Don't Breathe

Don't Breathe (2016)

Somehow, it got 87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 120 reviews)

Runtime: 88 minutes

Directed by: Not one of my favorite in Fede Alvarez

Starring: Jane Levy, Dylan Minnette, Daniel Zovatto, Stephen Lang

From: Several companies owned by Sony

I hate to be this guy again, but... don't listen to the hype; I thought this was a pretty bad movie. The atrocious script and story sink it. I angrily explain why in my Letterboxd review below: 

One day, I'll watch the Evil Dead remake in order to give it a better review; in short, I thought that the story and most of the characters were complete crap, and no amount of gore could make up for that; why so many lost their mind over it I do not know. I always thought remaking that film was stupid but that was a minor deal when it came to me detesting it. Despite not like that movie, I heard so many strong things about Don't Breathe, even with a plot that seemed to strain credulity from description, I figured it was worth a shot.

Well, once again I wonder why so many have gone wild over this.

I haven't really talked about the infamous Devin Farachi before; like many people I think the guy is a complete pr*ck and a loathsome D-bag, a pitiful example of humanity. I figured this out on the CHUD messageboards, long before he did his clown act on Twitter, let alone posting what seems like trolling reviews on Birth Movies Death. The problem is, sometimes I happen to agree with him; it's happened on the occasions that I read what he writes, which is not too frequent. This afternoon I heard elsewhere that there was an uproar because in Devin's review for this film he gave away a big spoiler in the title for the review. That was a needless move so I did not even look at the Birth Movies Death site to see this controversial review until after I saw the film this late afternoon.

Unfortunately, on this occasion I have to agree with Mr. Farachi on the movie being pretty bad. He hated it even more than I did. I did not think the three young leads who try to rob Zatoichi to be intolerable, but otherwise... Devin brought up a number of fair complaints. And I thought while watching the movie that Stephen Lang's character might as well be Zatoichi due to some things that happen throughout... it was definitely before I read Devin's review and saw him make the same comparison. My main problems weren't how the story had potential but it was squandered instead of exploring some interesting themes and comparisons between various characters and what they had to deal with... although thinking about it, it is unfortunate they did not try to be smarter. Rather, a lot of it revolves around Zatoichi and how sometimes he has Zatoichi powers, and then there's the gross aspect of the movie... I won't be like Devin and spoil it. It's just unneeded & disgusting.

It's a shame as at first, I was enjoying the movie. While pretty dopey and silly, at least it was entertaining... at first. It was fun seeing the three young adults try to break into Zatoichi's house then steal all the cash he has without him hearing it. Then, the movie got stupider and stupider and my enjoyment lowered and lowered. I then realized that the movie's beginning did something quite dumb and unneeded; I didn't even realize it until the end. Come to think of it, giving this 2 stars may be awfully generous on my part. Yet, I guess I'll be nice and note that the performances were at least fine, with Lang being the standout, even if the character is rather muddled. It is nicely shot and there are some obvious Hitchcock moments. They weren't perfect but I do appreciate the attempt.

I wish I wasn't “that guy” when it came to too many modern films. The most egregious example is how I don't like Fury Road, and I saw it twice. In the horror genre, I only thought that It Follows and The Babadook were average, and I hated House of the Devil. I could be dishonest and go with the herd, but I have to tell the truth here. It's nice that this is popular and did better at the box office in an otherwise disastrous Summer 2016 movie season. Yet, to me this is yet another example in what I think is a HUGE problem in too many modern movies, no matter the genre: they are stupid and make no logical sense once you even take a glance at the plot or spend 30 seconds thinking about the events of the plot. It's a reason why I don't see as many modern movies as many people do, even here on Letterboxd. Seeing classics/older movies is preferable to me, and the foreign flicks don't seem as bad with the issue. I guess then I should cross off Fede Alvarez and avoid his work as I have with plenty of other directors; I'll list Ti West as another example in this genre. If only I could understand this movie's popularity.

Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Mel Stuart

Starring: Gene Wilder (RIP), Jack Albertson, Peter Ostrum, Julie Dawn Cole, Denise Nickerson

From: Paramount; what a bad move to later give up the rights to this to Warner Brothers, which later made a lot of money with this. Whoops

Yep, I went with the obvious here, but that is OK. I was saddened by the shocking news yesterday, so I figured it was time to watch this again last night. It was a wise decision. Look at my Letterboxd review below for the details:

While this is the most obvious thing to watch after the horrible news that broke yesterday, I hadn't seen this in years (of course I've watched it a handful of times in my life, including the rather odd experience of seeing it while donating plasma) and plus there have been plenty here who have revisited this favorite in the past 24 hours; I figured I should do so, although I do not love it like many do; at least I still rate it highly.

Now, as an adult I can laugh that while the titular Willy Wonka acts like a weird A-hole, at least it's because he's either dealing with even bigger A-holes who deserve to be torn apart in an incredibly sarcastic manner or it's to test the integrity of the Mr. Charlie Bucket. Among all the strange acid trip images, bizarre dialogue and vertically challenged orange men with green hair, the film does have a lot of nice messages for “the kids”, such as “don't watch too much TV”, “don't eat so damn much food”, “don't be a brat”, etc. It was nice to see a nice kid from a poor family get rewarded for not being an asshat. Plus, while for some reason some people on the Internet have made comments about Grandpa Joe “being lazy” for suddenly getting out of bed after 20 years and dancing about... heck, some people even created a Facebook page about hating him... he is a cool character too.

The movie definitely has plenty of unforgettable moments, from the vibrant factory that has plenty of oddities a child would love, to the songs the Oompa Loompas sing, the nice songs in general and how garish & abominable the other 4 children were. But it is Wilder who is the most memorable part of the picture. He manages to always be charming even when he acts strange and isn't always “a nice guy”. The film was not popular when it came out but TV and VHS later changed that and it lead to such things as several memes. Not to use a cliché but I could not possibly imagine anyone else in the role; it definitely would have been a different movie, and probably not as revered.

The ending of the movie-where Wonka talks about “not living forever and not wanting to try”-is especially sad now, along with hearing that Wilder had Alzheimer's but that was kept a secret because he did not want any children to find out and be upset by it... oh, “the feels”, as some would say. I'll remember him for the various films I've seen him in (I definitely haven't reviewed all of those for Letterboxd; sometime in the future I'll see some of those. For now I'll try to remember all the entertainment he provided in the flicks I saw rather than be downtrodden that he passed away.

Frankenstein

Frankenstein (1931)

Runtime: 71 minutes

Directed by: James Whale

Starring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles, Boris Karloff, Edward Van Sloan

From: Universal

I saw this classic on Friday night. It still deserves to be a classic. I talk about this below via my Letterboxd review: 

This was on TCM last night so I figured this was the perfect time to watch a horror classic and then talk about it here. I've never read the novel from Mary Shelley but one day I will. I needn't cover the plot as everyone knows about Dr. Frankenstein and his hunchback assistant, “It's Alive!”, and how parts of various bodies were put together but because the hunchback was a dumbass, a murderer's brain was put into the monster, the villages carrying torches, and all the rest.

While some parts do come off as campy, overall it's still an effective horror movie and its popularity is not unwarranted. It is filmed well by James Whale, on big dark sets, the camera sometimes far back to show scale and set the appropriate spooky/eerie mood. The lack of score helped in setting a stark atmosphere. The performances are all at least fine but it is Boris Karloff as the monster which is the most memorable.

I understand that the book is quite different from the movie; in the former the creature is quite loquacious, speaking quite a bit, while in the movie the only noises it makes are animalistic noises. That's one of many changes but I mention that as under all the makeup (to think that his appearance is still seen by everyone as THE image when you hear “Frankenstein”, even if you haven't seen the movie) and various devices to make him a large hulking monster, he does a swell job of drawing sympathy without saying a word. You feel bad when he is mistreated and sad at his ultimate fate. But, you also feel happy when he plays w/ that little girl, nevermind how that scene ended.

In short, this horror film still works, even 75 years after the fact. No surprise that it started a wave of horror from all the major studios and Universal was the king of the genre w/ all the monsters in their employ.

Captivity

Captivity (2007)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed (somehow) by: Roland Joffe

Starring: Elisha Cuthbert, Daniel Gillies, Pruitt Taylor Vince

From: Some companies that should have known better

Yes, this is a movie I have seen before; it was right before I started this blog way back in 2009. I saw it at a pal's place. He helped me out by allowing me there to stay the night while I was on vacation. He decided we should watch this and even knew I already heard about its badness, I had little choice in the manner. He enjoyed it more than I did. It was worse than I remembered. BTW, somehow before the movie started I told the pal that this starred Brittany Murphy, which got him excited as he expected a certain kind of movie; I can't even blame him for thinking that way. He was OK with it starring Ms. Cuthbert once I corrected my mistake. My review of this horrible movie is below, via a review I posted on Letterboxd:

Would you believe I've actually seen this piece of crap before? Back in August of '09 I was on vacation and someone I know helped me out and allowed me to stay at his place for the night in a last minute deal. He decided that we should watch this and Role Models. The latter was fine, this one not so much. I knew all the toxic reviews this got when it came out in '07 and all the controversy directed its way when there was miscommunication and billboards in LA appeared plugging the film but they showed an obviously kidnapped woman about to be tortured then killed. I remembered that my friend enjoyed this more than I did but I remembered little of what took place in the film. Turns out, this is really bad. I felt ripped off... and I saw this for free via Amazon Prime.

The plot: Elisha Cuthbert is a vapid celebrity who is kidnapped then held in captivity as a bunch of gross things happen to her. Both Pruitt Taylor Vince and Daniel Gillies (a.k.a. Mr. Rachael Leigh Cook... what a lucky man he is) show up. That's about it. I am not a fan of torture porn; I know some people don't like the term but for simplicity's sake that's what I'll use. I haven't even seen the first Saw, let alone any of the sequels, that's how much it doesn't appeal to me. Anyhow, a lot of gross things happen and you're better off not hearing what those gross things were.

Besides the disgusting nature of the picture, it just looks like a piece of crap and the plot seems to be haphazardly patchworked together; a bunch of random things happen, pretty much. The plot is complete nonsense and aside from some laughing I did at the movie, this was no fun to watch. I have no idea what happened to Roland Joffe's career; he started off with The Killing Fields and The Mission and somehow ended up here; can I blame it on The Scarlet Letter? Even more baffling: one of the people who wrote this was LARRY COHEN. Yes, the legendary cult filmmaker. I have no idea how much he contributed to the story or if it was mainly his, how much of it was changed. I could not imagine such a product coming from him.

Personally, I am glad that this specific subset of the horror genre has died off and is all but extinct now. As previously mentioned, it's just not tailored for my tastes. Even if I did dig such movies, this is bad in other ways besides the plot so this doesn't have much to offer for any filmgoer.

Train To Busan

Train to Busan (Busanhaeng) (2016)

Runtime: 118 minutes

Directed by: Yeon Sang-Ho

Starring: Gong Yoo, Ma Dong-Seok, Jung Yoo-Mi, Choi Woo-Shik, Ahn So-Hee

From: Several different South Koran companies

Tuesday night I rewatched the 4th and 5th Friday the 13th movies. I talked about them before here so I won't say more about those; yesterday I went to Tampa to see this on the big screen at Studio Movie Grill, a joint I had never been to before. Things did not turn out well... and yet this was still a great film. I talk all about it below: 

In a rare moment for me, I actually got to see this movie on the big screen last night. Nevermind being able to see two South Korean flicks on the big screen in a two week span of time, I was excited to check this out as I heard rave reviews. I am glad I got to see it that way but boy was it a bad night at the movies.

I'll try to be brief: I saw this at Studio Movie Grill, a place I had never visited before and as it was the only joint in the area showing it, I made the drive to Tampa to check it out. After visiting a few places I ended up at the run-down mall where it was. The fact that it was not clear where you should park so you could be by the main entrance and it was difficult to get out of there in a dark parking lot... that did not make me happy, nor did the bartender in the fancy lounge/bar area ignoring me make me feel like I made the right choice in going there. My seat being beat up all to hell, various things not being adequately explained and what ended up happening during the film means that it would take a lot for me to ever go there again.

But hey, their pizza was great so if you do decide to go to one of their 20 or so locations...

The movie drew a decent-sized crowd and most of them were fine; they reacted to all the big moments so it was all good... thankfully I usually don't have to deal with awful Troglodytes when at a theatre seeing a movie. Well, on this night there were some real cretins around. I'll just say that I am not a confrontational person yet I almost had a confrontation with a couple. They bolted as soon as the end credits began and I thought about running after them; then I realized that the guy looked like a Neanderthal who solves all his problems with his fists so I decided that it'd probably be best if I restrained myself.

The big tragedy of it is, I had this fiasco of a night while watching a great movie, one I recommend to everyone. I hope that when my mutuals see this in the future, it is under better circumstances than what I had to deal with. This is all about a zombie apocalypse happening in South Korea, and the focus is on a disparate group of people on a train who are traveling from Seoul to the city of Busan; the former is in the north part of the country and Busan is down at the very bottom. As they go through the country things escalate rather quickly when the zombie infection spreads onto the train. Now, they are the fast-moving zombie types and infection happens very quickly so it can certainly be argued that maybe they aren't zombies at all and instead they're just infected, like the creatures we saw in Nightmare City and Planet Terror.

In any case, the key aspect of the film is not all the exciting action sequences or seeing giant hordes of zombies wrecking s***. Rather, it's all the characters you follow. We get to follow them. They include a businessman father who is finally spending time with his young daughter... an old pair of sisters, a cocky young man and his pregnant wife, and a baseball team. We get to see how they react to something unprecedented and while some decide to work together to try and survive, others are real A-holes. It's all so compelling and interesting; while some of the characters are stereotypical all of them I enjoyed watching and judging by reactions, so did the crowd. I doubt it's too much of a spoiler to say that in a South Korean picture, things aren't cliché like we get in Hollywood movies and thus you should not necessarily presume that all of the main characters will make it to the end.

Personally, I was not a fan of Snowpiercer at all and I thought this was much better. One day I'll watch this at home, where the experience will be much better; I'll also see Seoul Station, an animated movie from the same director that is apparently a prequel to this. I will hope it is as great as this movie turned out to be.

Mr. And Mrs. Smith (The One From 1941)

Mr and Mrs. Smith (1941)

Runtime: 94 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery, Gene Raymond, Jack Carson, Philip Merivale

From: RKO

This was a random watch last night; it's not great and pales in comparison to both Hitch's best films and the must-see screwball comedies. Yet, it's not bad like some say it is. I talk all about it below: 

This film was on Turner Classic Movies late last night and I figured I'd give this a viewing, even if it's not the most popular movie that Hitchcock ever did... in fact, I understand that many strongly dislike it. I do not hate it but I can only say that it's fine. The charms of Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery and Gene Raymond are a big help here. Basically, a married couple has obvious issues, despite saying that they love each other. Well, a technicality suddenly makes their marriage annulled and one of the two wishes not to officially get married.

The movie isn't terrible as some people like to think; while it definitely is not the typical Hitchcock picture, I am OK with that, as a director shouldn't do the same or similar things all the damn time. To me, I can only rate this as “fine” as the story is not great and it's not hilarious throughout like screwball comedy classics It Happened One Night or Bringing Up Baby, which I've seen before years ago and one day I'll watch anew and review them here. It has its laughs but it's only funny enough to where I can give it such a rating. Plus, to be honest I am not sure if I would want to be friends with either Mr. or Mrs. Smith with the way they act towards each other or how they are one of those annoying couples that constantly argue!

At least the movie is well done when it comes to the filmmaking craft. It's just not as filled with laughs as the classic screwball comedies of yore. I don't fault Hitch for working with Lombard, though... he and his family became friends with her and her husband at the time, Clark Gable. If only she would not have died so young, you know that she would have been the leading lady in one of his suspense classics. It'd be perfect, and probably pretty awesome as well. Regretfully, this was the only time those two got to work together. At least it's presumably better than the film of the same name starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie...

Hell Or High Water

Hell or High Water (2016)

98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 130 reviews)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: David McKenzie

Starring: Chris Pine, Ben Foster, Jeff Bridges, Gil Birmingham, Katy Mixon

From: CBS Films/Lionsgate

In short, if you love Southern Gothic/Texas Noir/Neo-Noir/Whatever You Want To Call It films, then this is a must-see. I explain why below in a review I-as always-copied and pasted from Letterboxd: 

Until relatively recently, this movie was not even on my radar; then, I saw the (misleading; the movie is not as action packed as you're lead to believe) trailer and noticed people excitedly buzzed for it, then the high praise came in from those that saw it. I had lofty expectations and thankfully this met them.

I won't reveal much of the plot aside from what's already popular knowledge: Ben Foster and Chris Pine are brothers Tanner and Toby Howard; they love each other but they are quite different from each other. Still, they rob banks in their native West Texas while Texas Rangers Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham are on the hunt trying to stop their reign of terror.

A big theme of the movie is how that area of Texas is like what probably too many areas are: fallen on hard times, filled with closed businesses and people down on their luck, having trouble even affording the basic necessities of life. It reminds me of how each December for the past few years now my parents and I drive from Florida all the way to the Midwest, as one of my sisters lives out there; we haul presents for Christmas and plus it's cheaper than flying out there. Well, going through Southeastern Arkansas is incredibly depressing... aside from it being dreary December weather, small town after small town is filled with a lot of empty buildings, businesses that look to have been closed for years by now. I wonder how those people even survive day to day life there when there's nothing to do and there appears to be precious little when it comes to a job. That reminded me of the run-down sights you saw in this motion picture.

Anyway, this is such an captivating movie watching the characters interact with each other and deal with the various obstacles that come up in their path. There is a definite reason the brothers rob those banks and “greed” isn't the entire story. Bridges and his old age is part of the story for his role of Marcus Hamilton. Everyone in the cast does a swell job with their roles and you get wrapped up in the plot, which tackles many relevant themes, some of them unfortunately affecting many Americans. This is definitely more than just a cliché “Cops vs. Robbers” tale you commonly find in crappy direct to video productions; you do get some pretty violent scenes but this is about a lot more than that.

I won't say why but in several ways this felt quite retro, and I imagine one aspect or two of it will rankle a small segment of people out there; I know how things are in 2016 but to me it was nothing to get out of shape about; it is just a trait of a crusty old man who is from a different time. Overall, I feel this is a movie worthy of its lofty praise as it covers serious topics alongside being an exciting movie where you see two forces come together and the result of that is pretty explosive. This being filmed in Eastern New Mexico instead of West Texas is not really a detriment as it certainly looks like West Texas (I've driven through there while on vacations as a kid) and it's a pretty landscape nonetheless. Needless to say, I highly recommend this for most people.

The Oily Maniac

The Oily Maniac (You Gui Zi) (1976)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: Meng Hua Ho

Starring: Danny Lee, Ping Chen, Lily Li, Lun Hua, Hsieh Wang

From: Shaw Brothers

Yes, this is actually a Shaw Brothers film, a horror flick known as The Oily Maniac. The title makes me laugh and laugh. As for the actual movie... it's not great. To clarify what I said below, currently on Letterboxd there's a shocking amount of controversy over the Richard Linklater movie Everybody Wants Some!! While I haven't seen it, I understand the general tone is sexist, or at least that's what a segment believe is the case, and there's a lot of debate over the topic. I've managed to avoid most of the controversy but I know people are getting real heated on both sides over the movie and it's alleged sexism, not to mention there's plenty of debate over even if it's any good or not; I know some absolutely despise it.

Anyhow... I talk about The Oily Maniac below in what should not be a controversial review: 

Yes, the Shaw Brothers actually made a movie known as The Oily Maniac, and it is about a bipedal creature who is made out of oil... in actuality it's a guy in a black suit that is “wet”. It sounded so absurd I had to see it; awhile ago I “tracked it down” (nevermind how; it's not something you can legally stream) and last night was the night I finally watched it. Well... I can only say it's about average.

The setting is 1970's Malaysia, which is where most of this was filmed. Basically, a guy who needs crutches to walk around (and yeah, he is bitter about his handicap) learns from a soon to die uncle the spell to become the titular oily maniac; he can only go after jerks and lowlifes who deserve it. As the movie portrays 1970's Malaysia as a lawless and corrupt land, a-holes aren't hard to find. What a thanks to the country for allowing them to film there.

I realize all of this sounds greatly entertaining, and indeed is rather wacky & when you see Oily change from human into an animated oil puddle that moves quickly around and back again it's an (oil) barrel of laughs, I can only rate this as about average. The story is too preposterous and Oily wrecking dudes manages to not be as exciting as it should be; “strangling people for a few seconds until they are apparently dead” is often done, although stomping people to death is always neat. While this is sleazy and it is amusing how they managed to squeeze in even more breasts by having a subplot of a woman w/ a botched boob job, it becomes gross when there are two scenes of rape. That mutes the chuckles I got from seeing one of my favorite things, which is “wacky 70's clothing”, as there's plenty of that in the movie. Watching this, I wonder if the filmmakers had conflicted opinions concerning women. Maybe I shouldn't even bring that up considering the gigantic sh*tstorm brewing here on Letterboxd over “that one Linklater movie” but when this movie even has a scene where a woman has-ahem-her hymen repaired by unlicensed surgeons... you wonder.

This wasn't what it could have been but at least it's still watchable and you do feel bad for Oily as he's conflicted over all the D-bags he's killed... at least this wasn't terrible.

Ben-Hur: A Tale Of The Christ

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

Runtime: 143 minutes

Directed by: Fred Niblo... and Charles Brabin, and Christy Cabanne, and J.J. Cohn, and Rex Ingram

Starring: Ramon Novarro, Francis X. Bushman, May McAvoy, Betty Bronson, Claire McDowell

From: MGM

Yes, this is the silent feature length version of the story best known for the classic 1959 film. While not a classic like that flick is, this is still something worth seeing. I say why that's the case below:

It's been around 3 months since I saw my last silent so I figured it was time to do so; plus, even if the new version is more based on the 1880 book by General Lew Wallace-a fascinating character in his own right... he did everything from fight in the Civil War to being a governor of a territory-than the famous movies, the upcoming 2016 remake will be on everyone's mind soon, likely as a costly flop which probably shouldn't have been made in the first place as it was destined for such a fate.

Now, a long time ago I did see the Charlton Heston version, but this is my first time watching this silent classic, and from what I recall, this and the 1959 movie are pretty similar, at least in terms of story. Judah Ben-Hur is an average Jew living in Jerusalem who was friends with a Roman Tribune known as Messala but Messala became corrupted and turned into a real A-hole, so after an accident the entire Hur family was punished, including Ben being put into slavery, where after being a hero out on sea, he races chariots, and has a showdown w/ that heel Messala. Oh, and the birth of Christ happens, & Jesus Christ is occasionally talked about and while his face is never shown, his presence is definitely felt.

While this is not as great as the 1959 film, that is no slight as that Heston movie is an all-time classic. This movie is still worth seeing. Even without audible dialogue it's still so interesting and captivating; the cast does a nice job, especially Ramon Navorro as the titular Ben-Hur; I can understand why he was quite popular around this time. It is a lavish film, with nice sets, a large scope, and scenes which look like they have hundreds of extras. More than one scene has impressive action sequences involving many different people.

There's even a chariot race which is awesome in its own ways. While you can't see these people, the crowd in the race is said to include such famous stars from the era as John Gilbert, Reginald & John & Lionel Barrymore, Marion Davies, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Dorothy & Lillian Gish. Star to be Joan Crawford was also in the crowd, and another future star in Myrna Loy was one of the “slave girls”. Point is, this movie was “a big deal” for MGM at the time and it proved to be a box office hit.

I am glad I finally saw this film, what with its random Technicolor moments, extravagant bits, and moving segments.

Suddenly In Dark Night

Suddenly in Dark Night (Gipeun Bam Gabjabi) (1981)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Young Nam Ko

Starring: Il-Bong Yun, Yeong-Ae Kim, Ki-Seom Lee, Hye-Ri Han

From: Nam-A Pictures

Even among film fans this is pretty obscure; it is unfortunate as this South Korean horror flick is actually quite entertaining, if a little silly. At least one of those boutique DVD/Blu labels is going to release it; that may inspire more to see this, although it can be viewed on Amazon, which is what I did. I explain it all below: 

This is a movie (I really know nothing of K Horror before the mid 90's; I haven't even seen the most famous Korean horror flicks, although one day I'll get around to them) I only found out about on Monday, when an account I follow on Twitter mentioned that the Mondo Macabro label would be putting this out soon. Mondo Macabro isn't the most prolific boutique label of obscure/cult films out there, but despite having an output that isn't as much as the popular labels like Shout/Scream Factory, Twilight Time, Kino Lorber, Scorpion Releasing, etc., they do typically release rather unique foreign titles that are little known among even the most diehard fans of such stuff. Anyhow, while looking for more info on a movie that will be out on Blu later in the year, I was shocked to see this was available for free on Amazon, as long as you are a Prime member. Then again, if Amazon has f'ing Mystics in Bali for streaming... no matter if you call this Suddenly in Dark Night, Suddenly in the Dark, Suddenly at Midnight, or even its Korean title of Gipuen Bam Gabjabi, I figured it was worth a shot.

Turns out, this was worth the watch. The plot: there's a family which consists of a husband that collects butterflies (!), the mom stays at home and they have a young daughter. They still need a housemaid, because... well, back then the plot device of housemaids were popular in South Korean cinema. The husband literally found her on the street and thought that this random 19 year old girl-who happens to be attractive and as the movie blatantly made note of, “had a great body”; housemaid also carries around a creepy wooden doll and is the daughter of a late shaman lady. Now what could go wrong there?

This has little in the way of violence or blood; sleaze, though... this has a lot of it. There are bare breasts, a sex scene, and plenty of ogling shots of the young housemaid. The main focus is on the psychological aspect. What is the actual truth... is the housemaid having an affair with her husband, is she trying to drive her crazy and is that doll haunted, or is extreme paranoia and jealousy making her crazy? This is done in basically one setting and that's a house which practically screams “1970's”; there's dark green patterned wallpaper, a room which has a bright green floor, you get to see bright red furniture... what a house it is.

It is filmed in an interesting way, in terms of shot composition, camera movement and all that. Plus, some shots are either through a kaleidoscope or what appears to be the bottom of a glass Coke bottle; they are done during certain moments and while it may sound too flashy, at least I appreciated the attempt. There is even an early 80's synth score and as I typically dig such things, it was something that I enjoyed. While this is more based on hearsay than what I have witnessed so far, South Korean movies did not suddenly become good or worthwhile in the past 20 years; they have made quality flicks for longer than that. Who knows how many hidden gems are out there that people just don't know about.

I am delighted Mondo Macabro is putting out the film on Blu; if you want to try it out first the copy on Amazon looks decent enough and it's actually subtitled.

Blood Father

Blood Father (2016)

Runtime: 88 minutes

Directed by: Jean-Francois Richet

Starring: Mel Gibson, Erin Moriarty, Diego Luna, Michael Parks, William H. Macy

From: Lionsgate Premiere

This is pretty much a direct to video movie I got to see on the big screen last night, but in this day and age, “direct to video” isn't necessarily a statement of poor or lackluster quality. In fact, I thought that for action fans, this is a worthwhile picture. I explain why below: 

Earlier this year I heard about this film (a standard action movie starring the infamous Mel Gibson) on-you guessed it-a messageboard. Then, when this came out in limited release this past Friday, there was plenty of grumbling about how it was supposed to also be Video on Demand on the same day, but because this was released by Lionsgate and Lionsgate is worse than genital warts, the VOD got pushed back a few weeks. Unlike how it usually is, Orlando was one of the cities that got a limited release film, so I figured I should check it out. I am glad I did.

This is a standard meat and potatoes action film which isn't exactly filled with surprises, but to me that is OK as I enjoy the taste of meat & potatoes. Mel Gibson plays convicted felon JOHN LINK; he's a badass. His daughter is a runaway, but when she gets in a lot of trouble by hanging out with some very undesirable people, she runs to dad and you can probably figure out what happens from there. They try to repair their fractured relationship but there's a lot of friction, he kicks a lot of ass, etc. In supporting roles are such famous faces as Diego Luna, Michael Parks, Miguel Sandoval, and even William H. Macy, of all people.

The cast is uniformly fine and Erin Moriarty is good as errant daughter Lydia, but it is Gibson who is the star of the show in every which way and delivers a memorable performance as a badass who is nonetheless vulnerable; before his daughter arrived, he simply wished to stay on the straight and narrow, as he's on parole. Note that my enjoyment of Mel in movies is not an endorsement of Mel Gibson as a human being; I certainly do not approve of some of the things he's done; I'll just be vague and say that there are several references to various controversies & problems in Gibson's life in this film. I was surprised by that but I will presume he wanted them there as a mea culpa and a way to note and address these issues. And as should be no surprise, there are some references to his most famous movies throughout this picture.

As for the movie as a whole, it's not wall to wall action and that is OK. As this is rated R, when the action does happen it is pretty violent, and there's plenty of vulgar language throughout. It is compelling when it is not violent and in ways I won't elaborate, this seemed like an old fashion action film in the best ways. I know this movie won't be for everyone; however, for those that enjoy the good action movie-especially the ones we got in the past-then you'll likely dig what this is serving. You may have to wait to see it, but if it's playing near you, I'd say to go ahead and check it out on the big screen.

The Casino

The Casino (Ji Xiang Du Fang) (1972)

Runtime: 77 minutes

Directed by: Tseng-Chai Chang

Starring: Hua Yueh, Lily Ho, Feng Chin, Nan Chiang, Kang Chin

From: Shaw Brothers

No, this isn't the Scorsese movie; rather, it's an obscure Shaw Brothers film. I talk about this below via Letterboxd: 

Looking through the lists I have, I realized I hadn't seen anything from Shaw Brothers since the middle of April. Four months is way too long so I was glad to fix this mistake. I chose this obscure entry from the studio because of its obscurity, it is free on Amazon if you have Prime, it was short at 77 minutes and the Shaw Brothers Universe website is where I found out about it. The first thing from a Google search of "Shaw Brothers Universe" is a listing of all the movies from the studio that can be streamed, and links to all the sites that each movie can be streamed from. It is very handy when you want to know what is and isn't available.

As for this movie, it is not great but it's still nice that it's available as at least it's a little different from the norm when it comes to this studio's bread and butter. The plot: a skilled gambler (who is so skilled it is a little preposterous) “uses gambling to stop gambling”, as he's against it due to how it ruins people's lives, which to me is a valid reason. Even having an attractive wife is not enough to stop his quest, despite all the people running casinos and all the people running scams on gamblers being out to get him. It has to be said that the gambling you see is a simple game involving three dice and the outcome depends on if the cumulative score is above or below 10, or if you get 3 of a kind.

The movie isn't just him exposing gamblers; there is the expected martial arts, and it gets pretty bloody & violent, if not spectacular when it comes to the martial arts on display. Thus, while this is not a must-see when it comes to the legendary studio, it at least is fine and entertaining. When you put out so many movies throughout a few decades, they can't all be 4 or 5 star classics. It is cool that with this studio even the obscure entries can be worthwhile. What helps is that the direction and production is nice, with the expected camera movements and lavish colorful sets. There's also a pleasant score with a cool easy listening main theme. Thankfully this was a random movie selection that wasn't a waste of time.

Operation Chromite

Operation Chromite (2016)

Runtime: 111 minutes

Directed by: John H. Lee

Starring: Jung-Jae Lee, Beom-Su Lee, Jin Se-Yeon, Jung Joon-Ho... and Liam Neeson!

From: Several different South Korean companies

This is the movie I referred to a few days ago when I saw Inchon; needless to say, this is better than Inchon. I understand the mixed reviews but I did like this. I talk all about it below: 

This is honestly a movie I did not know about until a few days ago, when I looked online to see what would be playing in the area this upcoming week and I came across what seemed to be a random South Korean movie. I was delighted to see something from that country, as unfortunately The Wailing won't be playing anywhere close by me that wouldn't require an entire day to make a trip to see it-that'll have to wait for the streaming services-and I found out that this was about the same battle covered in the infamous megabomb Inchon (which is why I finally saw that movie a few days ago; no surprise why “Inchon” is nowhere in the title for this film) and that playing General Douglas MacArthur was... Liam Neeson! I can say that he was better as the General than Laurence Olivier was, although Neeson wasn't in bad health at the time. When he spoke, he basically sounded like the Liam Neeson you see everything else.

It's a small role anyhow, as most of the focus on this movie about the Korean War of the early 1950's is on South Korean spies who try to disguise themselves as members of the army of North Korea, in order to gather intel that will help the troops capture Inchon. The first half of this is general spy stuff where they try to avoid detection as they get to get the needed info. After that, there's plenty of shootouts, blood, and people dying. No surprise about the last two things considering which country this is from. It is not brutal like some Korean films, but there are still some rough moments.

This does have its cliches-although definitely not as much as a Hollywood production-and I do understand why this has gotten mixed reviews as it's not a great movie. Yet, I happened to be entertained by this story. While I don't know how much of it actually happened in real life, what is shown was still entertaining to me; in addition I enjoyed the action scenes and all the carnage that resulted from it. The acting was fine overall and so was everything behind the camera. I did not expect this to be anything deep intellectually or offer any hard-hitting insights. This was released in its home country a few weeks ago and has done well so far; it's the type of thing to inspire the people of South Korea and instill a wave of patriotic pride.

A few other people were at my screening. I hope that one day I can see more Korean movies on the big screen and not just at the arthouse places but like with this film, at an AMC Theatres. Some of the films from the country I have seen already, I would have loved to have seen them theatrically. I can always dream, right?

Night Of The Living Dead... The Original

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Runtime: 95 minutes

Directed by: George A. Romero

Starring: Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman, Keith Wayne

From: Image Ten

Of course I had seen this several times before, but I figured this was now a good time to give it a proper review. In short, it still is a classic and influential horror movie. I talk all about it below:

This is yet another one of those movies I've seen at least once before but the last viewing was a long time ago. Sometime next week I plan on seeing the original The Crazies, but I figured I better rewatch this before I do that. Not that I have a lot of innovative or thought-provoking commentary that hasn't been said already. We all know how it was one of the most important movies in the history of the horror genre and how it even became a part of pop culture as it not only popularized zombies-it is amazing to me how they became so popular in the past decade-but even provided the stereotypical image that everyone has in their mind when they think “zombie”. Quite impressive for a low-budget effort done by George A. Romero and his friends because they were tired of filming commercials and industrial films and wanted to make a movie which just happened to be inspired by the Richard Matheson book I Am Legend and the low budget meant that things were on a small scale, focusing on several random people who are stuck in a farmhouse that the dead converge on.

The other Dead movies are definitely different-which makes it an interesting series, as I'll talk about as I eventually see all of those and put up reviews for them-but for the original, I am definitely fine with how the dead reanimate (possibly became of a satellite from Venus) and the attention is how by happenstance several different people end up at a farmhouse in Western Pennsylvania and there is plenty of disagreement on how to handle an unprecedented event... should everyone stay on the ground floor of the house because the doors and windows are boarded up and if they break through, it is easy to defend, or should they hide in the secure cellar because there's a good chance they will break through? There's definitely a variety... a wise man who is the de facto leader and he happens to be a black man, a hothead A-hole who is in a broken marriage, a woman who is almost catatonic because her brother was attacked by a zombie, and a teenaged couple. It is fascinating watching all of them interact with each other.

While you can nitpick various things and the acting isn't always the best, it is still an effective story and it is still pretty chilling, and the ending is still a strong social statement which unfortunately is still relevant today. To think that Duane Jones was cast as Ben not because he was black, but because he was the best person who auditioned for the role; from there the role changed and it proved to be a rather progressive move for the time period; it also can be seen somewhat as an allegory for the Civil Rights Movement. Personally, I feel that Ben was an awesome character and Jones was great in the role. It makes the final act and all the things that happen in it all the rougher to watch.

I am glad that even almost 50 years later, this remains an effective horror flick. It being well-directed by Romero (one example is how information concerning the living dead is presented in a methodical manner via radio then television) and there being a proto-electronic score helps in that regard.

Inchon

Inchon (1981)

Runtime: 140 minutes... but the version I saw online was 137 minutes

Directed by: Terence Young

Starring: Poor Laurence Olivier, Jacqueline Bisset, Ben Gazzara, Richard Roundtree, and even Toshiro Mifune

From: The Unificiation Church; yes, a religion funded this

I could probably write an essay about this infamous motion picture; just the fact that the only airing of this after its brief theatrical run was on a religious channel then owned by the Unification Church is fascinating enough, but there's a lot of info in this article about why this still has quite the bad reputation. It's not half a star awful, but it's still pretty bad, and I still wrote a decent amount about it below: 

It was not the plan last night to finally see this infamous bomb-which I've known of for years and a copy of it from the one time it showed on a channel then owned by the producers of this has been on YouTube since early 2012-but circumstances dictated it. While I am glad I finally saw it and “Worst movie of all time!” is a little overboard, it's still pretty bad and the behind the scenes drama is much more interesting than what's on screen. The main reason I saw this when I did: in a few days after I post this, I will have seen a South Korean movie known as Operation Chromite, which is the code name for the Battle of Inchon. As that movie has Liam Neeson (!) as General Douglas MacArthur (!!), there's your reason why the United States will be getting it in limited release. Before I go see that, I felt it necessary to stop putting off seeing this turkey.

I may be courting controversy by going in depth on the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon; I'll just say that back in the day they got a lot of negative publicity and were accused of such things as brainwashing and being a cult. Moon provided much of the funding for this movie. He wanted to focus on an important figure in the past, so he chose General MacArthur. Spirituality was a key factor in the movie because of the involvement of the Church.

The Battle of Inchon was a real life event during the Korean War in the early 1950's, and MacArthur was involved, but as the movie notes right at the beginning, a lot of what you see in the movie is made-up poppycock. The film is a lot of melodrama involving the relationships between several couples; I wished for more time to be spent on the actual war and planning for battle than the broken marriage between Ben Gazzara and Jacqueline Bisset. But the biggest problem is the confused nature of it all and its bad script. Many things happen randomly, pretty much. While the movie ends at the big battle at the titular Inchon, I have no idea at what time the movie starts; does it take place over weeks, months... I couldn't tell you how long Bisset spends in South Korea and unwittingly being around those 5 Korean orphans.

Then again, among various errors, this is not only a movie where David Janssen and Rex Reed (!) play reporters and their clothing throughout was more apropos of them going out to Studio 54 rather than the early 1950's, but at times CARDBOARD models are used to portray military craft and if the copy on YouTube was clearer you probably could see the wires; talk about something out of an Ed Wood flick. See what I mean about all the drama concerning its production? It is easy to track down information on all that went wrong. Janssen dying during filming was not even the worst part. For crying out loud, psychic Jeanne Dixon was brought in and she made up... er, I mean “contacted the spirit world” and a long-dead MacArthur said that Olivier was perfect for the role. Somehow, she also selected Terence Young as director.

Besides the people I already mentioned, the talent behind and in front of the camera included Jerry Goldsmith, cinematographer Bruce Surtees, and the likes of Richard Roundtree, Omar Sharif in a cameo and even Toshiro Mifune. It was a nice line-up but considering the circumstances, this was a low-light for many of them. Goldsmith's score was at least nice, even if he and the orchestra he worked with literally were in a room too small for everybody; what a rinky-dink production all around. But it is Sir Laurence Olivier as MacArthur that has gained the most infamy. He doesn't look like himself-or the General, really-under pounds of makeup. Old Douglas did sound a bit like W.C. Fields so it explains that part of the performance; as a whole it was not a great job done by a legendary actor... but considering he was in bad health at the time and had to lie down when he wasn't on set due to the heat and his arthritis, I won't dog him for what he admitted was a role he only took because he got paid a lot of money.

I imagine the Unification Church would like people to forget this motion picture ever happened, so I won't ever expect it to be officially released, so YouTube is the way to go for those perversely curious like I was. Even adjusted for inflation it's among the biggest box office bombs of all time, only playing theatrically a matter of days; what a waste of almost 50 million dollars.

Happy Birthday To Me

Happy Birthday to Me (1981)

Runtime: 110 minutes

Directed by: J. Lee Thompson

Starring: Melissa Sue Anderson, Glenn Ford, Tracey E. Bregman, Jack Blum, Matt Craven

From: Columbia

My birthday isn't until late February but I'll watch it this week if I want to, watch it this week if I want to... the review of this Canuxploitation slasher is below: 

I figured this was a good time to see some horror films again so here's a classic slasher from the early 80's that I've never seen, even though I've known of its great poster for years, even back as a kid when I saw the cover of the VHS on the shelf at the local videostore. To think that I am finally seeing this motion picture via Amazon streaming it instead of some form of physical media. Considering the movie somehow had Glenn Ford (then again, he DID do The Visitor shortly before this) and was directed by a guy who went from doing the original Cape Fear to such schlock as Death Wish 4: The Crackdown, King Solomon's Mines, Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects and other Golan-Globus productions (J. Lee Thompson) and this was in between those two things... the pedigree was nice for an early 80's slasher.

This movie is about some students at the elite Crawford Academy, a private high school in Canada. Yes, this is also Canuxploitation, which definitely makes me happy. Virginia is part of “The Top 10” at the school; I gathered the ranking was more due to popularity and how rich their parents are rather than academic performance, given how some of them act. Anyhow, murders start happening by a killer wearing black gloves-yes, the giallo genre was a definite influence-and does it relate to Virginia? We find out that she suffered some sort of accident and had an experimental procedure done on her; Ford is her psychiatrist who tries to deal with the fractured mind and memory.

The movie is pretty absurd and it being 110 minutes, at times it is overlong, yet at least it was entertaining. Some of it was things that might only interest me; falling into that category was a bitchin' light blue 1980 Pontiac Turbo Trans Am, complete with “The Screaming Chicken” on the hood. As a whole, it was an enjoyable movie to watch. While many of The Top 10 are A-holes, at least they were funny A-holes so this was not a chore to sit through. It's not bad when plenty of time is spent with these characters. I was greatly amused that the standard red herring was basically “Young Norman Bates”, years before the 4th Psycho movie, let alone Bates Motel. Alfred is a weird loner who has dark hair and does taxidermy, so it was obvious what they were going for. So of course he wasn't behind it all... or was he...

And this is one of those movies where there is an infamous ending; plenty don't like it as it really comes out of left field. Yet, I was fine with it. At least in its universe there is a valid reason for it happening, even if all that happening was implausible. And for everyone who watches these films for the kills-meaning, most people-the poster brags about how they are all bizarre. Not all of them are but all are nicely done and some are definitely creative. Plus, the people who were killed all knew the killer, making it all the more disturbing for those characters. To me, those scenes are a big reason why I rate this as high as I do. For the old school slasher fans, they should definitely see this, and it can be streamed from Amazon for only a few bucks.

Shadow Of A Doubt...

is still a great movie, as I discovered on Monday night when I watched it again so I could give it a better Letterboxd review.

I'll be back tomorrow with two reviews; both are movies from 1981 but they are drastically different from each other, I promise you that.

Red Dust

Red Dust (1932)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by: Victor Fleming

Starring: Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, Mary Astor, Gene Raymond, Donald Crisp

From: MGM

This is a classic movie I saw on Turner Classic Movies last night, as it's not as easy to see online as other Jean Harlow flicks. I am glad I did this. Read all about it below: 

I watched this movie last night on Turner Classic Movies as it is not easy to see online, unless you go into the bowels of the Internet, that is. It was easier to see it this way so that's what I did. I haven't seen a lot of Jean Harlow's all too short career but this movie was another example why she was so popular back in the day as she was a blonde bombshell who was very talented and very funny.

This is set at a rubber plantation in Indochina; that's Southeast Asia and included such countries as Thailand, Vietnam and Laos. They weren't specific where in Indochina it was. Clark Gable is the grumpy owner of the rubber plantation. Although, after looking at how conditions were at the plantation, I understand his grouchiness; it was not an easy business to be a part of. It requires a lot of hard work and when the monsoon season comes... the fact that Gable throughout the entire first act was incredibly sweaty is at least noteworthy to me. I mean, he was even sweatier than the rest of the cast. The plot is that Gable romances both prostitute Harlow and Mary Astor, the wife of an engineer. Gable makes sure that the engineer is off the plantation doing various tasks, and that wasn't by accident. The fact that Gable is part of a love triangle is more objectionable than this temperament. Yet this is greatly entertaining, and not just for a scene where Gable and Harlow engage in a seduction scene while discussing different cheeses.

The picture is simply a lot of fun to watch. While you have to deal with a rather unflattering view of “the coolies” (i.e. the natives of the area that work on the plantation) where they are portrayed quite negatively, otherwise this is an engrossing melodrama filled with interesting characters who aren't stereotypes; for example, you might think that the two ladies would be feuding with each other, but they don't. Harlow in fact warns Astor not to deal with a cad like Gable, and she was right. Still, I have to say that I was greatly amused when a major event happened to Gable and he reacted quite nonchalantly even though it was something which could have been fatal for him.

Even with its faults I definitely did like this hot and saucy Pre-Code picture which had its share of risque moments; a few years later you couldn't have such things as Old Jean bathing in a barrel, covering herself up so she doesn't reveal too much. The three stars have great chemistry with each other and when they speak acres of quality dialogue, it's all good. One day I'll watch the remake done by John Ford known as Mogambo, where Gable returns.

Big Trouble In Little China

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: John Carpenter

Starring: Kurt Russell, James Hong, Dennis Dun, Kim Cattrall, Victor Wong

From: 20th Century Fox

Yes, I have seen this before. I was happy to see this again and finally review it here. My Letterboxd review is below: 

Of course this is a movie I've seen a few times before in my life (the first time was with my dad; it had to be shortly after it came out on VHS) but the last viewing was years ago, so on the 30th anniversary of this coming out back in 1986, what better time to review this for Letterboxd? It's never a movie I have loved but I always thought it was entertaining, a delicious over the top stew filled with many odd yet tasty ingredients.

I imagine most know of how Jack Burton (Kurt Russell; no relation) is the guy who you think is the hero of this picture but the loudmouth full of bluster and braggadocio Burton is usually a buffoon and it is people like his partner Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) and the old sorcerer Egg Shen (Victor Wong) who are actually more heroic in this tale of weird goings-in in San Francisco's Chinatown, which looks normal if you look at the buildings on the street but some of them hide bizarre things. An ancient spirit named Lo Pan-he's been alive for more than 2000 years-needs to marry a green eyed girl... as long as she can survive an elaborate initiation, that is.

I am not surprised that when it was first released it was a box office disappointment; the movie is very weird what with all the Chinese magic being shown; I have no idea if any of the Chinese superstitions mentioned in the movie are actual Chinese superstitions or legend or lore; I'll just say that it's all fun seeing all those strange happenings, between people shooting off lightning from their hands or someone expanding until they explode. It's a colorful adventure where you get to see exciting martial arts, strange sights and amusing dialogue. I wish this still wasn't the case in 2016, but I have to give the movie props for having “the white guy” be a fool and the cast being full of Asians or Asian-American actors.

Of course, there are rumors of a remake that will star The Rock. Now, if the remake was more based on the original script and it would be set in 1890's San Francisco and Jack Burton was a cowboy, I would be there opening night. As I presume it won't be, then I have no desire ever to see it. I say that people should stick with the cult classic original.

Below The Sea

Below the Sea (1933)

Runtime: 74 minutes

Directed by: Albert S. Rogell

Starring: Ralph Bellamy, Fay Wray, Frederick Vogeding, Esther Howard, Paul Page

From: Columbia

This is a random movie I saw last night that not many people in these modern times have seen. It's not great but it's not bad either. I talk all about it below: 

Here is a random motion picture that I watched late last night on Turner Classic Movies. Throughout that day they showed films featuring Fay Wray. I decided on this one as it fit my schedule and it is obscure to the point that it only has a few people rating it here on Letterboxd. While this only turned out to be about average, I do not regret seeing the movie.

The plot of this Wray and Ralph Bellamy picture is that a German U-boat is sunk in World War I; years later, the surviving captain (who isn't painted in a good light; then again it is the early 1930's) hires several people to try and retrieve it; Wray is rich so she funds it and goes along, much to the consternation of the grumpy McCreary (Bellamy). I tell you, this McCreary isn't like MacReady from The Thing. Anyhow, things don't go quite as planned as there's plenty of bickering... and among other things, Wray is threatened with a spanking; as I just said, this is from the 1930's. She also gets The Bends. There's a phrase I never thought I'd ever say, “Fay Wray was suffering from The Bends.” Oh, and there is a GIANT OCTOPUS, I almost forgot.

The movie is watchable but that's about it. It definitely isn't a must-see and it doesn't compare to Wray's most famous works-King Kong or The Most Dangerous Game. It's average all around aside from the performances to the script to the plot. Really, it's the wackiness of the giant octopus (which comes out of nowhere) that adds some excitement, along with an ending that-even if it wasn't the intention-made me heartily laugh, as it is on the absurd side. “Slip on a banana peel” is the perfect description for the ending. There isn't much else to say about it; it is at least competently made and all the scenes on the boat or underwater are reasonably believable. Even the giant octopus has its low budget charms.

Elysium

Elysium (2013)

67% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 233 reviews)

Runtime: 109 minutes

Directed by: Neill Blomkamp

Starring: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley, Alice Braga, William Fichtner

From: TriStar

Oh man, after this I am done with science fiction in movies for at least a short while. This is not good; the Total Recall remake was better to me! That wasn't what I was expecting at all. I explain my reasons why I feel this way below: 

I figured that I might as well continue the kick of watching sci-fi movies that I've been on as of late. Although, after this one and the Total Recall remake, I definitely need to switch genres and see better movies. A few weeks ago I saw District 9 for the first time since I saw it on the big screen back in late summer '09 and both times I was the rare person who did not like the movie at all and I am still surprised that most love it like they do. This film... it's more divisive and there are plenty who don't like it at all, and I think most felt disappointed by this after they loved Neill Blomkamp's debut feature.

As for the plot... it's a bunch of nonsense concerning the future. What struck me the most was how uncomfortably similar at times this was to the Total Recall remake. Besides it taking place more than 100 years in the future, both deal with two distinct societies where they are separated by great distances, one oppresses the other due to them controlling all the resources, a lot of pretty CGI, talented actors (Bryan Cranston in TR, William Fichtner here) who cashed a paycheck and deserved more screentime, robot police... heck, both heroes even work at a job where they make the synthetic robots. That says a lot about originality in Hollywood, doesn't it? I could go on a whole rant about that but I won't. I'll just say that's a reason why I typically say a lot of bad things about modern Hollywood.

This film in particular, it started off sappy and cliché, but that wasn't a deal breaker right there. When I saw how the titular Elysium-a giant space habitat where the rich inhabit and the poor Earth-born people are explicitly barred from visiting-defends itself from those Earthlings that attempt to land there... “illogic” doesn't even begin to describe it, and believe me there are more befuddling moments that don't hold up to much if any scrutiny, including the dramatic ending. The whole story is just a bunch of flat, flaccid nonsense involving such things as exo-suits and a big plot point pretty similar to how I had to download and then install the big Windows 10 Anniversary Update yesterday.

The performances... whoo boy, some of them are just not good. I won't mention all of the bad ones. I'll just say that I imagine even Jodie Foster wasn't sure what accent she was trying to use there-unless it was one where you pronounce words several different ways-and I can't begin to make heads or tails of Sharlto Copley's performance. Was is good or bad, I don't know. At least Matt Damon, Alice Braga, Diego Luna, Fichtner and even the young girl who played Braga's daughter were fine. The idea of hellhole 22nd century Los Angeles being dominated by Hispanics and many people are bilingual are among the few good ideas present. But you have such things as damn shaky-cam ruining the action scenes that stick in your mind far more than any positives.

As subtle as a grenade blast to the face, this was just a waste of time and hardly interesting at all, even if it “looks pretty.” The message is obvious and it did not make me want to get all angry at the ultra-rich 2% around now who would live at a place like Elysium. There's plenty of worthwhile sci-fi to see that tackle such themes much better than this did.

Total Recall... The Remake

Total Recall (2012)

30% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 222 reviews)

Runtime: The Director's Cut was 130 minutes

Directed by: Len Wiseman

Starring: Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Bryan Cranston, Bokeem Woodbine

From: Several different companies, including the ultimate irony of one of them being ORIGINAL FILM

I saw this unneeded remake last night; it's not terrible, but it looks bad in comparison to the great original classic w/ Schwarzenegger. I talk all about it below in my Letterboxd review:

NOTE: The version I am reviewing is the 130 minute long Director's Cut rather than the Theatrical Cut; reading about the differences between the two, no wonder people hated this as soon as it came out; theatrically it sounds quite bad, the main reason them getting rid of much of the ambiguity.

I wasn't sure if I should be watching all those sci-fi movies in a row... then I remembered that the review I posted last week of the original Total Recall turned out to be one of the most popular I've ever done. Thus, I figured this was the right time to see the remake, which I always ignored as why does a classic movie even need to be remade? Even some positive takes from reliable people online did not change my mind; still, on a whim I decided to take a chance so that's what I did. This wasn't awful-there certainly are plenty of worse remakes out there-but compared to the original 1990 movie, this doesn't compare in terms of quality or sheer entertainment.

The movie is different from the 1990 original yet it isn't any closer to being accurate to the Philip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” and the story told here isn't as good as what we saw in 1990; that is a gigantic problem as you can't help but compare the two when stretches of dialogue are lifted, some moments from the original are lifted but done differently, and the one-liners we got here weren't as good as the OG product; “but I give good wife” is not something I enjoy in any context, and it pales in comparison to lines like “See you at the party, Richter!” and “Consider that a divorce.” Instead we get nonsense about how chemical warfare wrecked most of the world in the late 21st century except for Western Europe and Australia and an elevator goes THROUGH the Earth to transport people between the two sides... getting your ass to Mars is more realistic than that, needless to say.

Yet, I can still say that this is average. At least it's watchable. Len Wiseman is someone I never really even think about, as I avoid those Underworld movies like they have the Zika virus and I thought Live Free or Die Hard was bad, although it looks good compared to A Good Day to Die Hard. In terms of direction, during the action scenes, the camera does move around but it isn't that shaky-cam crap and you can usually figure out what's going on. Sad to say, in this era that is commendable. While all of them are in small supporting role, at least there's a little diversity with characters played by the likes of John Cho, Bokeem Woodbine and Will Yun Lee. Maybe people of color should have head the lead roles, as the performances of Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel are about what you'd expect from them. Farrell is no Schwarzenegger, that is for damn sure.

Overall, to say that this is average is better than what I expected, but with the Director's Cut I say that it's true. The CGI at least looks fine (even if it pays tribute to J.J. Abrams by having lens flares up the wazoo), there's plenty of interesting details in that futuristic world and the action scenes aren't bad. Yet, you can't help but compare this to the Paul Verhoeven classic when the character names are the same, and this pales in comparison to that. Things are just bland and flavorless in comparison.

Two last things: In this world, there's also a woman with three breasts, although I have no idea why as it's not a world of mutants... unless it's the “chemical warfare” that did it, but probably not. Maybe it's like that woman from Florida who said she got implants so she could have a trio of boobs, but that was proven false. By the way, more than one person I know actually knew that woman personally; I swear this is true. Also, the funniest moment of the picture was seeing that one of the production companies behind this was an entity named ORIGINAL FILM. Incredible.