masterpiece plan is to place the brai of a brilliant, but crippled colleague into a new body.

The operation appears to be success, util the poor guy is attacked by the janitor one night and kills him in self-defense. Looking at the corpse, he has a complication to eat it. Cannibalism is one heck of a side effect to brain transplant surgery, no? He lumers off to find Frankenstein to ask for help. Unfortunately, he blows Frankenstein’s true idetty in the process.

The Revenge of Frankenstein is an interesting film because it develops the character of Frankenstein. He changes from the first film. He is much more demented here than in The Curse of Frankenstein. Why should he not be? He escaped death only to become a hero to future patients, and made a scientific breakthrough only to have it blow up in his face at the most inopportune time. His journey into madness is very well done for a low budget Hammer Film.

In many ways, I like The Revenge of Frankenstein better than The Curse of Frankenstein even though the original monster, whom I am usually the most intrigued by, is no where to be seen. It is a fine character study of Frankenstein well worth seeing. The cannibalism bit comes from out of left field, but there was a gore quota to be filled, I suppose.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Curse of Frankenstein

2010-10-04T04:04:00.001-04:00

While I started thee horror movie reviews with Dracula and there will be plenty more vampires to come, Frankenstein as always been my favorite horror movie staple. I have always enjoyed the religion versus science undertones as well as the exploration of what it means to be different, misunderstood, and lonely. You do not get that with any of the Dracula stories.

I enjoy both the universal and Hammer Films interpretations of Frankenstein. They are markedly different. The Universal series are more about the alienation of the Frankenstein Monster, albeit with decreasing quality as the film series progressed. The Hammer Films emphasize Baron Frankenstein’s obsession in reanimating life and increasing evil. Universal’s version is a much more humanitarian type. Taken together, both series pint a fascinating picture that no filmmaker, in my humble opinion, at least, has ever combined effectively I one film. Perhaps if someone ever lets me make a movie myself.

Peter Cushing, Grand Moff Tarkin himself, plays the demented Baron Frankenstein very effectively. In an interesting twist that allows us to not stray too far from the previous films reviewed, the Monster is played by Christopher Lee. It is difficult to tell that is him under all that make above, but it is. You will also note the make up job insignificantly different from what you would normally visualize in your mind’s eye. Universal had exclusive rights to the traditional design and only allowed hammer Films to use a similar make up scheme once its series of Frankenstein films had died off. I like the Hammer Films version better. Perhaps it is blasphemy, but the Hammer Films version looks far more like a reanimated corpse than the giant, square headed green giant.

The story is told in flashback as Baron Frankenstein relates his exploits to a priest while in prison. Frankenstein and his assistant successfully brought a do back to life. The assistant is ecstatic and wants to present their findings to a medical convention. Frankenstein has loftier ambitions. He wants to use human body parts instead of canine..

Frankenstein’s quest to gather the body parts is a gruesome endeavor. He takes much of them from a hanged man on the allows. The brain he takes from a professor. The brain is damaged in a scuffle, so when the Monster comes to life, he is instead psychotically violent rather than an intellectual.

The Monster escapes from Frankenstein twice before he is ultimately destroyed by falling into a vat of acid. One has to wonder if it was the real monster, however, since Frankenstein murders his maid who wants her to marry him because she is carrying his child and threatens to go to the police an tell all about his experiments if he does not. It is for her murder he winds up in jail, set to be executed.

The Curse of Frankenstein began Hammer Films’ revival of gothic horror films in 1957 because of its popularity with moviegoers. Critics, on the other hand, hated the film because of its excessive violence and deviation from the 1931 Universal original. I have already addressed my thoughts on the differing perspectives of the two series above. If you area Frankenstein purist, you may not like the Hammer Films version. It is definitely more for those who like true horror films rather than an existential look at the human tendency to fear that which is different. I am very much into the latter myself, but cannot dismiss the entertaining virtues of what The Curse of Frankenstein set into motion.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Devil Rides Out

2010-10-03T20:50:00.002-04:00

Out of Christopher Lee’s vast body of work, he cites The Devil Rides Out as his personal favorite. That sounds like an peculiar choice until you consider he timeshare turn as the protagonist. Thus the movie stands out among the usual lee fare. Ut it stands out for the best of reasons.

The Devil Rides Out is based on a novel by Dennis Wheatley. It had a perilous journey from novel to screen because of censorship fears regarding its blatant satanic content. After watching, I have to say it is some pretty tame stuff by today’s standards. Nothing would merit an Iron Maiden album cover. Still, I can recognize how it might have upset audiences in a more innocent time. Then I lament for the briefest of moments how unaffected my jaded soul is by it.

I would call the film more of an action film than horror. Lee plays Duc de Richlieau, a man investigating the strange behavior of his friend’s son, Simon. He suspects Simon has fallen in with the Occult. He is correct. Simon is an acolyte of Satanist Mocata, played menacingly by the future Blofeld and Crminologist himself, Charles Gray. De Richlieau has to match wits with Mocata and his followers through, whom he has a hypnotic spell over a night of satanic rituals, a giant tarantula, and finally, the Devil himself on horseback, hence the title. Mocata winds up losing is soul in dealing with Old Scratch.

The Devil Rides Out is unusual Hammer fare vastly different than their usual monster flicks. Horror fans would probably like it more if it were remade today with modern special effects. As it is, one has to have a certain suspesion of disbelief. Even with the Bob Jones university brainwashing of my youth, I barely got a chill beyond the giant spider. Then again, I am not fond of the eight legged critters in the first place.

It is worth watchig if for nothing else than the novelty of Lee as a hero. Unless you have a pronounced unease at Satanism presented in entertainment, the scary bits will hardly register on you. It is worth watching for the entertainment alue, ut the world has outgrown its horror elements.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave

2010-10-02T19:15:00.001-04:00

I go back and forth as to whether I consider Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee as the quintessential Dracula. My opinion generally rests on which gentleman I have seen portray the Lord of the Undead most recently. Needless to say, I am currently in the Lee camp. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is obviously not Lee’s first turn as the Count, but it is my favorite. Hence, it earns first review status.

The movie begins where the previous left off. Dracula has been killed, but the locals still cower in fear. A monsignor arrives to place a golden cross on the door to Castle Dracula to remove the town’s curse. He rings along the local priest, who is a cowardly soul who will not go to the castle door. The monsignor leaves him behind as he goes to complete the blessing. In a freak mishap, the preacher is injured and bleeds. The lbood reaches the buried Dracula. It is enough to revive him.

Dracula is incensed his castle has desecrated y the cross, so he vows vengeance on the monsignor’s family. Unfortunately, he just happens to have a lovely, buxom niece named Lydia who serves as a perfect target for Dracula’s intentions.

The battle against Dracula’s kidnapping and eventual and eventual attempted murder of Lydia sets up an intriguing study about faith. The main protagonist is Paul, Lydia’s boyfriend and an avowed atheist among devout Christians. Both believers and non-believers are forced to deal with their worldviews in light of the supernatural evil of Dracula, something that conflicts with both of them.

The priest is such a coward, he allows himself to become Dracula’s assistant in the kidnapping plot. It is well into the climax before he realizes his faith in God is too strong to allow him to go through with his assigned task. Paul is brave enough to confront Dracula, but because of his lack of faith, the Christian rituals he has to undertake in order to destroy the vampire are not strong enough to work! He finally catches Dracula off guard and physically impales him on the golden cross barring the door to Castle Dracula. He also becomes a Christian for good measure. I am certain atheists are very fond of this movie.

What impresses me most about Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is how much Lee dominates even though he has very little screen time and virtually no dialogue. I think he says ten words at most throughout. But his mere presence is frighteningly staggering. It is enough to manipulate certain characters witout having to turn them into mindless slaves.

The movie has flaws, including one very large plot hole to begin the proceedings. In the first scene, an altar boy cleaning the church discovers the fresh corpse of a woman stuffed into the church ell. She has fang marks on her neck, so she has been murdered by Dracula. But how? The whole point of the first act is setting up his rising from the grave. He is not around to kill her yet. Looking at a screen cap of the scene, you can tell why it was thrown in despite the logical problem:Let us just assume Dracula’s spirit killed the poor girl and anyone who disagrees is a boob, all right?

A couple other minor quibbles are some incidental reflections cast by Dracula in background mirrors and once in a pool of water. Everyone attached the to production ought to know vampires do not cast reflections. That should have been an easily avoidable problem. The other problem I had is lee’s overacting in Dracula’s death scene. He is standing with the cross impaled in his chest, contorting about and grunting far longer than was necessary to get the pain of death across. He looked like he was engaged in an interpretive dance there.

Regardless of those two quibbles, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is right up there wit the best of vampire flicks. It is certainly one of the best of Hammer Films’ offerings. A must see for fans of the genre.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Abominable Dr. Phibes

2010-10-01T23:10:00.004-04:00

To make up for the severe lack of posting last month, October is going to be a month of regular horror movie reviews. I am more into classic horror films, so expect to see a lot of Universal and Hammer films among those reviewed, as well as some selected dead teenager flicks that have stuck with me over the years.

I am canning the motif of the movies I review being connected to one another in some capacity. That was harder to deal with than I thought. Aside from some sequels probably being reviewed back to back, the movies selected from here on out will be chosen on a whim.

We start horror movie month with the unsung Vincent price classic, The Abominable Dr. Phibes. I remember watching the 1971 classic on some Saturday matinee many, many years ago. It scared the bejebus out of me when Dr. Phibes finally removed his mask to reveal his horribly disfigured face. The Abominable Dr. Phibes definitely had to go first in my list of reviews.

Dr. Arthur Phibes is a noted organist and theologian (!)) who is believed to have died in a car accident while rushing to the hospital to be by his sick wife, Victoria’s side. He survived the crash, but is horribly disfigured. He fashions a mask for himself to hide his deformities and uses a tube connected to his windpipe in order to speak through a gramophone.. That was another aspect that creeped me out back in the day. In seclusion, he learns that his wife died on the operating table. Instead of hiring a lawyer and suing for millions, Phibes utilizes his theology expertise to enact revenge on resurgent based loosely on the ten plagues of Egypt.

These are not Cecil B. DeMille’s plagues from The ten Commandments. They are imaginative and gruesome often made even moreso by the low budget special effects. I am into old fashioned filmmaking anyway, not so much on the CGI business. Your mileage may vary. Phobes and his mute assistant, Vulnavia (!?) kill eighth doctors and one nurse by means of a bee swarm, bats swarm, crushing by mechanical frog mask, bleeding to death, freezing to death, crashing a plane because of ravenous rats, eaten by locusts, and attempting to murder one surgeon’s oldest son.

In the climax, Phibes rains a the blood from is own body in order to join his wife in death. I assume that represents the darkness plague. I do not now. Maybe Phibes blew it with that plague. His theological training did not seem to stick as well as his musical acumen.

Regardless of the ambiguity there, I love this film. It isa guilty pleasure that still cannot be viewed too often. I am afraid I still get the heebie jeebies over some of the make up jobs, even if they are rather cheap by today’s standards. I you do work up the courage to watch--and I hope you do--keep an eye out for a few things. The lovely Caroline Munroe plays Phibes doomed wife, although she goes unaccredited. Joseph Cotton plays the head surgeon. He appears to have fallen quite far rom . Watch out for a weird organ playing sing-a-long, if you did not think the film is strange enough.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes should solidly be considered a Vincent Price vehicle. He steal every scene in his own indomitable way. The other characters, particularly the doomed medical staff, are caricatures of real people with their evil and/or perversity serving as their only character aspect. That is not to say the film is a cheapo, one trick pony. Price alone is well worth the price (pardon the pun) of admission. Fans of gory, modern days revenge trash like Saw need to watch The Abominable Dr. Phibes to see how its done right..

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

2010-09-30T04:23:00.002-04:00

After saying never again, Christopher reeve, Gene Hackman, and Margot Kidder reunited for a fourth Superman film. You may recall one of my biggest complaints about Superman III was the absence of the regular supporting cast. Careful what you wish for, because their return here doe nothing to sae this heavy-handed, technical mess.

Superman decides to rid te world of nuclear weapons in order to make the world safe for children. Oddly enough, his declaration and stealing of nukes from various countries does not prompt any country to declare war on him. It dos prompt Lex Luthor to create a WWE wannabe out of pure nuclear energy to fight him, however.

I cannot call that a thrill. There is nothing even passably entertaining in this film. The touchy feely peacenik message is scamp as the worst of ’60’s Batman television series. The alarmist nuclear war theme would have been corny in a ’50’s b-movie, much less an alleged blockbuster at the tail end of the Cold War when the Soviet Union had all but collapsed.

But the theme is not the worst of it. Superman IV is ridiculously poorly made. The special effects are cheap. The wire work on flying characters is often clearly visible. Characters hold entire conversations in airless space. But the worst of it is the editing. The original ending for the film was removed and placed in the middle with a new ending filmed. It not only did not make the movie better, it made the story incomprehensible. Te only way to get the full story coherently is to read the comic book adaptation.

I do not recommend that or the movie.

Rating: * (out of 5)

Superman III

2010-09-28T03:29:00.001-04:00

Pictured above is Superman having a stiff drink. I can only assume e as just sat trough the travesty that is Superman III.

Christopher Reeve is back in the title role, but he is about it. Gone are Gene Hackma and Margot Kidder (save for a cameo) , as are just about every element which made the previous films great. Robert Vaughn takes the role of the non-descript megolmaniacal villain. Ross Webster. Go ahead. Describe everything you remember about him. But the worst element is, of course, Richard Pryor. Superman was a big property for Warner Brothers at the time and Pryor was box office gold. But only in a studio executive’s mind could those things go together and make something good.

So what we et is Pryor’s shtick, which I will admit is funny in places, combined with super heroics that just do not seem right. I am not talking about just the altered personality Superman getting drunk ad then battling some split version of himself. I will be generous and credit the sequence with trying to carry on the theme of Superman’s identity crisis and attempting to top the huge battle sequence from the previous film. But when you add that strangeness with an irregular supporting cast and an unknown, uncoupling villain, you get a mess. A sort of Superman adventure with some Pryor antics inexplicably thrown in.

I will also rat the final battle is exciting and well down wit the special effects technology of the time period. Vera Webster accidentally turns into a cyborg and fights Superman. In my younger days, thought it was quite scary. these days, it is a neat, but not redeeming factor. It is like Shakespeare compared to what comes next in the series,

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Superman II

2010-09-28T02:54:00.001-04:00

Here in Superman II, we have the best of the original four movies. With a few strange elements, of course. Kal El delves deeper into the decision he made in the first film to embrace humanity by becoming completely human so he can romance Lois lane. Unfortunately, Gen. Zod an two of his cohorts, Kryptonian terrorists all, lead him to realize he has to strike a balance between being Clark Kent and being Superman.

Kal El makes the fateful decision to give up his powers once he realizes, after revealing his identity to Lois, his alien nature will forever keep them apart. The two are so lost in love, they never notice Zod has taken over the entire planet. After learning both the pleasure (Sex. Woo hoo!) and pain (Getting bullied) of human frailty, Kal El realizes it is more important for him to be Superman. He may have embraced humanity as his own, but he realizes he may have to sacrifice his own happiness in order to be its defender.

So superman kicks Kryptionian terrorist hienie in a very impressive special effects laden battle in downtown Metropolis which not only had a comic book battle come to life feel to it, but still stands up well today in the era of CGI. I still think it is the best Superhero battle ever filmed.

Aside from the great comic boo come to lie atmosphere, which would be enough to elevate the movie to superhero film classic, I like how the movie continues the theme from the original that Kal El is still trying to find his own identity. All too often, Superman is presented as a very bland character whose great power always puts him on top of things. He is more interesting when he is unsure of himself, particularly wen it is human emotion that is making him so.

John Williams’ stirring score returns, as does a couple of strange powers such as creating a cellophane net and planting smooches that cause selective amnesia. But the good far, far outweighs the inexplicable bits. For a long time there, Superman Ii was the reatest comic book movie of all time. Its two sequels did not give it much competition.

Rating; ***** (out of 5)

Superman

2010-09-26T14:46:00.001-04:00

Yikes! It has been nearly a month since I last reviewed a movie. I have had a good excuse, though--I did not feel like it. That is good enough when you are talking about a personal project. But back to the millstone.

Superman is not the first superhero movie I have reviewed here, so I o not have to go through the ordeal of explaining how longsuffering we comic book fans have been when it comes to adapting our favorite comics to the silver screen. In short, we want our beloved characters exactly as they are o the page, which is often untranslatable to a mass audience. Not to mention the creative vision, for better or worse, of the moviemakers in charge of the project. Tim Burton answered criticism about his1989 Batman film by saying he had never read a comic book in his life.

We noticed, Tim. We noticed.

I think you will find many fans cite Superman as a rare exception to the poor translation from page to stage. That is probably because director Richard Donner and screenwriter Mario Puzo--yes, the Mario Puyzo who wrote The Godfather novel--both grew up as fans of Superman. So the adaptation is about as faithful as a comic fan could hope for.

The cast is about as brilliant as one could hope for, too. Christopher Reeve is so splendidly cast as Clark Kent/Superman, he felt for years typecasting had ruined his career. I believe he felt differently about the role when so many fans who loved him in it supported him so adamantly after a horse riding accident paralyzed him in 1995. Gene Hacman’s portrayal of Lex Luthor helped prompt a change I the comics character from a mad scientist to an evil businessman Margot kidder has her moments as Lois Lane. Se ha big shoes to feel from Noelle Neil the Adventures of Superman television series.

Superman takes the biggest risk a comic book movie can tae by retelling the origin story. Fortunately, it largely remains faithful. At least enough so comic fans never athered up their pitchforks and marched to Donner’s mansion. The rest of the film deviates greatly from the mythos, but does it so well, all is forgiven. Superman and Lois bond much more believably during their famous can you read my mind? sequence than in any comic before and perhaps since. Luthor is a very effective villain just by being a maniacal human being.

We all have issues with the technicalities of the ending. Superman cannot travel back in time under his own power. This irked me as a young tyke and later as a adamant comic purist even though I knew, somehow or another, Lois would have to survive. In my older years, I appreciate the meaning behind Superman’s actions enough to forgive teh time travel impossibility for him. His love for Lois caused him to ignore the words of Jor El about involving himself in human affairs and emrace Pa Kent’s idea he had been put on Earth for a reason. At that moment, Superman officially adopted Earth as his home.

Superman is not the best of the original four movies, but it is good. For awhile there, it was the best comic book movie ever made. One cannot help but credit joh Williams’ stirring score for enhancing our emotional attachment.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Back to School

2010-08-29T16:15:00.003-04:00

We follow Burt Young from Rocky Balboa to Back to School, the 1986 Rodney Dangerfield comedy that serves as a bridge between the Rocky films and our next series. Back to School is a personal favorite, highly quotable among friends film that seems to e unfairly ignored when it comes to naming the best comedies f the 80’s.

The film follows Thornton Mellon, a true rags to riches success story. Mellon wet from an uneducated sideshow act to a wealthy manufacturer of plus size clothes. Mellon dumps his cheating trophy wife (Adrienne Barbeau) and heads off to rekindle the relationship with his son, Jason. (Keith Gordon) Mellon discovers his son discouraged about college, so he decides to get his degree, too, in solidarity with him.

Mellon realizes almost too late he cannot buy an education or relationships as his hilarious goofing around causes animosity with an arrogant economics professor, (Robert Whitehead) nearly destroys a budding romance with an English professor, (Sally Kellerman) and alienates Jason y paying others to do his work and gets him on the diving team by doing his old sideshow act. Nevertheless, Mellon overcomes t all, even the mistake of hiring Kurt Vonnegut to write an essay on Breakfast of Champions, to come out on top.

Mellon plays the aging, oversexed party dude to the hilt among an intereting menagerie of characters played by Burt Young, Robert Downey, Jr, and Sam Knison, among others. Terry Farrell hs a brief turn as Jason’s love interest. Sadly enough, heractig chops were improved by thetime she appeared on Deep Space Nine.

Back to School is a funny, frivolous film, but well worth your time.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Rocky Balboa

2010-08-28T13:17:00.003-04:00

We had to suffer through the disappointment of the awful Rocky V capping off the otherwise solid Rocky franchise for sixteen years until Sylvester Stallone, now sixty, decided to give closure to his two most famous characters, Rambo and Rocky. In spite of the implausibility of an aging Rocky stepping back into the rig to fight a champion less than half hi age, the ilm works. It serves as a fantastic final bookend to the series.

I have to admit Rocky Balboa resonates with me on an empathetic level, so your mileage may vary. Rocky is old, showing the signs of heading down that not so log walk into the twilight. His life has shrunk with Adrian now passed on and the rest of his family and friends struggling with their own lives. Rocky lives quiet life, dwelling on the much better past wile realizing that is as good as it is going to get. The last few years of my life have been quite similar, so I get a little twinge watching Rocky make the best of it than same way I do. Rocky is awfully pitiful, alternating between sitting by Adrian’s grave and regaling restaurant patrons with stories of his glory days.

Rocky gets a chance to pull himself out of his funk and reconcile with his son Robert I the way we should have, but did not get to see in the previous film, when an ESPN computer simulation shows Rocky I his prime defeating the current champ, mason ’The Line” Dixon. Both fighters have something to prove. Rocky wants to know he is not a has been. Dixon feels illegitimate because he has not faced any serious opponents. The idea now I the public’s mind that Rocky was better than him urns.

So the two wind up on a collision course in the ring. It is a typical Rocky fight. He loses the first round, starts pummeling Dixon later, and so on. The fight ends with Dixon winning a split decision against the slow, arthritic Rocky, which oes note he is not much of a boxer if that is the best he can do. But like the better films in the series, the best parts of the film are the personal ones outside the rig. Rocky reconciles with his son believably while reconnecting with minor characters from various past installment. He does not care about the match decision beause he knows he still has family and riends around him.

The best way I can think of to tell you how good Rocky Balboa is to assure you the cruel idea of a young boxer beating up an old widower never crosses your mind. The film has heart. It is the personal story you will be dwelling on. I would put it up there close to the first and third as the best films in the series.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Rocky V

2010-08-26T18:06:00.005-04:00

Do I really have to elaborate much on Rocky V? The series hit rock bottom with the film. Sylvester Stallone himself considers it the most ill-conceived, anemic enty into the series. If I am not mistaken, Gene Siskel is the only major movie reviewer to give Rocky V a positive review.

The big problem comes down to the film being so depressing. Tragic things happen to Rocky in every one of the movies, but he has always overcome them to achieve a considerable measure of happiness and success. Y the end of Rocky V, he is I his mid-40’s, broke, and brain damaged after a redneck street brawl. The end. Rocky V does not cap off the series. It gives it the finger.

I will give some credit for its heart being in the right place. Rocky is seriously injured after his bout with Drago and I the poor house after his accountant squanders his fortune, yet he is prepared to start all over again and even take the offer of a Don King-esque promoter for another fight just to take care of his family. He becomes distracted from his son when the opportunity to mentor Tommy Funn. Rocky then has to struggle to find how his various responsibilities lie within his new lot in life.

What it does not work. Rocky’s misfortunes are more cruel than compelling. He never has that heartfelt reconciliation with his increasingly neglected son, which is odd considering the boy is played by Stallone’s real life so, Sage. The intention with Gunn was for Rocky to be his Mick, protecting him from the vultures that run professional boxing, but there is no emotional connection there, either. Rocky is angry over is losses and Gunn is jealous of being in his shadow, so they beat the tar out of each other in the back alleys of Philadelphia. Everything works out i the end. Sort of.

I cannot think of a single reason for anyone to watch .Rocky V. You can go from the fourth straight to Rocky Balboa without missing a beat. Unle you are a glutton for punishment, that is what I suggest you do. Even the rap theme music is awful.

Rating: * (out of 5)

Rocky IV

2010-08-25T12:48:00.003-04:00

If Rocky III was a slow descent into absurdity, Rocky IV is the freefall. Sylvester Stallone’s heart might have been in the right place, but his sensibilities re no where to be found. Did he not have someone nearby who could put the brakes on some of his most outlandish ideas or did he pull a George Lucas on this one?

Rocky IV was released in 1985, the same year as Stallone starred I Rambo: First Blood, Part II. He earned a reputation in the latter, which he denies, as a jingoistic Cold Warrior single-handedly defeating the red menace. I have often wonder why Rambo was pinned in such a way when Rocky had a far bigger case of it here.

The Soviet Union introduces irts star athlete, Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) into the world of American boxing. I look with amusement 25 years later on what drago is all about. The Soviets have pumped him up with steroids to make him some sort of superman to destroy any American fighter who gets in his way. There were supposed to be hints of creepy genetic engineering and sneay, underhanded unsportsmanlike behavior that Americans would certainly never do. Seems quaint now considering the prevalence off steroids in professional American sports today. Or stallone’s widely know use of HGH himself, for that matter.

Apollo, feeling his age, wants to challenge Drago in an exhibition match. Rocky plays the Mick role to him, first discouraging him, then agreeing to be in his corner. He should have listened to Rocky, though, as Drago takes the match way too seriously and kills Apollo.

“If he dies, he dies.” said Drago to the press. Seriously, Sly. Let someone read your scripts before you film them.

Rocky feels guilty because he did not throw in the towel in time to save Apollo. In true Hollywood logic, Rocky arranges to fight Drago in Siberia on Christmas Day as revenge. I have often wondered if the Christmas date was supposed to be the godless Soviets taking a jab at Christianity, but the movie is already so full of over the top knocks against the communists, I will just leave that one up to you to decide.

Of course, everyone assures Rocky he cannot win. The audience was expecting that conflict. What we were wondering is whether Rocky wants to kill Drago in the ring, just beat him up, or feels like he ought to die as penance for Apollo. It is hard to tell because the script never quite decides whether rocky is fighting for Apollo, America, or himself. Everyone has their own theory, so your enjoyment hinges on how well you think the film played out your theory.

I go with the jingoism. Apollo’s death made the fight personal for Rocky, but his demise was still merely the catalyst for an East v. West conflict. I will grant you the boxing match is the most exciting of all the ones featured so far. I have a tough time believing Rocky could win, but there you go. The speech at the end in which Rocky personally brings on perestroika is as hokey as it gets. Then again, the Soviet Union fell six years later, so what do I know?

Rocky IV is entertaining if not taken too seriously. The film is an interesting picture of how we viewed the Cold War in Ronald Reagan’s ’80’s. It is clearly defined good guys verses purely evil bad guys whose hearts are thawed out in the end by clearly defined good guy’s clearly defined goodness. It works on most levels, but itr is by no means a masterpiece.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Rocky III

2010-08-24T16:23:00.003-04:00

Will success spoil Rocky Balboa? According to Rocky III. But Mr. T will come along to beat the living snot out of him and Apollo will not only become his pal, but teach Rocky African-American rhythm, so it all works out y the end.

Rocky III is a dramatic shift from the first two films. Gone is much of the gritty, but honest humanity to be replaced by a sell out Rocky, manufactured to be an American hero and the glitzy Adrian who has replaced the humble, shy version. It is definitely as though the previous films have been completely forgotten. Rocky is permed, pretty, and soft as cotton candy in his newly found wealthy lifestyle.

Certainly, this is all set up for Rocky’s downfall at the fists of Clubber Lang (Mr. T) so he ca be built back up to the good natured scrapper he was before. The plan works effectively by Hollywood standards. Rocky III is another one of those films in which you like the protagonist succeed even if the journey to reach that point is rather silly.

Rocky has been built up into a sports icon by pounding a bunch of unworthy contenders in defending his title at the same time has gone Hollywood, appearing with the Muppets and duking it out in a charity event against Hulk Hogan. At the unveiling of a statue in his honor, he is taunted by Lang, a younger and more vicious fighter. Against Mick’s advice, he agrees to a match.

Rocky get the stuffing beat out of him as Mick dies of a heart attack over the stress of a pre-fight confrontation. Rough night for both of them, no?

Rocky falls into a deep depression, but is pushed out of it by Apollo, who offers to train him for a rematch. The training journey is not as poignant as in the first film. There Rocy need to believe in himself. Here he is far more emotionally damaged. The hurt I to the point you wonder if there is wisdom in putting him back into the ring.

But then you get lost in the absurdity of Apollo turning Rocky into a black fighter by teaching him rhythm. Well, it works. In the rematch, Rocky is able to dodge most of Lang’s punches. As he gets more frustrated, Lang becomes sloppier until Rocky can finally unload on him. Moral of the story: Sylvester Stallone can be blacker than Mr. T wit Carl Weaters’ advice.

That ought to merit four stars, right? how about Rocky III being such an essential ’80’s icon? The Rocky series is losing its heart, but Rocky III is still a very entertaining movie.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Rocky II

2010-08-23T08:50:00.004-04:00

A sequel to the sleeper hit Rocky was inevitable. Equally inevitable is that it does not quite match up to the original. Its heart is in the right place, but the challenges Rocky faces, which were sincere and human in the original, often fall into maudlin theatrics the second time around.

The movie begins right where the original left off. Both rocky and Apollo are taken to the same hospital because of their severe injuries. Apollo is interested I a rematch, but Rocky is in such bad shape, he announces his retirement. Only Adrian supports his decision.

The plot complications that follow are awfully contrived. Apollo is burned by the public sentiment Rocky was robbed of victory by the judges. He begin a smear campaign to goad Rocky back ito the ring. Meanwhile, Rocky is having a tough timesaving in on his fame because his lack of education is hindering his ability to read for commercial endorsements. As his financial woes worsen, he realizes boxing is the only thing he knows how to do. He is further pushed back into the ring by his old friends who think he is a coward for not facing up to Apollo’s challenge.

Now for the maudlin--Rocky and Adrian marry, she gets pregnant, but the baby is born premature and se falls into a coma. Rocky refuses to train for his rematch with Apollo until she wakes up. She does, but y that time, Rocky would have to be Superman to be prepared to fight Apollo. But he does anyway and wins even easier than he did the first time around when most of the movie was devoted to him training for the impossible task of defeating Apollo.

It sounds like I am down on Rocky II,but I am not. Sylvester Stallone created a very appealing, sympathetic character who I want to see win out I the end. My desire allows me to overlook the story quality, which is definitely about two steps below the first. I would place Rocky II in the middle of the pack in the series. It has problems, but it is still an enjoyable film.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Rocky

2010-08-22T15:41:00.002-04:00

We are going to combine two themes for this week. The connection with Oscar is Sylvester Stallone and we are going to coverall six Rocky movies. The best of the bunch naturally comes first. Rocky was shot on a shoe string budget in 28 days, but became a sleeper hit, both with audiences and critics. Rocky went on to win three Oscars, including Best Picture. As far as I am concerned, it is the greatest sports movie of all time.

Rocky tells the story of Rocky Balboa (Stallone), a good natured collector for a loan shark. Rocy I a local fighter who gets the chance to fight the world champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) when the umber one contender is in injured. Rocky is chosen solely because Apollo likes hi Italian Stallion nickname.

Rocky enlists the aid of a former boxer, now elderly manager named Mick (Burgess Meredith) and his friend Pauly (Burt Young), who allows him to practice punching slbs o meet at the meat packing plant he works. Such has become a cultural icon.

The real story of rocky is not the upcoming boxing match, but the developing love story between Rocky and Adrian, (Talia Shire) a pet store clerk and Pauly’s sister. Adrian, like Rocky, is not glamorous or even removed from the streets. Rocky’s wooing of her is so real, it makes the movie. Hollywood has not been able to pull off a romance quite like that since, in my humble opinion.

Rocky does not think he can defeat Apollo. He just wants to go the distance--15 rounds--to prove that he can. Apollo does not take him seriously, either, but the match becomes itense when Rocky takes advantage of his overconfidence and knocks him down in the first round. Rocy goes the distance, but loses a split decision. It does not matter, though, because he has won Adrian’s heart.

There is so much about this movie that has ingrained itself in the public conscious--punching carcasses, ’Yo, Adrian!” and running up the steps of Independence Hall--you know all of them even if you have never seen Rocky. If you have not, shame on you. It is a great film. You do not have to care a thing about boxing to love it.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Oscar

2010-08-21T08:46:00.002-04:00

We follow Tim Curry over to Oscar, a 1991 comedy in which he plays an elocution expert hired to help mobster Sylvester Stallone fit into polite society when he maes a promise to his dying father to go straight. But the mob keeps pulling him back in. The film is a remake of a French film with the same title ad directed by the great comedic director, John Landis.

You would hope with such factors going for it, Oscar would work, but it really does not. The failure of the film rests squarely on the shoulders of Stallone. He is an action star who can do drama effectively, but he not a comedian. Oscar is a screwball comedy along the lines of the Marx brothers in the ‘30‘s and ‘40‘s. That sort of thing is a fine fit for Curry, who is about the only truly funny thing in the film, and surprisingly, Marissa Tomei, who plays Stallone’s rebellious daughter.

I suppose the plan was for the absurdity of Stallone being cast so far out of type was supposed to be amusing, but it is more painful instead.

The plot is complicated by the existence of three identical black suitcases that continually get mixed up with each other. Each contains a different item-- jewels, Tomei’s underwear, and $50,000--that confuse everyone’s intentions when they get mixed up. In the resolution, only the suitcase with the underwear is at the house when the cops arrive, so no one gets in trouble. That qualifies as a happy ending.

Critic savaged Oscar and I do not blame them. The only reason I would sit through it again is if someone threatened me with Stop or My Mom Will Shoot! instead. Considering Analyyze This, Roert De Niro miht have pulled off the main character and made Oscar funny, but Stallone needs to stay as far away from comedy as possible.

Watch it for Curry if you dare. Try a couple YouTube searches solely for his performance instead. You will be happier.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

2010-08-20T20:17:00.001-04:00

We follow Susan Sarandon over to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, the purposely cheap homage to classic science fiction. Sarandon once quipped he had been in fifty plus movies, many of Oscar caliber quality, but this is the one goig in the time capsule. Kind of sad, really.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a British comedy/B-movie/science fiction/comedy/rock opera about two motorists, Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Sarandon) who are stranded at the mansion of Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry), a mad scientist from the planet Transylvania, while on their honeymoon. Furter is also a weird transvestite who makes Eddie Izzard look like a tent revival speaker.Furter is o the verge of creating his masterpiece, the perfect specimen of a man e calls Rocky.

The film is narrated by a criminologist played by Charles Gray, who is taking a big step backwards from portraying James Bond’s archenemy, Blofeld. The criminologist presides over the ensuing wild an wacky happenings, including some pretty catchy song and dance numbers, one involving Meatloaf, some gruesome twists, bad special effects, sex, and Sarandon in her underwear. Curry, too, but that I not a selling point.

I have seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show three times. The first time was as a favor to a friend who was in an audience participation version at the university of South Carolina. The experience had all ternary callbacks to the screen and various actions the audience is supposed to take. The night was all about the social experience of beig part of the fan base. It is like following the Grateful Dead, as near as I can tell. A good time.

The other two times have been once on television at Halloween an earlier as I watched the DVD. For this review. I hae to say when the movie has to exist on its own merits without the addition of an audience having fun, the movie flops. The bad script and cheap special effects are done on purpose as homage to the bad science fiction features of the past, but the impact of it is lost when it is just you watching it. The thrill jut is not there. I must confess there as not much thrill for me to begin with.

I have serious doubts I will ever watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show again and certainly not as a way to kill an idle evening. There is nothing here to recommend it for that. In a group, though, it might be worth your time if you ave the right heart attitude. That is, you are there to have a good time with riends, not to get egaged in a movie that cannot quite hold your attention. Some of the songs will stick with, though.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a good showase for character actor Curry, but he has been in a lot more enjoyable films and television shows than this.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Bull Durham

2010-08-17T04:15:00.003-04:00

We follow Tim Robins over to my favorite baseball movie, Bull Durham. Bull Durham is officially labeled a romantic comedy because of the love triangle between the three main characters, but do not let that fool you. The real romance here is the love of baseball. If you have anything less than a religious devotion for the mystique of the game, most of Bull Durham’s appeal will be bewildering to you.

The story revolves around “Crash” Davis (Kevin Costner), an aging minor league catcher who has log sense missed his chance to make it to The Show. He is assigned to the Durham Bulls in order to prepare a young pitching phemon named Ebby Calvin “Nuke” Laroosh make it to the majors. Nuke is chosen by baseball groupie Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) as her chosen affair for the season, but she finds herself increasingly attracted to Crash instead.

Crash teaches the wild, undisciplined Nuke al about the skills of baseball from pitchig technique to the pointless banter of sports interviews all while competing for Annie’s affection. None of them are quite ready for the next step lie is going to bring. Nuke is too immature to handle the big league. Crash is frustrated by jealousy over the opportunity he never got, but Nuke is not taking seriously. Annie does not want to grow up ad have a real, romantic relationship. Therein lies the tension.

But the true heart of the film is the love of baseball. The gam is practically a main character when you consider how much it permeates the lives of everyone. If you cannot comprehend paying homage to a makeshift shrine to Yankees catcher Thurmond Munson, a huge part of the film is going to be lost to you. More so than…say, Field of Dreams, another great baseball movie which nevertheless uses baseball as more of a ca than a main theme.

If I had the physical prowess to play a team sport, I would choose baseball so much of Bull Durham is wish fulfillment for me. Your mileage may vary, but it is still a classic sports film and one that I have seen numerous times without it getting old.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Shawshank Redemption

2010-08-16T15:36:00.002-04:00

After a bite more of a hiatus than I had planned, we get back to movie reviews. We follow Morgan Freeman from The Dark Knight over to one of my all time favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption.

The Shawshank Redemption centers around Andy Dufresne, a banker who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover based on strong circumstantial evidence. Dufresne spends nearly twenty years in prison. During that time, he follows the principle of blooming where you are planted by maintaining as much of his previous life as possible. Drufresne befriends his fellow prisoners, in particular Ellis ’Red” Reddings (Moran Freeman) in his efforts to add humanity to their imprisonment.

Dufresne finds himself protected by the guards when he uses his banking skills in a money laundering scheme for the warden. Oe begins questioning Drufresne’s integrity at this point. He has up util now gotten himself into trouble on behalf of his fellow inmates. Now he is helping exploit them for his own benefit.

After a fellow prisoner reveals a story that might clear Drufresne is killed by the warden, the true story of the movie is revealed. Drufresne has had a twenty year plan of escape he finally completes after his betrayal. There is payback to the warden, too.

Now is a good a time as any to reveal my voice in the wilderness theory Drufresne actually did kill his wife and has been corrupt the entire time. No one else goes for the idea, but honestly, prison never seems to harden Dufresne enough that he would ecome a crook or set I motion a plan of revege that would lead to the warden’s downfall. The seeds of that would have to have been there from the beginning. Drufesne would always have had to possess the capacity for cold evil.

No one else goes for that theory, huh?

The resolution to The Shawshank Redemption is incredibly implausible. That Drufresne could hide his escape efforts for nearly twenty years is beyond all reason. Yet I accept it because the heart of the film is so compelling. The bonds that Drufresne forms with his fellow prisoners are genuine and sometimes touching. At times, I have to stop and realize these guys are murderers and rapists undeserving of such an emotional connection. It is the mark of a well done film that I have to do that.

The Shawshank Redemption was not a big hit at the box office, but was one with critics and word of mouth has given in a ew life on cable and DVD. It is a prison film, o there is a claustrophobic mood throughout. Some very unpleasant this happen that you can probably guess. I have already said the ending is implausible. Yet, things all come together to make a truly good film.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

The Dark Knight

2010-08-07T04:22:00.004-04:00

We follow Morgan Freeman, who played Lucius Fox in Batman Begins, over to the reprisal of the role in The Dark Knight. As much praised as I heaped on the first, sequel deserves more. The only reason I have doubts Batman Begins is not the greatest comic book film of all time is because I am quite confident The Dark Knight takes the top spot.

I cannot review the film in any capacity without admitting Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker steals the film. The praise heaped upon Leder’s performance was not just posthumous sentimentality. He would own the role even if he had not tragically overdosed months before its release. Some speculate the role may have contributed to his damaged state of mind. The Dark Knight’s version of the Joker took the most demented, homicidal elements of the character and put them on screen.

I have to dip into my geek soul a moment, too, and express my prior trepidations. Early indications were the Joker’s origin was going to be changed from a crook scarred and made insane by a plunge into toxic chemicals to a psycho in clown make up. It sounded like one of those changes comic book fans are prone to burn creators in effigy for trying to pull off. Mercy, he is going to be played by the guy from Ten Things I Hate About You, to boot!

I should have had more faith in Christopher Nolan and Ledger.

While the Joker steals the show, everyone else is in fine form. Christian Bale shows he was no fluke in Batman Begins. No small feat there. Michael Keaton limped through his second turn as the Caped Crusader. He was the last guy brave enough to try twice. Newcomers Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal are fine additions to the cast, as long as they both lasted.

If I may delve into comic book geekdom again, Two Face is one of my favorite Batman villains. He could have carried a whole movie far more entertainingly than did Tommy Lee Jones’ awful interpretation in Batman Forever. Far too campy to suit me, that was.

I do not care what anyone says, Maggie Gyllenhaal is adorable. I will fight any man who says otherwise.

The Dark Knight is nihilistic, cynical about the public perception of heroes, and very brilliant. It deserves all the accolades it gets for beig what I likely the greatest comic book movie both eeksand non-geeks alike can enjoy. Beware, though. My cynical self agreed quite often with the Joker’s cynical view on human nature. A scary thought.

Ratig: ***** (out of 5)

Batman Begins

2010-08-06T15:46:00.001-04:00

Ken Watanabe serves as the bridge between The Last Samurai and Batman Begins. Out of all the cast connections I could have made to eventually get to Batman Begins, would you have ever expect that one? I enjoy being as unusual as possible. The unexpected twists are always the best ones.

Before I get into the review, let me tell you what this movie means to comic book fans in general. It is debatable whether Batman Begins has lost its lofty perch I the last five years with comic book based movies rapidly increasing in quality, but for a time there, it was the greatest comic book movie of all time. Fans considered it a godsend because we could finally stop pretending Tim Burton ad made the quintessential super hero film with 1989’s Batman and hand the honor rightfully over to Christopher Nolan. Because he is a geek like us who understands what comics are all about.

Nolan takes the Neal Adams Batman--take my word for it, non-comics geeks--and puts him on screen proper for the first time ever. He is dark, brooding, and far more Batman than Bruce Wayne, just like he is in the comics. Nolan rounds out the film with a stellar cast, including Katie Holmes, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Rutger Hauer. That illustrious group could make ay film shine, much less one based on a comic book character.

What I really liked were the layers. There are characters and situations introduced in the film that have special meaning only if you are familiar with the comics, yet not knowing all the details does not detract from the general audiences’ enjoyment. Secret geek code, if you will.

The Scarecrow is not a particularly prominent villain in the comics. It was a risk to make him the main villain, but it works splendidly.

As does pretty much everything. The acting, the story, the production design--it is all good. I am even willing to forgive changes made in the costume and vehicles--no small feat for a loyal comic book geek--because it all gels. Batman Begins isa classic in the comic book to film genre.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

The Last Samurai

2010-08-02T15:55:00.001-04:00

We follow tom Cruise over to 2003’s The Last Samurai. The film has been derided as Dances with Wolves in Japan. While The Last Samurai does not hit all the marks as well as does Dances with Wolves, it isa worthy film within its own right.

Cruise plays jaded ex-army Captain Nathan Algren. Algren is haunted by his actions during the wars against Native Americans. Since leaving the army, he has madea living telling his war stories at gun shows to enthusiastic crowds. Their excitement only deepens his cynicism.

Algren gets the chance to help modernize the Japanese military, but is soon captured by samurai forces who want to remain true to tradition. While in their custody, Algren finds solace in appreciating their ways and opts to learn the ways of a samurai.

His journey is a interesting, albeit predictable one, for anyone who hasseen similarly themed movies. Or if you have see Shogun, for that matter.

The romance of the old ways comes to an abrupt halt--literally--when the samurai are mowed down by a Gatlin gun. The theme of The Last Samurai is one cannot stand I the way of progress. Even cultures one may feel are worthy of survival have to adapt or die off. Such an effortless massacre comes across as a ar too heavy-handed way of resolving the issues. It is supposed to have a heavy emotional impact. It comes across as so blunt as to be borderline parody. I admit--I laughed at how hard the film was trying.

The Last Samurai is a beautiful film. Nineteenth century Japan is recreated magnificently. If you have a eye for art design, you should watch just for that. The film is entertaining, but nothing special. The creators wanted to make classic here, but could not quite pullit off. Perhaps if Americans were more intrigued by Japanese culture.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Magnolia

2010-08-01T15:22:00.001-04:00

We move away from Paul Thomas Anderson’s log and unpleasant Boogie Nights to his follow up, Magnolia--a long, but far more pleasant film. Or at least I think so. I have introduced the film to friends over the last decade. Most of them thought Magnolia was an overly complicated mess with an out of left field ending that serves as an admission Anderson had no clue where he was going when he started. Needless to say, I disagree.

I need less linear thinking friends, too. Help me.

The film begins with three short stories which all revolve around extraordinary incidents of coincidences from uran legend. They set up expectations that the relationships involving the large cast of characters will wid up overlapping in extraordinary ways.

We catch these relationships all on one rainy day in the San Fernando Valley. Some of these relationships are happy, others are stressed or sad. For example, there isa religious cop who has fallen in love with a woman so blindly, he cannot see she is strung out on drugs. A young boy is under tremendous pressure to win on a game show by his father. The host of the game show is an old man dying of cancer while his young trophy spends her day trying to score morphine.

That is just a sample of all that is going on, including an Oscar nominated performance by Tom Cruise as a smarmy self-help guru who teaches how to seduce women. His scenes unintentionally echo some of the actor’s later earnest shilling for Scientology.

Following all the stories can get overwhelming. Just as you expect something to happen which will tie them all together as hinted in the beginning, frogs begin raining from the sky. The event affects every story in a different way, though not necessarily offering closure. Such is the chief complaint from those who demand all films wrap up every story in a neat little package.

I do not have that problem and am content to leave certain stories open to interpretation based on what has come before. Magnolia is a big, emotionally charged ilm for which you have to toss out all logic in order to enjoy. It does not fulfill a regular moviegoer’s expectation, but it does offer something wonderful.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

Boogie Nights

2010-07-26T00:12:00.001-04:00

We follow Burt Reynolds, who played the municipal judge in Mystery, Alaska, over to the monstrosity of a film called Boogie Nights. I am a big fan of Paul Tomas Anderson. He has only made one film I did not like. Ufortuately for you, that film is Boogie Nights.

The film isset I the “Golden Age of Porn,” aka the late ’70’s-early ’80’s. Burt Reynolds plays Jack Horner, a producer of adult films who turns a high school drop out, dishwasher and male prostitute Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg) into a major adult film star. For two and a half hours, we watch the hum drum, glamorized world of adult filmmaking simultaneously with Diggler’s descent ito drug addiction.

The ensemble cast around Wahlberg is top notch, with actors like William H. Macy, john C. Reilly, Luis Guzman, Julianne Moore, and Don Cheadle attempting to bring a certain dignity to the adult film industry by struggling with their own mundane problems as they work at becoming adult film stars. But it is just not compelling viewig for me.

Okay, Heather Graham as Roller Girl was compelling. But otherwise, nada.

I am completely uninterested in Southern California hedonism, whether it is glamorized or shown warts and all as it is here, so Boogie Nights is not my cup of tea. I think many of the accolades the film has received over the years is because it fares to deal with a controversial subject I an artsy way. Cannot say I care about such things, particularly when a cadre of adult film actors are presented asa pseudo family.

That is what gets me most about the film. Diggler is a troubled child, already as low in life as one can get, with Horner as his surrogate father. Diggler runs off, is nearly killed in a hate crime attack, then comes back to Horner to live happily ever after. Or die of AIDS, which seems the more likely outcome. The end result is not the Manson family, but it is really close.

It is an unpleasant experience watching low class people abuse themselves in a prurient business. I am sorely disappointed with Anderson. Everyone is entitled a fumble here and there, but Boogie Nights is such unpleasant viewing, callig it a fumble is an insult to football.

Rating; ** (out of 5)

Mystery, Alaska

2010-07-24T08:57:00.005-04:00

Our last Russell Crowe film for a while is the quirky 1999 comedy, Mystery, Alaska. Written by the prolific television writing guru David E. Kelley ad directed by Jay Roach, the film attracted a impressive cast of comedic actors, such as Hank Azaria, Mary McCormick, and Burt Reynolds. One woders if the critical acclaim of Northern Exposure, about the goings on in another strange Alaska town, had something to do with that.

The film is about the hockey-mad town of Mystery, Alaska. When their local team is featured in a Sports Illustrated article, they get the chance to play an exhibition game against the New York Rangers.

If you have ever seen a sports movie, you know exactly what is going to happen. The team of misfits has to come together. The unlikeliest player gets cut, but earns a chance to make a come back because that is the right thing to do. The townsfolk go crazy because of the exposure to the outside world and, of course, everyone is winner in spite of the final score.

None of the New York Rangers agreed to star in the film and phooey on them for that. While it is a very predictable story, the film is an enjoyable little film with quite a few laughs. Certainly not a classic--have you ever even heard of it/-- but a good way to spend an idle evening.

Rating; *** (out of 5)

Gladiator

2010-07-21T15:03:00.003-04:00

We follow Russell Crowe over one step and down a couple notches of quality to Galdiator, the 2000 Best Picture Oscar winner which thanks its lucky stars the competition was weak that year.

Crowe plays Maximus, a loyal Roman general who is betrayed when the emperor is killed by his ambitious, but psychotic son, Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix. Maximus fids himself bound into slavery and must fight his way up the gladiatorial ranks in order to avenge his his family and his emperor

The battle sequences are intensely exciting and Phoenix is a particular stand out as the evil Commodus, but there is nothing that elevates Gladiator to the level of classic it was touted to be. It certainly does not rise to the level of epic that Spartacus or Beh Hurr managed in the old days of Hollywood. As proof, I note the genre revival never got off the ground in the ’00’s because of Gladiator as many critics predicted.

Glaiator is a good action film. A guy movie with a brain, as it were. But beyond being a night’s worth of frivolous entertainment, there is not much else there. Gladiator is going to go down as the same kind of Best Picture Oscar winner as 2005’s Crash--the answer to a trivia question no one can ever get right.

Gladiator launched Crowe into stardom. For that, I am grateful. Her has had much better roles subsequently. I believe the character of Maximus has been puffed up over the years because of it.

Ratig: *** (out of 5)

A Beautiful Mind

2010-07-20T23:50:00.003-04:00

We follow Jennifer Connelly over to hr Oscar winning performance as Alice Nash in 2002’s A Beautiful Mind.

A Beautiful Mind is a fictionalized account of the life of mathematician John Nash, a brilliant mathematician suffering from delusional psychosis. A Beautiful Mind is not a literal biography of Nash, but rather an often surreal presentation of events seen through Nash’s mentally disturbed mind. The film has been criticized in certain quarters for utilizing this method of storytelling, but I think it adds, rather than takes away from Nash’s story.

It is difficult to present metal illness o screen without being exploitive. Witness my complaint about the failures of presenting brain damage earnestly in Regarding Henry, for example. A Beautiful Mind stands in stark contrast to Regarding Henry in terms of effectively putting us in the shoes of a mental illness sufferer. Because that is what the narrative literally does with increasing awareness something is not right with what wear seeing.

The reality of the story is neither exploitive or sensational. It is, in fact, a realistic love story between John and Alice, who have to deal with the no win situation of tolerating the side effects of Nash’s medical treatment or suffering through the consequences of not doing so for the sake of Nash maintaining some semblance of his genius and humanity.

Beforehand, I would have said Russell Crowe was a peculiar choice to play Nash, but he comes through with the role splendidly. The performances all around are great, from Paul Bellamy as ash’s “roommate” at Princeton to Ed Harris’ federal agent contact for Nash, and Connelly’s performance. As I said above, she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. I hate to take anything away from her here, but I suspect her win was one of those compensation wins for overlooking her in more deserving roles in the past.

A Beautiful Mind is a good film, but not a great one. I wad dragged off to see it my first year of law school when other classmates who had done nothing but rave about the film for weeks were appalled I had not seen what had apparently replaced Citizen Kane as the greatest cinematic masterpiece of all time. I enjoyed it, ye, but still cannot quite rate it as highly as many of my friends do.

Rating: **** (out of 5)

House of Sand and Fog

2010-07-19T14:57:00.005-04:00

We follow Jennifer Connelly from her underrated turn as Betty Ross in Hulk to a small, but bitter little pill she starred in the same year called House of Sand and Fog.

Connelly plays Kathy Nicole. She is both the protagonist and antagonist of the film. Nicole is a recovering drug addict who is suffering from severe depression because her husband left her. In her unresponsive state, she ignores a number of delinquent tax notices from the county o the tiny beach house she inherited from her father. She only realizes she owes any taxes when the police come to forcibly evict her.

Whe the county puts the house up for sale, it is purchased by Massoud Amri Bahrani, a former Iranian colonel who served under the shah and fled during the revolution. He is played wonderfully by Ben Kingsley. Bahrani keeps up the appearance of being a respectable businessman I order to not shame himself or his family. He is in fact a lowly convenience store clerk. But the purchase of the beach house for a fraction of its value helps build up his wounded pride.

The sale of the house puts the two on a collision course in which I went back and forth sympathizing and despising them both. They are both sympathetic characters who are victims of circumstance, yet their frustrated reactions to their problems are appalling. Nicole will do anything to get her house back, including manipulating a corrupt sheriff named Lester (Ron Eldard) in a loveless marriage to harass Bahrani. Bahrani himself has been so beaten down by life, he brutalizes his family to soothe the assaults on his manhood.

The real tragedy strikes when an terrible I would rather not spoil bonds Nicole and Bahrai, yet Lester misunderstands it all and bullies Bahrani into giving back the house against both his and Nicole’s wishes. Bhrani loses far more than the house, which prompts him to commit the ultimate tragic act of killing his family and himself.

The only reason I am willing to spoil that point is because the movie does, too, right off the bat, then tells the story in flashback. The only point I really dislike about House of Sand and Fog is that the film starts with the aftermath of Bahrani’s final act of desperation. It takes much of the sting out of the story when you know how he an his family wind up. Why filmmakers insist upon using that storytelling technique is beyond me. If you are going to blow the ending in the first scene, you need to give us one heck of a journey up until that point.

Fortunately, House of Sand and Fog delivers in that regard. The way I was emotionally manipulated by these characters is a experience I have not often had watching a movie. It is painful to watch, very depressing, and will stick with you for days after viewing. But I highly recommend it.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Hulk

2010-07-18T06:15:00.006-04:00

Today, we follow Eric Bana from Munich to 2003’s version of the Hulk by Ang Lee.

I grew up a big comic book fan. One of the things we have consistently suffered through is the poor translation of our favorite characters from the four colored page to the big screen. The problem s reasonable--the characters have to be altered to appeal to a mass audience, not just geeky fan boys-- but recent times have introduced a golden age of super hero films faithful to the comics. You have a generation of filmmakers who grew up o comics to thank for that.

Ang Lee is not one of those comic book fans turned filmmaker and his Hulk is a blight on the genre during a otherwise glorious time.

What bothers me is that I went to the theater expecting a popcorn munching summer thriller experience, but got an uncomfortably dark exploration of severe child abuse with all its consequences. I might have been fine with that, too, but the elements were an awkward fit with the rest of the story.

Within the last twenty years or so, it has been added to the Hulk’s mythology that Bruce Banner and his mother were brutally abused by his father. The Hulk is a personification of the childhood rage over his helplessness. The subject has been treated wit much care and aspect over the years. Said care and respect has elevated the character far beyond the, “Hulk smash puny human!” days when the comic often languished in the doldrums.

I suspect the average moviegoers does not know that,however, and went to the film expecting high adventure. Heck, I did know that, but I was still expecting more fun.

The problem can be summer up with the following anecdote. I went to see Hulk o a whim when I saw it was playing at an afternoon matinee on my way to Taco Bell. I had a day off from summer session of classes at Regent Law and I just decided to go alone to see it. About 35 minutes into the film, I heard a little bot whisper to his father, ’Is the Hulk gonna how up now?”

The question gave me a realization then and one later. The first realization was it is a terrible summer action movie when the title character does not even appear util the movie is a third of the way over. The later realization came when the flashbacks of abuse began playing a dominant role. Then I wondered why anyone would bring a child to see this movie. I was 26 and jaded as all get out, but I did not wat to see it, either.

Hulk fails for me big time. The action is not fun. The drama was not compelling. It made me feel traumatized myself. I still have a difficult time with the existential ending. Not of that belongs in a summer super hero movie.

I will give the film two kudos. One, the special effects were good. The Hulk bears an uncanny resemblance to Eric Bana, which is a nice touch. You might even thik the special effect sequences are worth seeing the movie for. Be my guest, but brace yourself for what the movie is really about. The other kudo goes to Nick Nolte for playing the abusive Brian Banner. He is an unappealing character, but Nolte plays him to the hilt.

But you should skip Hulk altogether. Ang lee is usually a great director, but he missed the mark badly here.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Munich

2010-07-17T02:15:00.003-04:00

As our sojourn into Indiana Jones mercifully ends, we follow director Steven Spielberg over to 2005’s Munich, the fictionalized account of an Israeli team sent to assassinate members of the Palestinian Black September in retaliation for murdering te Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 games.

Spielberg walks a fine line with Munich. He honestly does not inject his personal politics into the film. Much like Schindler’s List, the emphasis of the story is on the human cost of war. It is brave for Spielberg because he does question the wisdom of the Old Testament eye for an eye instant revenge for wrongs suffered because such a policy may lead to perpetual acts of retaliation. A knee jerk viewer reaction may claim Spielberg is equating Israel’s actions with those of the Palestinian terrorists.

I will grant Munich possesses a certain naïve tone on the subject of retaliation. There is a definite peacenik streak running through it. But I do not see a blunt denunciation of retaliation, either.

The whole operation is seen as a dirty, but necessary business. As the Mossad and Black September wage a covert war across Europe, the assassination squad members balance the concern for their families safety with their obligation to leave a big enough impression to discourage further terrorist attacks. For instance, the team plans to kill one terrorist with a bomb because an explosion would be flashier than a bullet. That is balancing personal concerns with duty and leaving it up to the audience to decide how they feel about it.

I knew going into the film that Munich is a fictionalized account intended to serve as a thriller rather than an historical piece. It certainly delivers as one. It is a great effort at tightening the screws. Where Munich fails is it lack of heart. The main charactersarerelatively generic. I had a tough time even recalling who was who at times. How am I supposed to feel for these characters when I can barely keep them straight?

By the time I put the DVD back on the shelf, I had already forgotten about any moral debate over the efficacy of retaliation. I was focusing on the intensity of the story instead. Somehow, I suspect that is not how I am supposed to react. But I did enjoy the thriller aspects, so I do not feel cheated. Truth be told, I am relieved to find an entertaining action movie after a long dry spell.

I doubt I will be spoiling the ending too badly at any rate, but final scene and post script were apparently sending an odd message. The movie ends on the New York skyline of the mid-’70’s, World Trade Center and all. The a post-script notes that 9 of 11 Black September terrorists were killed. Is that supposed to be a warning to Americans about the dangers of retaliating against Al Qeada? Very tacky addition to the film if so.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2010-07-16T23:06:00.005-04:00

The criticism towards The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has become so brutal, to add much of anything would be piling on. Steven Spielberg himself has all but said hedid not want to make the film. Shia LaBeouf has publicly trashed the movie as being an overblown special effects piece with no story--and this guy starred in Michael bay’s Transformers without complaint.

What can you say about a film whose biggest legacy is adding “nuke the fridge,” a phrase meaning something in a movie so incredulous, it ruins the rest of the viewing experience, to the lexicon?

I can echo LaBeouf--there is too much unnecessary CGI. Gophers? Really, George Lucas? I actually felt saddened comparing the obvious blue screen backgrounds verses the actual sets used in the original films. I am not going to adamantly recommend The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull period, but I sorely advise you to not watch any all the previous films prior. By comparison, old fashioned art desin runs rings around CGI.

The story reminds me of the same problems that plagued Temple of Doom. I think alien artifacts are just as distant and difficult to care about as pagan stones from a death cult. The communists do not make as good a villains as the Nazis, either. It is more than just that too much time has passed since the end of the Cold War. These commies were too generic. Where is that godless, evil empire? The best Indiana Jones films played up the good versus evil dynamic with spiritual overtones. The worst two left those out completely.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tried hard to be a nostalgia piece, but its lack of heart only reminds me of how much better Indiana Jones used to be. They should have left it as a trilogy.

So what happened? To state the most obvious, it is next to impossible to accept a 65 year old grave robber is is still involved in such high adventure. The last couple years have seen some pitiful efforts by aging actors to continue with their usual rounds with mixed results. I am not one to make a general statement that there is a definite time to get off the stage, but I admire it when entertainers figure it out for themselves. Jack Nicholson can no longer play a counter culture icon. He knows. Sean Connery can no longer play an action hero/ladies man. he knows it. But Sylvester Stallone has no clue he can no longer play a boxer or mercenary. Mick Jagger cannot prance around on stage singing about sex. They both might break a hip. Sad to say, I doubt Harrison Ford can still play a swashbuckler.

But to state something a little less obvious, no matter how much talent is attached to a movie- --and it does not get much more loaded with talent than Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford-- when it has lingered in production hell for fifteen years, not much good can come of it. Fans actually split the time periods of production into eras. There was a time in the early ’90’s when the`story was going to revolve around Atlantis, but Ford wanted to hung up the fedora. Then came word Kevin Costner might be added to the cast as Indy’s brother, but Lucas was off making the Star Wars prequels, so that fell through. Then there was going to be a remaining with Ben freaking Affleck as Indiana. Sheesh.

There were so many scripts floating about by even top notch writers like Tom Stoppard, penning an Indy script became a rite of passage for screenwriters. At comic book and science fiction convention, you would here at least a half dozen claims someone had read a script by the latest hot writer and just knew that was going to be the script. I am certain hardly any of that was true, but if you spend even a few minutes on Google looking, you can find all sorts of scripts for the fourth Indy. None apparently managed to satisfy the big three until now.

But what do we have in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull besides an incredibly confusing acronym? )IJ&TKotCS) An aging action hero too old to believably do all the running, jumping, and fighting necessary to pull off the role, flavor of the moment Shia LaBeouf as a costar, and communists and aliens as bad guys. No matter how many good stories were set during the Cold War, commies do not make as good a villains as Nazis and Indy is supposed to fight Nazis. He has sought the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, two symbols of pure goodness, in battling the pure evil of Nazism. Commies are a big step back. Aliens? It sounds like we are heading into Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider territory with the Illuminati seeking a time control device for no clear purpose whatsoever. There are too many head scratchers here for Indy to be the huge hit everyone, including me, was hoping for.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

2010-07-15T23:20:00.003-04:00

Indiana Jones ad the Last Crusade is my favorite of the entire series. Steven Spielberg has gone on record assaying he took steps to return the series back to its Raiders of the Lost Ark roots for the “final" film. It shows.

All of my criticisms of Temple of Doom are specifically addressed. The toe is much lighter, yet still compelling. The Nazi have returned as the villains, so we have clearly defined bad guys we can root against. Finally, the point of interest in the Holy Grail, an item of Christendom with which we can relate much better than some mystical stones stolen by a death.

The Last Crusade has more of a personal touch than the other two in the original trilogy. Spielberg brings in his daddy issues with Henry Joes’, Sr. not having been around much after his wife died, preferring to immerse himself in his work at the expense of his son.

Sean Connery is perfectly cast as Henry Jones, Sr. The abandance of former James Bond players in featured roles is also a nice touch, as I the subtle joke that Indiana is the son of James Bond.

The eventual easing of friction between Henry and Indiana caused by Henry’s obsession with finding the Holy Grail is made all the more poignant when he is willing to let it go in order to save his son in the end. Father/son tension often devolves into cliche in popular entertainment, so I appreciate when it is done well.

It is further inspired to begin the movie with Indiana as a teenager, played by the late rier Phoenix, in order to show both just how early Indiana’s penchant from troublesome adventure started as well as the alienation from his cold father. I was never able to get into The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles because of how much I wanted the sequence to stand alone.

Phoenix carried the Indiana bullwhip mighty well in the opening action scenes. I think The Last Crusade has consistently the best and most amusig action scenes of the series. They arespaced out by good storytelling unlike being padded with the gross out elements of Temple of doom.

Well, save for the Nazi who drinks from the wrong goblet in the climax. His transformation gave me the heebie jeebies for weeks afterwards. What a geat, iconic scene, no? It contributed to earning The Last Crusade a PG-13 rating, the only film in thefrancise to do so. Ironic, sense the intense elements of Temple of Doom contributed to the MPAA developing the PG-13 rating in the first place.

The Last Crusade is big action, big adventure, and big heart. In hindsight it should have been the end of Indiana Jones period. I have a tough time wondering why we clamored for twenty years for another one. After the Star Wars prequels, we should have known we would wind up with CGI gophers and dumb aliens.

I would much rather have had my last memories of Indiana riding off into the sunset to the "Raider’s March.”

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

2010-07-14T23:56:00.001-04:00

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the most surprising sequel I have ever seen in terms of difference with the original. The film has a much darker tone, reportedly because George Luca wanted to capitalize on his success with the darker The Empire Strikes Back. He brought in screenwriters Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz to replace Raiders of the Lost Ark writer Lawrence Kasan. The results are… mixed.

Temple of Doom is a point of nostalgia for me and pretty much any guy close to my age. We loved Raiders of the Lost Ark and were excited for a sequel…any sequel. Temple of Doom delivered with breathtaking action and a lot of classic scenes. But we all knew it fell short of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The perspective offered by the passage of time has helped illuminate the problems, as has the subsequent The Last Crusade and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Those are other reviews I will get to later. Temple of Doom is not a sacred cow like the other two films in the original trilogy. Let us deal with that for now.

The first thing that strikes me is the story is difficult to connect with emotionally. Raiders of the Lost Ark had Nazi villains seeking a Biblical artifact. That is clearly a theme of pure evil and pure good. Temple of Doom involves Indiana searching for some pagan stones ad stumbles across a death cult with supernatural abilities.

I am not terribly prudish about using demonic forces as villains , I do appreciate less ambiguity in their origin. Is this stuff real or voodoo hokum? Why not tell us? Spielberg and Lucas used divine power as the mean to defeat the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark and will do so again in The Last Crusade. Why not pull the trigger here? Stop with the hell allegory and just say this is a Satanic cult Indiana is battling. At least we could relate more to that.

It feels strange that Short Round shows up without explanation as a kid with apparently a longstanding relationship with Indiana. He is thrown in there in order to lead the rebellion of the slave children against their cult captors and never seen or heard from again in any canon or non-canon Indiana Jones material as far as I know. He is an awkward fit because he is just there for a plot point

I bet Short round was a Lucas insistence. Looking back at the Star Wars prequels, I note Lucas has the notion kids fantasize about teaming up with their heroes, so they will want a kid in the movie who does that they can relate to. However, kids are more apt to fantasize about being the hero himself. I do not think characters like Short Round are good additions to movies unless they are more developed and important to the story. Short Round comes up…well, short.

You know you have been jaded by time and circumstance when you rewatch Temple of Doom and realize a movie featuring a 41 year old, single man traveling with a Asian boy would not be made today because it would conjure up images of the child sex trade of Southeast Asia. It probably did then, too, but I was too young in 1984 to know about that sort of sordid thing. Sometimes, I wish I still did not. Studying political science and law while writing for international politics and law journals will teach you some terrible things about this world.

I do not care for Willie as much as I did Marion, either. Kate Capshaw is Steven Spielberg’s wife, so what more is there to say about her casting?

On a more amusing note of how jaded I am in my old age, I laughed watching the mine car chase scene again. As with the droid factory scene in Attack of the Cloes, I realize the sequence is only there to make a theme park ride based on it more popular. The early ’80’s was when cross media promotion really hit it big. Star Wars was just the beginning.

It sounds like I am really trashing Temple of Doom. While it is my least favorite of the original trilogy, it is an iconic film and a big part of my childhood movie experience. It has only diminished over the years because I have gotten more discerning about the flaws in thins of which I used to be uncritical. It is telling that I would enthusiastically sit through Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade again, but cannot imagine the urge to put the Temple of Doom DVD in the player will ever come up again.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

2010-07-13T21:48:00.004-04:00

We are going to keep on with birthday boy Harrison Ford, who turns 68 today, for a while. Wow..68. Does that not make you feel old? All my childhood heroes have dentures.

Lest it appear I have been choosing bad movies that I can scribble poison pen reviews about up until this point, today’s film is a classic ’80’s film that set the standard for action adventure in my impressionable young mind--literally. Indiana Jones is a hero I various shades of gray. The guy is a grave robber who does not always fight fair and will kill in cold blood. Because he was one of the first larger than life characters I remember from my youth, I have always assumed that is what heroes have to be like. The boy scout types have always been corny because of my attitude.

Harrison Ford plays Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, a professor of archeology who often risks his neck in exotic places in order to steal rare artifacts. I use the term steal deliberately. As is pointed out to Indiana at one point, he is only one gentle push away from playing the bad guy. We only root for him because he is the lesser of two evils.

The greater evil is, of course, the Nazis. They are searching for the Ark of the Covenant, which will grant their armies invincibility. We certainly cannot have invincible Nazi armies marching across the planet.

Steven Spielberg planned for Indiana Jones to serve as homage to the action serials of the ’30’s. As one who has a more than passing interest in such serial, I will attest he and George Lucas well succeeded with Raiders. I am inclined to think subsequent installments took on their own “Indiana Jones” feel rather than imitating classic serials and did so with varying degrees o success, but that is an argument for another time.

In addition to the white knuckle, ever a dull moment action, I appreciate the light hearted elements, such as Indiana’s troubles doing nothing but increasing in every action scene and the tweaks of action movie cliché. At one point, Indians knocks out a Nazi and steals his uniform, but it does not fit. How many times have you seen stolen clothe serve asa perfect fit? I snickered when Owen Wilson lucked out in my Behind Enemy Lines review a few days ago.

Raiders is an iconic movie. Everyone remembers the giant boulder scene, which was filmed twenty times before they got it right, the initial escape from the angry natives, the shooting of the swordsmen, Nazi faces being melted off, and the final scene in which top men are investigating the Ark. It is difficult to criticize film that is so well imprinted on our psyche. Fortunately, I do not have to. It is about the most perfect '80's movie.

Can you picture Tom Selleck in the title role? I cannot.

Rating: ***** (out of 5)

Regarding Henry

2010-07-12T03:36:00.006-04:00

We are sticking with J. J. Abrams as screenwriter today with Regarding Henry. The movie is typical of the habit I the early ’90’s of presenting a complex issue as a sweet, but implausible fairy tale. It is in the vein of Pretty Woman, where a handsome, wealthy businessman falls in love with a hooker and we root for it to happen. What Pretty Woman is to true romance, Regarding Henry is to finding redemption after being an awful person one’s entire life.

Harrison Ford stars as Henry Turner, an nasty, unethical, and greedy lawyer who treats everyone like garbage in his quest to get ahead. While going out for cigarettes one night--see how evil he is? He smokes, too!-- he stumbles unto a convenience store robbery. He is shot twice; once in the head and once in the chest. He suffers brain damage from both the head wound and lack of oxygen to the brain because his lung is pierced by the bullet. There is the double whammy to explain why he both loses his memory, inhibitions, and a great deal of his intelligence.

Henry goes from a completely speechless, paralyzed invalid to a something akin to a sweet child during the second act. The journey is a blatant tug at the heartstrings . It is difficult to get into because Henry was such a jerk before, he is not really sympathetic. I feel bad for his wife and daughter, which is dangerous thing for the audience to do considering subsequent story twists.

Basically, the attempt to tug at the heartstrings is so manipulative, I resented the manipulation.

After his rehab, Henry goes home. He now views everything with the wide-eyed wonder of a child. Well, he basically is one now. Henry becomes such an agreeable, saccharine character, I was turn between wondering how long before his wife was oigto dump him for a normal man while a big, flashing sign fell from the ceiling saying, “Pity Henry! Pity Hery now!”

Obviously, his firm hands him frivolous office boy work and his friends mock him for his new mental state. Worse yet, it is revealed his wife was having an affair before his accident, which turns out to be okay because he was, too. They reconcile. He even reveals to the opposing party in his last legal case how he was screwing them over. Total fairy tale ending.

I am blowing it all here because if you did not see the sitcom level twists and turns coming a mile away, my revealing them will not spoil your enjoyment should you ever decide to see Regarding Henry.

The only highlight is Harrison Ford. He takes a big risk. He is not only essentially playing two characters, the latter is an overgrown child. Not I a frat boy sort of way, which can go over the top for laughs, but he fall into offensive stereotype. In the real world, Henry could be institutionalized without much argument.

It is a stretch to assume his wife, the kind of woman who was carrying on an affair anyway, would stick by him. Just to emphasize the point, she sends their daughter off to an elite prep school against his wishes just to get her out of the way. The wife was played by Annette Benning, who was touted by critics as a bright newcomer. But she completely changes her tune by the end no matter her circumstances, past or future. They had to be talking about future potential. She is not a real person here.

I did not really like Regarding Henry. This sort of story has been done far better. Blame it on the material and execution. Ford and Benning did not have much with which to work. Regarding Henry consists of maudlin Lifetime movie of the week quality material that somehow made it to the big screen. I am disappointed with it.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Armageddon

2010-07-11T21:17:00.005-04:00

Our last Owen Wilson film for the foreseeable future is Armageddon. Wilson played Oscar, one of the least colorful characters in an adventure which lacked a lot of color in the first place. No one will blame you if you forgot he was even in it.

Armageddon came along in 1998 when Hollywood had been grasping to find on-controversial, but still compelling villains. The Cold War was over, Nazis had been played out, and political correctness eliminated just about every other possibility. Movies of the time period were filled with terminators, dinosaurs, bland aliens, and, finally, killer asteroids. The result was largely style over substance. Lots of neat special effects, but tin narrative glue holding them together.

Armageddon is a perfect example. A asteroid the size of Texas dubbed a planet killer is hurtling towards Earth. NASA, apparently having seen the far superior The Abyss, call on a crew of misfit oil rig workers to receive astronaut training, land on the asteroid, and blow it off its trajectory in order to save Earth.

The human element--what little there is--is the romance between AJ Frost (Ben Affleck) and Grace Stamper (Liv Tyler), the daughter of the main character, Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis.) Harry does not want his daughter marrying a roughneck like himself, but he comes around in the end in predictably heroic fashion for a movie like this. AJ and Grace have the only real relationship.

I probably would not feel that way I the editing of Armageddon was not so lightning fast. Scenes are brief and manic, many exist only for a punch line which oten isnot funny, and are disconnected from one another. There is very little narrative flow. The whole thing is cut like an extended trailer rom some other movie.

The action sequences towards the end are fun to watch on the big screen. They lose something on television. I have mixed emotions telling you that. Armageddon was the loudest, most intense experience I ever had in a theater. Most unpleasant, really, because I was not prepared for the roller coaster ride. Yet the television experience diminishes the action. I cannot be satisfied either way, which tells me there is a flaw within Armageddon’s execution.

Along with the special effects, I am going to give some props to Billy Bob Thornton as the NASA administrator. This guy can convincingly play a brain damaged redneck and the head of NASA convincingly without ever relying on stereotypes to complete the character. Kudos to him.

But not to much else. With the pacing, I had a difficult time building up any sympathy for the characters. I never doubted AJ and Grace would wind up together even in the best relationship presented. There was no time to feel a sense of dread for Earth’s doom. I cannot describe the personalities of the characters who died. By the time we got to the most heartfelt, bittersweet moment, I was just ready to leave the theater and have a quiet moment so my ears would stop ringing.

Michael Bay is a terrible director of mindless shlock. By making Armageddon a hit, moviegoers doomed us to a decade and counting of more of the same mindless junk. I cannot imagine J. J. Abrams, the mind behind Felicity, Lost, and Fringe, intended for his script to turn into a jumbled music mess with no heart, but that it what it is.

I am goig to give Armageddon three stars regardless of all the criticism. If you are an action movie fan, it is good for one viewing. But a little goes a long way. There is nothing to merit a repeat viewing. All you will ever remember about it is a favorite special effects shot or two--assuming you were quick enough to catch it before before they rapidly went unto something else.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Behind Enemy Lines

2010-07-10T02:56:00.001-04:00

Staying with Owen Wilson, we find him in one of his dramatic turn as a half-hearted Navy pilot shot down over Bosnia. While struggling to make it cross country to a rescue point, he uncovers evidence of a massacre committed by a Serbian general.

The plot is loosely based on the Bosnian War which raged in the ’90’s. Some of the connections are laughably. The actual peace agreement ending the war was called the Dayton Accord. I the movie, it is the Cincinnati Accord. Why thecae? Your guess is as good as mine. The similarities between Owen Wilson’s character’s (Chris Bennett) plight and that of Scott O’Grady, an American pilot shot down over Bosnia in 1995 and survived for six days before being rescued, wee enough to prompt O’Grady to sue the producers for defamation. He probably just did no want to be associated with this dud.

Neither did the Serbs. No Serbian actors wanted to take part in the production because of the strong anti-Serbian themes. All Serbian characters were played by Croats and Russian, often with pigeon Serb dialogue.

Bennett fails into all the usual action movie cliché: he flies into hails of ten thousand bullets while never getting hit, but never misses himself.. He knocks out a Serbian soldier and takes his uniform. It happens to fit him perfectly. He even takes off the ski mask before he is completely out of danger just to reveal to the audience it is him. His final Tarzan-esque act as he is being rescued is laugh out loud funny, but not in a good way.

I cannot believe Gene Hackman would star in this junk as Bennett‘s commanding officer. I also cannot figure out while the military cooperated with its filming. A real admiral would never jeopardize his career by rescuing Bennett personally. I cannot imagine Bennett himself would reconsidered hero after his abandonment of his co-pilot to radio for help gets him killed. But there is a neatly packaged, happy ending regardless.

There are a million similar action films out there. I daresay the vast majority are far, far better. Some exciting moments happen, but they are overshadowed by the movie’s obvious flaws. If it is any consolation to the producers, Behind Enemy Lines is still far better than its direct to video sequels.

Rating: ** (out of 5)

Starsky and Hutch

2010-07-10T02:10:00.001-04:00

We are sticking with Ben Stiller as we head over to Starsky and Hutch, the 2004 spoof of the ultra cool cop show from the ’70’s. by way of confession, I do not believe I have seen n episode of the show in over twenty years. I vaguely remember an plot with Starsky being kidnapped by a Satanic cult, but that only because a Bob Jones rubberstamped teacher of mine back in elementary school once used it as an example of how popular culture glorified Satan. As if we were rooting for Satan over Starsky. As a direct spoof, much of the movie is lost on me. I am not familiar with the show and have to appreciate the movie on its own merits.

Fortunately, I do. Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, Starsky and Hutch, respectively, play off each other well.

I do know enough to realize their character personalities have been juxtaposed. Starsky isa tough, by the book cop while Hutch is a laid back, never grown up Frat boy. On the series, it was the exact opposite. Is that supposed to be part of the joke? Huggy Bear, played like a cay street philosopher by rapper Snoop Dogg, acts more like the glue that holds the cops friction filled partnership together through this, their first assignment.

The two begin investigating a drug ring run by Reese Feldman. (Vince Vaughn) Feldman has developed astrain of cocaine that is undetectable by smell or taste and plans to ship millions of dollars worth into Bay City. Our heroes ru the investigation from when a Feldman associate’s corpse washes ashore until the point the drugs are to be delivered hidden in the grad prize at a charity ball.

I assume many of the twists are homage to elements of the original series. The only one I readily recognized was Hutch’s guitar plying on a song that actually was released by David Soul in a brief foray into music. I hear he was big in Germany. Since I laughed at the sequence knowing what it was tweaking , I have probably missed a few layers of other jokes. Whether that is true, I did laugh often and appreciated the ’70’s kitsch.

Starsky and Hutch is not great by any means, especially if--beat that dead horse--the show does not mean anything to you. But it is light, funny entertainment with a real chemistry between the stars. Everyone acts like they are having a good time. Even the originals, Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul, show up to cap it all off on a happy. Happy except for the thought I had that Soul had died years ago. Where did I get that idea from?

Rating: *** (out of 5)

There's Something About Mary

2010-07-08T03:55:00.001-04:00

We follow the Farrelly Brothers over to There’s Something About Mary. I have only reviewed two comedies thus far and disliked them both. I order to prove I do have a sense of humor, here is a comedy I actually like.

You may be inclined to accuse me of hypocrisy. Yesterday, I blasted Dumb and Dumber for its slapstick and gross out humor, both of which are abundant in There’s Something About Mary. What raises the movie up a notch or two is the main characters of Mary Matthews (Camero Diaz) and Ted Stroehmann (Ben Stiller.) they are far more likable than Harry and Lloyd. I actually care whether these two wind up happily ever after.

I am certain the different dynamic plays a factor. Harry and Lloyd were unsympathetic doofuses, unintentionally mean spirited, but man spirited in their stupidity nevertheless. In There’s Something About Mary, has decent motivations--he wants a private detective to track down his almost prom date whom he isstill I love with--but all sorts of rotten things happen to him along the way. I can appreciate that. Make me care about the character and hi goal, then force him up a tree and throw rocks at him.

The main bad guy of the movie is the sleazy private detective, Pat Healy (Matt Dillon.) He finds Mary, but falls for her, too. He then tries every dirty trick in the book to win her affection while keeping Stroehmann at bay.

The twist is pretty much every guy falls for Mary. Each has his own less than savory way of trying to woo her. I found their competition often tasteless, but very hilarious. Do appreciate the compliment for what it is. Cameron Diaz does not do it for me, so to convincingly make her the obsessive object of affection of numerous guys is no small feat.

The film ends with the pay off on the running gag of who Mary’s ex Brett really is, the fourth wall gets broken to good effect, and there is a typical Hollywood happy ending that you can see coming if you haveever seen any movie about a good guy chasing after his true love. There’s Something About Mary is a no brainer, but its bawdy, political incorrectness is a joy to behold.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

Dumb & Dumber

2010-07-07T04:29:00.002-04:00

I have gotten into the habit of posting regular features on my main blog in other to keep the creative juices flowing. Structure and schedules work best for me. It sounded like good idea to plan Apocalypse Cinema in a similar way, so I have created a master list of movies to review.

Each one will be vaguely connected to the next through an actor or production member. Occasionally, there will be a string of films featuring the same actor or production member in a row. It took a while to make a varied list, but you would be surprised how the chain can evolve.

Today, we follow Jeff Daniels from his relatively minor sidekick role in Speed to a major turn as part of the Dumb and Dumber duo. Whether he is the dumb or dumber one, I leave for you to decide.

True confession--I am not much of a Jim Carrey fan. At least not a fan of his early work in bawdy, gross out humor. Back in his early days of fame, he was trying too hard to remain the hyper kinetic comedian he was on In Living Color. he was fine on the show for six minute stretches. He was not so great making his butt talk for an hour and a half. It too me until The Truman Show the guy could do anything worth seeing.

So I did not get into Dumb and Dumber. I laughed exactly twice. Once, whem Lloyd (Jim Carrey) blew the last bit of money he and Harry (Jeff Daniels) had on a foam cowboy hat, a box of pinwheels, and porno mags instead of groceries. The joke established the pair are stupid. I get it. But most of the jokes remaining are in the same vein. The second time I laughed was when the endangered owl was killed by the flying champagne cork. That was like a Three Stooges gag. You cannot help but laugh.

But the rest of the film was just so unamusing. It just did not have a heart. The two are heading cross country to return a briefcase full of money to a woman (Lauren Holly) Lloyd fell in love with when he drove her to the airport in his limo. We are not really supposed to care if he and Lloyd ever hook up. It is all about the comedic mess he and Harry’s stupidity get them into. But the slapstick, gross out humor fell flat for me. It was not enough to carry the story for me.

It turns out lloys and Harry stumbled onto an extortion plot which they inadvertently help break up. Unfortunately, they have also spent every dime of the money. Lloyd loses the girl too. She already has a fellow. Drat.

In spite of what I have said, I loathe to give Dumb and Dumber too bad a rating. Some critics called Carrey the next Jerry Lewis after watching the film. I recognize that is meant to be high praise, but I am not a Lewis fan, either. Dumb and Dumber is also considered a classic in the buddy film genre for which I can only name a couple interesting entries. So I am going to have to take a step back and observe how well the film was made and where it fits into the genre. With that in mind, Dumb and Dumber gets the job done.
Just not for me.

Rating: ** (out of 5)