The Running Man

The Running Man (1987)

Runtime: 101 minutes

Directed by: Paul Michael Glaser... mostly

Starring: Arnold, Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Richard Dawson, and various actors playing over the top pro wrestling-like characters, including former pro wrestlers

From: Several low-budget companies

I had no time to see movies on Friday or Saturday night; I saw this last night as yesterday was Arnold's 70th birthday. Oh, and I am not kidding when I mentioned below that Yaphet Kotto now says he has seen aliens before, and I don't mean Aliens:

“By 2017 the world economy has collapsed. Food, natural resources and oil are in short supply. A police state, divided into paramilitary zones, rules with an iron hand.”

That is part of the opening crawl for the movie; I've seen it posted at various spots on the Internet this year, due to what should be obvious reasons. Unfortunately, the plot of this movie seems not as far-fetched as it did 30 years ago. The crawl also mentions such things as censorship and well, that's not as outlandish now either. Definitely, the stench of “reality” television or game shows involving physical competition were not a thing back in the mid 1980's, but now it's still a popular thing, and is a show where bizarre over the top people try to stop criminals in an abandoned city playing field all that unfathomable now? Look at all the strange “reality” shows we've gotten in recent years and goofball characters... and hell, this game show stages an event and presents something totally phony as real... which is the key thing in that genre, of course.

Sunday (July 30) was the 70th birthday of Arnold Schwarzenegger so I decided to go with this, as I hadn't seen it in many years. Even though in some ways this movie was prescient, I still can't rate it any higher. Arnold is Ben Richards, who works for the government but is asked to do something horrible. He refuses, so the horrible thing happens anyway and he's framed for it. Two years later, he escapes prison but is captured and has to compete on The Running Man gameshow, where he has to avoid being killed by a group of bizarre over the top characters like the chainsaw-wielding Buzzsaw, the electric Dynamo and the fiery Fireball. During all that, trying to expose the truth about the government is a plot point.

Original director Andrew Davis (later of The Fugitive fame) was fired early on for reasons unknown to me; Paul Michael Glaser replaced him, and after the fact the stars said that was not a good decision in hindsight. Maybe the movie would have been better and things would have made more sense or it wouldn't have been uneven and some plot points would be more clear; at least with what we got I can still say the movie is good. There's plenty of violence, wacky Arnold one-liners, familiar faces I enjoyed seeing (Maria Conchita Alonso, the just announced that he was once abducted by aliens Yaphet Kotto*, former pro wrestlers Jessie Ventura & Professor Toru Tanaka, Dweezil Zappa, Mick Fleetwood, Jim Brown) but as everyone else has noted, it was the get of having actor turned famous game show host Richard Dawson play Running Man host Damon Killian that was a big asset for the movie. Damon seems like a nice man but in actuality is not so nice once the cameras are off... I understand that's how Dawson was in real life, but I'll presume he was not an atrocious human being obsessed with ratings like Killian was.

I've never read the Richard Bachman novel this was based on, but it doesn't really matter as it has little to do with the movie. It's not The Lawnmower Man bad but only a few elements from the book were used to make a wacky 80's action film. It definitely is a product of its time between the Harold Faltermeyer score, the clothing, and how some scenes are bathed in blue or red, which I know will please the aesthetic fans. I was happy to tip my cap to Arnold, as I've been watching him for much of my life and I was still happy to see this film again, even if it is flawed.

Magnum Force

Magnum Force (1973)

Runtime: 124 minutes

Directed by: Ted Post

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Felton Perry, David Soul, Mitchell Ryan

From: Warner Brothers

I figured it was about time I got back to rewatching the Dirty Harry movies; that thought suddenly struck me last night, which is why I chose this to watch. A good decision, as this is very good, as I explain below: 

July of last year I rewatched the first Dirty Harry; I hadn't seen anything from that franchise in years, as I had seen all of those many years ago. I was happy to see Dirty Harry again as it's great. As typical with me I procrastinated on finishing this task. I'll fix that now and I'll try to see the other three in the not too distant future.

What a confluence of talent that came together to create this story of San Francisco Police Department Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan dealing with someone in a police officer's uniform (and matching motorcycle) killing the worst criminals of the city vigilante-style; John Milius wrote the script, but he did not come up with the original idea. Instead, it was Terrence Malick (!) who had a pretty similar idea in a script a few years beforehand, and he proposed it for Dirty Harry, but of course instead they went with the Scorpio Killer plot we got for the first adventure of Inspector Callahan. After Milius typed up the script for Magnum Force , Michael Cimino then revised the story. Milius, Malick, and Cimino are definitely quite different from one another but talk about movie-making talent between the three.

Even though you should be able to figure out who is behind those murders before our heroes do, that doesn't mean this isn't always interesting to watch nor is it not enjoyable seeing Dirty Harry trying to crack the case. Before this film and after the fact, the idea of someone going after the worst scumbags (especially when the legal system did not convict due to whatever reasons, which was a key plot point in this movie) is one that is enticing for plenty of people. To be honest, there are certain high-profile trials where a person was declared innocent enough though it was likely they did murder someone, and I am sure plenty would not shed any tears if someone was a vigilante and executed those awful individuals. Then again, I know that there are also plenty who in this present time are horrified at the mere thought of someone in a police officer's uniform flagrantly breaking the law like that... but I did not think of such things while watching the film, and instead I was quite entertained by this tale.

Those that enjoyed the original Dirty Harry should also enjoy this; besides the main storyline, there's also various scenes where Harry busts random criminals who do things like robbery and even trying to hijack an airliner. Considering Milius was the main writer of the story, of course the film lives up to the title by often showing the force of Callahan's .44 Magnum gun. It was nice seeing familiar faces, like Felton Perry, Mitchell Ryan, David Soul, Tim Matheson, Robert Urich, Felton Perry, and as the more traditional officer, Hal Holbrook as Harry's superior. The Lalo Schifrin score being the expected groovy/funky thing also helps make this 70's action/crime drama movie a lot of fun.

Tron: Legacy...

is still not a good movie, despite its great aesthetics. The characters and the story... that's my usual bugaboo, and it definitely was the case here, which is a real shame.

Inception

Inception (2010)

Runtime: 148 minutes

Directed by: My “favorite” director

Starring: An all-star cast... who I wish could have been in an actual good movie

From: Warner Brothers

Monday night I saw both Predator and Predator 2 on Blu-ray; Predator is still awesome and Predator 2 is still pretty good. Both are better than this, which I only saw for the first time last night. I don't want to have major problems with all of Nolan's films I've seen, but it's true. I explain why I did not love this below:

NOTE 1: I know that most people here love Nolan to death so what I'll say in this review won't be popular with a lot of people. I do have to be honest here, though.

NOTE 2: I don't want this to be as long as my review for Interstellar (which has to be by quite a bit the lengthiest one I've ever done here) so I'll be more brief than I want to be.

One reason I saw this movie so I could say a few words about Christopher Nolan in general. I realize this won't be a popular opinion here but I am baffled as to why most people think he's a great director; I wouldn't even call him good. Admittedly I have not seen all of his movies by any means but what I've seen... “The emperor with no clothes” may be the appropriate phrase.

To be clear, early in 2013 when I first joined the site I rated the Nolan Batman movies based on seeing them back to back to back on the big screen in a ridiculous night where I was in the cinema for a little more than 9 hours and did not get home until almost 4 AM. Batman Begins was a 2 star movie and in hindsight, that's also what I should have given The Dark Knight Rises due to all the story issues and how overlong it was. I'll likely always rate The Dark Knight highly but that is mainly due to the first two times I saw it and I basked in the legendary performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker; if it wasn't for him I imagine I would hate the movie for its nonsensical plot it has and how The Joker's schemes are the definition of “illogic” as they require like 20 things to go a certain way each time for them to work and of course they do... I'll review them again in the future so I can go more in depth on the problems I have with each one. I can quickly say a general problem with him is how too much of his dialogue is EPIC PROCLAMATION after EPIC PROCLAMATION rather than anything sounding natural, and unnatural dialogue always bugged me.

In the past, I said that all three Batman movies “have badly filmed action scenes, more plot holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese and a lot of illogical moments”; I stand by that. I also stand by him not getting called out for making the sorts of mistakes that “lesser” filmmakers make, for Lord knows what reason. Interstellar, I wrote an admittedly Nolan-esque review for it at the time-meaning, “too lengthy”-but basically, the story left me cold; it's a shame as on paper it sounds like something I should have dug, and it was supposed to be a heartwarming sort of tale. The rest of his filmography I never bothered with as I was worried I'd also find those to be massively overrated.

But onto me talking about THIS movie and why I don't love it like most people do. I presume most reading this have seen it already so I feel safe in making the assumption I don't need to go over the basic plot. Before Tuesday night, I only knew that it was about going into dreams to steal information and the ending is famously ambiguous. I'll leave it at that. My impression of this movie... what overly convoluted malarkey that has the typical Nolan hallmarks of unnatural dialogue & stories that not only are filled with giant plotholes, but are littered with contrivances. The one example that I'll mention from this movie: Ken Watanabe magically being able to purchase an airline immediately as it's an important part of the plot... in many ways that is just stupid and that makes no sense in the real world, the film world, a dream world, this film's dream world...

There are plenty of other things that make no sense, and that's not because of the story trying to be “complex”; rather, it's the story conveniently explaining and not explaining certain things-even with some things not being elaborated upon, the movie is still chock-full of exposition-like how only Tom Hardy can do those things in dreamland or hell, basic things like how exactly Watanabe can magically fix DiCaprio's serious problems in the United States... and come to think of it, why did Michael Caine implicitly help Leo after saying all those things in the lecture hall? Once you learn what happened... I'm befuddled. Considering those fundamental issues, such things as Hans Zimmer's score being mostly forgettable doesn't seem as important, you know.

Then again, as I've mentioned in previous reviews I am not a fan of modern Hollywood in general; besides the whole “remake/reboot” thing polluting things and things being too homogenized-looking at the box office this year, I wonder if the general public has finally gotten tired of the feces that's been fed them-there's also the lack of logic/common sense that has polluted the scene and a lot of people get a pass for it, especially Nolan.

I imagine I could go on for paragraph after paragraph and really break things down and go into spoilers concerning all the problems I had with this film; but, I'd better stop now and instead I'll mention that only after watching the movie did I see a popular review from popular Letterboxd member DirkH and not only does that share the same low rating as this, but a lot of the points he brought up I strongly agree with, and he probably said it better than I could. Heavens knows that I did not go into this movie hoping to dislike a big-budget movie with an original idea and a great cast, despite my previous issues with the director. Alas, considering all things I mentioned beforehand and the critical issue of not liking any of the characters nor being given a reason why I SHOULD care about any of those weirdos, this motion picture did not weave its magic for me like it has for most people, and I think I'll always be baffled by Nolan's work. Maybe there's a film he's done before that works for me... maybe.

Until The End Of The World

Until the End of the World (1991)

Runtime: Around 290 minutes (!)

Directed by: Wim Wenders

Starring: Sam Neill, Solveig Dommartin, William Hurt, Rudiger Vogler, Ernie Dingo

From: Several production companies, including Warner Brothers

Yes, I actually watched a near five hour movie late last night; I did not love it like some do, but I don't regret spending all that time seeing this either. Let me give you details below:

Late Saturday night I discovered via someone I know that on TCM late last night, they would be playing this movie... it was at 2AM since for years now that is when Turner Classic Movies showed a foreign film or two each week except for holiday reasons or it is Oscar month in February. The reason why I watched this film is that it was the Director's Cut, something that has been rumored to be a Criterion release for a few years now but it hasn't happened; this is a blind guess but looking at the soundtrack full of famous bands, I will use history and presume that is the hangup.

Oh, and if you don't know, the cut of this movie from Wim Wenders is (and this is a guess as it appeared as if some of the end credits may have been sped up) around FOUR HOURS AND FIFTY MINUTES LONG*. Yes, I stayed up until almost 7 AM to watch this, as I am a Luddite who doesn't have a DVR, that is the only way to see this version and I had nothing to do Monday proper. I understand it played at some arthouse joints late in 2015 but I don't know how many people got to experience that. This is my initial experience with any cut of the film; I've seen precious little Wenders before but I should try to fix that; I presume there are enough people reading this who knows his most highly regarded work and thus know why I need to watch more of his career's output.

I've talked recently about how modern Hollywood is lame and how most of the movies they realize are homogenized and focus-grouped to death, and the creativity of directors is stifled. I stand by that, but there are times where a director does need to be reigned in as otherwise they can be self-indulgent and out of control. Considering that Wenders said he wanted to “make the ultimate road movie” and its length and how Wenders was told to stop filming and that ruined his plans to shoot in Africa and South America and even he admitted after the fact that the demand for him to stop was the right call.

The plot: there's a lot but I'll try to be brief. It is the far-flung future of 1999 and a Eurobabe named Claire ( Solveig Dommartin) stumbles into a globe-trotting adventure involving a lot of money that she was given by two robbers for helping them out after a heist, William Hurt stealing an experimental device that would allow his wife to see, Claire's ex-lover Eugene (Sam Neill) and other things; there's also plenty of ennui and people having an existential crises. As it wasn't that far into the future, it wasn't incredibly futuristic, although I was amused to see vehicles that we definitely did not have in 1999-and those General Motors “Dustbuster” minivans (the Oldsmobile Silhouette, the Chevy Lumina and the Pontiac Trans Sport ) were all over this movie-and the '91 guess of what the '99 version of Skype and GPS would be.

The movie is well-made. It does look nice (especially in the print they showed on TCM, which was from a 4K scan) and there are some beautiful sights filmed. There are a few scenes I would rate quite highly as they were unforgettable. And I was able to make it through all 280 minutes with my biggest hindrance being fighting off sleep rather than becoming bored. Plus, it has a nice international cast and it's always nice seeing Max Von Sydow in a film. I just thought that it suffered from self-indulgence and it did not need to be that long. I don't know if the shorter versions released to the cineplex way back when would be preferable to me or not. Personally, the first half of the film is better than the second half, and what an unexpected ending. But I know that there are plenty who love the Director's Cut so hopefully one day it does come out on Blu so more people are able to give it a shot, as I imagine some of you would rate it quite highly.

One last thing: the soundtrack has always received a lot of positive buzz: a notable group of artists all contributed new songs and they were supposed to guess “what they think they would sound like in 1999.” Those guesses weren't always accurate by any means but that is OK as the musicians included everyone from Talking Heads, Lou Reed, and Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds to Elvis Costello, Neneh Cherry, and R.E.M. I liked most of the songs and the overall score from Graeme Revell.

* The version shown on TCM doesn't include anything like an intermission or two ending credits and two recaps of the film; it was shown as if it was a trilogy of regular movies, you see.

The Wrong Man

The Wrong Man (1956)

Runtime: 105 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Henry Fonda, Vera Miles, Anthony Quayle, Harold J. Stone, Charles Cooper

From: Warner Brothers

I watched this movie real late last night on Turner Classic Movies; it was a Hitchcock I had never seen before and it happens to be atypical for what he usually did. It was based on a true story and Hitch appears in the opening in silhouette explaining this fact, back when such claims in film were rare... and actually were not flagrant lies.

Henry Fonda is Manny Balestrero, a jazz musician in New York City (it's appropriate then that Bernard Hermann's score was different from his usual work, and had more jazzy elements) , and Vera Miles is his wife Rose. Manny goes to the office of the life insurance he has one day to take out a loan so his wife could have dental work... yeah, even back in the 50's going to the dentist was pretty damn expensive. Anyway, some of the employees incorrectly identify him as the person who had robbed them before. Circumstances led to him having to go to trial, which naturally put quite the strain on his family.

Sure, there are some stereotypical young boys who are stereotypical brats but otherwise I have little to complain about. The movie takes its time as it tells its tale; we see the expected police procedural stuff of Fonda having to do a writing sample, witnesses coming in to make an ID, and all the rest you'd expect from 1950's coppers. It helps that the leads were Fonda and Miles, as both do pretty well; in particular, it was easy to see from Fonda that the further this case went and he wasn't being cleared, the more panicked he became... as any of us would be.

The movie definitely still feels relevant today as due to various factors (including, yes, prejudice) there are still cases of false accusations being made and unfortunately, not everyone who goes to jail is truly guilty of the crime or crimes they were charged with. But that is a serious topic that should be discussed elsewhere instead of here. The movie on its own is a compelling tale where you hope that justice prevails in the end... I wouldn't dare spoil what happened in the film/what happened in real life.

Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

55% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 128 reviews)

Runtime: 137 minutes

Directed by: Luc Besson

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen, Rihanna (unfortunately), Herbie Hancock (!!)

From: Literally at least a dozen different production companies

What a movie this is. It's not for everyone but that is part of its charm for me. It does look amazing so seeing it on the big screen is a must if you have even a little desire to give this a shot, See me wax poetic below: 

I know I've mentioned this before in other reviews,but as I have mutuals here from around the world and random people who read my reviews can span the globe, I sometimes realize I have to explain things for those that don't live in the U.S of A. You Euros may be surprised, but when I first heard about this film, Valerian and Laureline were comic books characters that I had zero knowledge of . Once I looked into it I discovered that those French comics were wildly popular in Europe and were known elsewhere around the world... except the United States, even though I've heard it could be found in the past in graphic novel form. Most Americans are like me in being totally unfamiliar with this property. A shame, as from what I've heard about the adventures of Valerian and Laureline, it sounds pretty bitchin', something that apparently was one of the many influences on Star Wars.

I haven't reviewed any of his movies here before but in the past I've seen some of Luc Besson's work, including his most famous films. One day I'll get to talking about those... as for this movie, I wasn't sure beforehand if I would think it's awesome, although I was hoping it would be. No matter what I am hoping it is not a money-loser, as this is something that Besson financed independently (this is now the most expensive independent movie ever made) and if it fails, that wouldn't be good for him. I won't be comparing this to his other movies (even The Fifth Element, which I haven't seen in many years) and of course I can't compare it to the comics I haven't read. Henceforth, I'll be reviewing this on its own.

Overall, I understand those who don't care for the movie, even in the slightest, or felt disappointed by it. It's a loud sloppy film which gets sidetracked sometimes (whether or not all those supporting characters that time is spent on are in the comics, I really don't know. I just know for certain that a fan favorite species does appear), the chemistry between the two leads isn't always the best, the acting isn't always top notch, and the story isn't exactly complicated. Plus, the Mass Effect games definitely had an impact on this movie, from the look of the title itself to some of the outfits. BTW, I shudder at thinking of how much Hollywood would screw up the franchise if a movie actually happens, as the first three Mass Effect games are incredible, aside from how the third one ended...

But as I have carped about often the past few months, this not being the typical Hollywood blockbuster which is now focus-grouped to death and homogenized in a dumb attempt to be “appealing to everyone” is a positive to me; this can be weird and be stuffed with bizarre characters and unique alien species and that is refreshing these days.

What helps is that I am one of the few who had the chance to see this in a Premium Large Format auditorium* as the movie is absolutely beautiful, full of many astounding images and a wide array of vibrant colors. I loved looking at that unique world and I was always invested in the movie as I wanted to see what brilliant sights or zany creatures would be next. It also sounds great and a cool score from Alexandre Desplat; unfortunately many of the Premium Large Format screens are tied up with other things, so I know many people won't have that opportunity, even if they want to see it that way.

As an aside, I knew beforehand that Rihanna had a supporting role. I realize this is not a popular opinion to have, but I think that her music is pretty putrid and I think she's a heinous human being, a drug-abusing irresponsible loser. Thankfully that did not ruin the film. I won't spoil who else is in the cast as that was unknown to me beforehand and there were several surprises when I saw the opening credits. The biggest one of all was that the movie has another musician as an actor, but this one is infinitely more talented than Rihanna and them acting in fictional roles is extremely rare, so Besson must be a huge fan of their work.

These days, some people try WAY too hard to make something into “a cult film”, and usually it's not a lot of fun as it's so forced it's not fun. Here, this is naturally something that will be a cult favorite in the years to come. It's a wild pulpy tale and not everyone will love it due to its faults, but I say it gives the film plenty of charm and while I suspect it won't be successful in the United States, tastes around the world are different so maybe it'll earn more greenback there. From Wikipedia, the two leads as portrayed here seem accurate to the comics; fans may think differently. Regardless, while the characters here aren't always great, the movie itself has plenty of character and even though the movie doesn't reaches the highs of The Fifth Element, those that enjoy science fiction may very well have as much of a blast with this as I did.

* That is now the accepted term to use for auditoriums that have giant screens and fancy sound systems. That includes the enormous screens of the original IMAX, the much smaller modern IMAX screens (commonly known as LieMAX), Cinemark's XD, Regal's RPX, and similar ones from smaller chains. To me, all of them are worth going to but Dolby Cinema at AMC is a step above the rest. That's how I saw this film and I am very happy I got that opportunity.

Sliver

Sliver (1993)

Runtime: 106 minutes

Directed by: Phillip Noyce

Starring: Sharon Stone, William Baldwin, Tom Berenger, Polly Walker, Martin Landau (RIP)

From: Paramount

Yep, I watched this erotic thriller; I haven't seen too many erotic thrillers before. I'll just say this is no Basic Instinct. Heck, it even has an ending that was changed from what was originally filmed, and the original ending sounds better and it explains a bizarre line in the middle of the picture: 

I realize this isn't the most dignified movie for me to say “RIP Martin Landau,” but I wanted to see an erotic thriller so I could say a few words about it here and why not kill two birds with one stone? Well, Landau's role as Sharon Stone's boss is pretty small-he disappears after the opening act-but at least you get to see him join in with the rest of the guests at a party and use a telescope to peep on a couple having sex in an apartment... yes, that happened. Whether you best remember Landau for Mission: Impossible (as my parents do), for Ed Wood, or for something else, I was saddened to hear he passed away. On a completely different topic...

Since the Internet became popular around 20 years ago and it became easy to see pictures and videos of naked people and naked people doing all sorts of things, the erotic thriller genre died out and in recent years they are as rare as hen's teeth. I haven't seen too many of those myself but I know they are wacky, lurid pulpy tales that theoretically are supposed to get the viewer's engines all revved up. I should watch them at least once in a blue moon, so I can be bemused by them and also look back on what used to be a popular thing back in the day, but now seems quaint and the current generation likely will snicker at how the previous generation got all excited for these flicks.

This movie is from the infamous Joe Eszterhas, the screenwriter who really deserves to have the tag “infamous” attached to him. The plot: a woman who looks a lot like Sharon Stone is killed in the beginning of the film by being thrown off the balcony of a fancy apartment complex. The real Sharon Stone then moves in and plenty of sleazy people live there, it turns out, and other sleazy people hang out there. This includes William Baldwin (who the movie somewhat hilariously plays as a “sex symbol”) and Tom Berenger as an author who is a real creep. There are some other women characters but for the most part they aren't portrayed in the most flattering light. There's some pretty bad dialogue, believe me.

I can't say the movie is “good” but I wasn't bored either; I was amused by how silly it all was... how it was obviously inspired by Rear Window but it's an insult to Rear Window to make such a comparison. A character is a real voyeur and that's a big plot point... the Hitchcock movie addresses it much better, believe me. Plus, that leads to a pretty gross subplot, even if it is brief. Then again, this is a film which tries to be “cool” by having Stone's character say she “haves Pavarotti” and would rather attend a Pearl Jam concert. The soundtrack actually is interesting... there's everyone from UB40 to Massive Attack and Lords of Acid.

This is not unwatchably bad but it likely won't turn you on either (at least I presume this is more likely to get your blood flowing than the absolute rubbish that is those 50 Shades travestities) and it's just goofy nonsense which isn't as fun of a pulpy tale as it could have been. If you want to watch a movie starring Sharon Stone and the screenwriter was Joe Eszterhas... don't make it this one.

Creepshow

Creepshow (1982)

Runtime: 120 minutes

Directed by: George A. Romero (RIP)

Starring: Plenty of familiar faces, from Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, Leslie Nielsen and E.G. Armstrong to Ted Danson and Ed Harris

From: Warner Brothers

I hadn't seen this movie in years so I was happy to give it another shot, even though I've never loved it. I still don't, but I can say it's good and in the wake of all those bad modern horror anthologies (most of them; Trick 'r Treat is really good), this looks all the better. Peep the details below:

What better time than last night to see a movie directed by George A. Romero? As I rewatched and reviewed Night of the Living Dead last August, I went with another movie of his for a review. I don't need to tell anyone how NOTLD was incredibly influential not only as a horror movie, but also its impact on independent filmmaking and pop culture as a whole; there wouldn't be any Walking Dead if not for the 1968 classic. RIP to someone who I wish had more mainstream success, but he still left his mark on pop culture. Creepshow I've seen before but the last viewing was a long time ago. It's a film I haven't loved like many horror fans do, but viewing it again I appreciate it more; no it's not because of Romero passing away... it's because of the few horror anthologies I've seen that have been made in the past decade, all of them have been pretty bad and that makes this look all the better.

I'll mention what I think of all the segments. The wraparound segment with Tom Atkins, simple yet effective.

Father's Day, by far the best part is the dance that Ed Harris and Elizabeth Regan (in her only film role) do; it's absurd, and it's hilarious because it's to a random-and great-disco song. Thankfully the entirety of Don't Let Go (by DeWolfe) can be found on YouTube. The rest of the segment... well, at least it has some great atmospheric and moody moments.

The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill has always seemed pointless to me and my opinion hasn't changed. While it's wacky to see Stephen King as that lunkhead Jordy-a backwoods Maine redneck-and I laugh that he was watching an old WWF wrestling match between Bob Backlund and Sika of the Wild Samoans tag team, I am not sure what its purpose is.

Something to Tide You Over is when the movie improves for the better and it stays good the rest of the way. Leslie Nielsen plays a real evil SOB; to think that it was only in his 50's when he started to become known as a comic actor due to being Frank Drebin in the Naked Gun TV show then movies. Before that it was dramatic stuff, and he was great at being an awful human being here. Plus, this segment had some quality 80's synth.

The Crate, it's quite amusing. What a drunken lout Adrienne Barbeau played; it's easy to understand why college professor Hal Holbrook is greatly embarrassed by her as that's his wife and why his fellow professor pal Fritz Weaver feels the same way. Plus, wondering what's in the titular crate is a nice mystery and it's darkly humorous throughout, along with having the scariest moments and

They're Creeping Up on You, it's basically E.G. Armstrong as an evil version of Howard Hughes; he's a severe germaphobe who lives in a sealed apartment and because he's a rotten human being, you don't feel bad when his place becomes infested with cockroaches. Admittedly, I am not the biggest fan of bugs myself (and hell, soon after the movie I had to kill a cockroach in the house, which is a task I have to do infrequently) so while this admission will make me look “less cool”, at times I did look away.

It's an anthology so naturally it will be uneven; viewing it with fresh eyes, I can say that overall this is good. Look at all the talented people involved... in front and behind the camera. The cast is full of familiar faces, and the legendary Tom Savini did the makeup effects. In both obvious and subtle ways, they tried very hard to make this look like a living comic book, and they were successful at that task. I've never looked at any of the 50's EC Comics this movie was emulating, but I'll go with the consensus and say it was successful there too. Considering that at this moment the apparently astoundingly bad Wish Upon is in wide release, it'll be a far better use of your time and money to watch or rewatch this instead.

An Update

Let me mention three things:

A. Saturday night I rewatched The Lego Movie. When I saw this on Labor Day weekend 2014 via a Redbox rental, I was a rare person who did not like the movie, aside from a few chuckles and the animation looking nice (if overly busy). Giving it another shot, I still don't like the movie. The characters aren't good, it's too much lazy pop-culture references, and it's usually not that funny. The "big twist" does little for me, even if it is a nice message in general.

B. Letterboxd hasn't always worked in the past week or so. That is pretty frustrating, and it doesn't motivate me to keep on watching films, even though I have a backlog of things I'd like to see soon. That became longer because...

C. RIP to both George A. Romero and Martin Landau. Sometime in the next few days I'll try to see movies from the both of them. 

My next review isn't planned to go up until Tuesday night.

War For The Planet Of The Apes

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

94% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 193 reviews)

Runtime: 139 minutes

Directed by: Matt Reeves

Starring: Ape characters played by the likes of Andy Serkis and human characters such as those played by Woody Harrelson

From: 20th Century Fox

Wednesday night I rewatched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes; it's still great. Last night I saw this movie, and it's also great, but in a different way from Dawn, although they share similarities. I talk all about it below without going heavy into spoilers:

I've never heard a succinct term to describe this phenomenon, but most of us film fans have known for years that the third movie in any series has a good chance of not only being worse than the first two (no matter how good the first or first and second flicks were) but pretty bad. Examples bandied about to describe this include Superman III, Spiderman 3, Pirates 3, Scream 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, The Matrix Revolutions... people being apprehensive when a third movie comes around is thus quite understandable, and even though the people involved in making Dawn of... returned to make this, it definitely could have been screwed up somewhere along the way, and as this was what I was looking forward to the most this summer, this failing would have been a huge letdown.

Much to my relief, this movie met my expectations and I can give it a high rating. Beforehand I only saw one trailer once and between that and some hearsay, all I knew about the film was that it was the apes against some soldiers (led by Woody Harrelson) and there's a young girl named Nova-which is a nice nod for the franchise fans. I won't reveal much more myself. I can say that Rise, Dawn, and this movie are all different from one another and thus things don't seem old hat or hackneyed, lessons other franchises should take note of. Considering that this film has some pretty bad things happen to the apes, it was not a bad idea for there to be more comedy than in Dawn. That could have gone awry but thankfully it did not and it wasn't painfully bad comedy. There are also plenty of allusions to both other Apes films and plenty of famous movies from the past and it's done in a way that isn't annoying.

Like in Dawn, it's a layered plot filled with complex characters who change throughout the progression of the picture; the scenery is beautiful (as are the effects which bring them to life) and throughout the trilogy Andy Serkis has done a marvelous job bringing Caesar to life; it is easy to root for him and his simian pals. I know that sometime years in the future Serkis will get an honorary Oscar for his tremendous work in the motion-capture field. I know that many will agree with me when I state that he deserves such high recognition now, as in getting major award nominations, and him working in a new field should not prevent that from happening.

As I've said before, these new Apes movies are my kind of summer blockbuster; it's refreshing compared to the few lame tentpole pictures I've watched in recent years. They aren't hackneyed or cliché; they all have thoughtful moments and characters that aren't tissue paper thin in terms of motivations or ideals. Harrelson's villain character The Colonel, you do get an explanation for his actions, and his prejudices are understandable... but it definitely does not excuse some of the horrible things he did or ordered his underlings to do. There is quality filmmaking all around (including a quality score from Michael Giacchino) and hopefully with the success of these films that are unconventional compared to the typical tentpole flicks we get in the hot summer months, there could be more movies like this; I'd love for there to be more attempts, even if it's a swing and a miss, as at least those would be interesting motion pictures and it'd be an ambitious failure.

I don't know if the series will continue after this, and if the quality will end up declining if they make any further films. I will just be happy with what we have gotten-it's been a breath of fresh air-and those that love Dawn likely will love this too.

Battle For The Planet Of The Apes

Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)

Runtime: I saw the version that was 97 minutes long

Directed by: J. Lee Thompson

Starring: Roddy McDowall, Claude Akins, Austin Stoker, Paul Williams, Severn Darden

From: 20th Century Fox

This is the perfect time for me to finish watching this franchise before it went dark for many years (aside from a television show... which flopped). Note that I watched the unrated version rather than the theatrical version. From the IMDb, I know the theatrical version is not the way to go, as some scenes are missing and that's an issue as those scenes actually resolve important plot points.

This movie is set sometime after the events of the previous sequel, Conquest... the year was never stated and I'd like to say it was 2017, but from a line of dialogue I'll guess it was around 2020 or so. War has already F'ed up the Earth and it is apes who are now smart and rule everything, although humans are not the dumb creatures they were in the original Apes film. They have an uneasy alliance and like in Dawn of... there's a trouble-making gorilla General who is a rabble-rouser , and also there is an underground city with mutated humans... yes, like in Beneath... although they don't have those psychic powers.


Unfortunately, the story is underbaked and underdeveloped, so I can only say that it's average at best, and it feels inconsequential despite the stakes. The obvious low budget did not help matters either. A shame, as this could have been pretty interesting. There is indeed a battle in the final act and it was entertaining but even then I can't rate this as a whole any higher. It was nice to see the returning faces and some new famous faces (Lew Ayres, Claude Akins, Austin Stoker, and even Paul Williams) and John Huston has a small role playing a character referenced in previous films, so I guess they figured they might as well have that character appear... but that leads to a final shot which is rather eye-rolling, and that is being generous. I guess it was time to wind the franchise down.

Area 51

Area 51 (2015)

Runtime: 91 minutes

Directed by: Oren Peli

Starring: Reid Warner, Darrin Bragg, Ben Rovner, Jelena Nik, Roy Abrahamsohn

From: Several different companies

I watched this on a whim last night, even though I suspected it would be bad. It was. Find out why below:

This was not on my agenda last night to see this film; I happened to be looking at Amazon Prime (along with looking at all the Amazon Prime Day deals going on at the time) and I suddenly noticed this was now on the service. I was curious, even though among most previous viewers it was about as popular as a venereal disease. Even in 2015 the movie must have seemed dated, with the found footage trend flaming out and the old aspect of the characters having the same first names as the actors portraying them.

I know a lot of people don't like the series at all but I've enjoyed most of the Paranormal Activity movies (in the future I'll give proper reviews to most of them, so I can explain better what I like and don't like) and as director Oren Peli created what unexpectedly became a profitable franchise, I figured I should watch the only other movie he has directed-he has stuck to producing things-with the knowledge this has a toxic reputation and it actually began filming way back in 2009 and there were reshoots a few years later and it was not until 2015 that this received a very limited release; the first Paranormal Activity this is not.

The thing is, at first it is not so bad, even when you take into account the usual found footage trappings. Some young men who are tools decided to try and sneak into Area 51. It's natural for people to be curious about the secretive United States Air Force base in Nevada, when the government only confirmed its existence a few years ago and what actually happens there is a mystery. The best guesses is that secret weapons are tested there, along with experiments on military aircraft. But it should be no shock that due to the secrecy, there have been plenty of conspiracies, including the idea that aliens are somehow involved. Anyhow, one of the guys has become dangerously obsessed so that's the impetus behind attempting something so risky.

We see them get ready and they have a bunch of equipment to try and defeat all the layers of security Area 51 has. There's also a skeptic named Ben who is only there to drive everyone else to the site and wait for them to return. I don't know if it was the intent but I usually sided with Ben; of course his buddies are insane for even attempting such a feat and becomes increasingly scared when they don't call it off at the last minute. Real-life locations (such as the Little A'Le'Inn restaurant/hotel in the tiny town of Rachel, Nevada) are shown.

Sure, it's silly that those people actually managed to sneak onto the base, but they try to explain it away. Then, they enter a building... I did not think of it right away, but aside from how you'd suspect there would be more people around-even in the middle of the night... why are there no security cameras inside any of the buildings? That is a fundamental logic flaw and the movie completely falls apart there. I realize you can't have a movie if there were cameras but perhaps the film shouldn't have been made. That is not even factoring in all the nonsense which you see happen and the movie just becomes lame & cliché. This is not the worst found footage I've ever seen, but it's still pretty bad and a lot of it is what you'd probably predict even before you finish watching the first few minutes.

Even watching the kookiest and most aberrant YouTube conspiracy videos about Area 51 would provide more entertainment value than this drivel.

Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: J. Lee Thompson

Starring: Roddy McDowall, Don Murray, Ricardo Montalban, Natalie Trundy, Hari Rhodes

From: 20th Century Fox

Thankfully this movie turned out to be fine... and that goes for both versions, although the unrated version is the way to go, as I explain below: 

I finally have gotten back to finishing my viewing of this franchise. For the record, I saw the unrated version as available on Blu-ray. As that version contains a different ending, it needed to be said. The Blu has both versions of the movie, so after I saw the unrated, I watched the theatrical ending. Both are fiery conclusions with the same impassioned speech, but the two have some big differences and the unrated version (which was the original) is the preferable way to close the story and set up what ended up being the final tale in this timeline of the franchise.

This movie is about an ape named Caesar who due to his intelligence starts to lead an ape uprising. Yes, this was definitely an inspiration for the new series of Apes films. Here, it is the far-flung future of... “North America, 1991”. What a crappy world it is. First off, it's a police state, something that could possibly never happen in our near-future...

*** looks at camera like I am on The Office ***

Anyhow, it's a police state and due to a wacky disease, both cats and dogs are extinct species. In the EIGHT years since then, apes not only became replacement household pets, but indentured servants and even hold menial jobs. I realize, that is pretty wacky also. You get to see how they are trained but I imagine it's more expensive than finding certain people to work those jobs for little pay. All that said, it is rather obvious what this is a metaphor for, and I realized that even before there were monkey auctions and an ape shining shoes.

Anyhow, Ricardo Montalban reprises his role as Armando, and you do get to see more of him than in Escape... which to me is a good thing. Things happen, and Caesar does indeed start an uprising. Now, I admit there are some contrivances along the way but this was still a fine watch and also entertaining. Although like I said, what a crappy world they live in, where apes have begun to rebel anyway and while the world is seen on a small scale, I am glad that was not our 1991, although the 70's version of the future was-as usual-pretty groovy. It helps that a pro like J. Lee Thompson (after The Guns of Navarone & Cape Fear but before a bunch of Charles Bronson movies at Cannon) was the director. They try to do the most with what was obviously a low budget, and this ended up being entertaining.

Number Seventeen

Number Seventeen (1932)

Runtime: 64 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Leon M. Lion, Anne Grey, John Stuart, Donald Calthrop, Barry Jones

From: British International Pictures

Yeah, perhaps you're better off trying to find the ending on YouTube and not watching the whole film, even if it's short. The reason why is below: 

I had heard before this was not a good movie but when TCM host Ben Mankiewicz says this “perhaps is Hitchcock's worst sound film” and the co-host for the Sir Alfred films they will show this month (filmmaker Alexandre O. Phillippe) agrees, that is not a good sign for me thinking this is an underrated gem, as it sure as hell isn't.

This is only 64 minutes long and was filmed that way, but it's easy to think that this is an edited print, as it seems like there are large sections of the story missing. Unfortunately is a poorly told dullard of a tale revolving around some thieves and other people ending up at an abandoned house, and as you don't care about any of the characters as you're never given a reason to care, when all those twists & turns happen, you're left feeling confused and befuddled instead of enthralled. Things pick up when the setting moves to a train, but there are better moments involving Hitchcock and a train, believe me. The finale is spectacular and in decades since would have had better practical effects-or had been done in CG, and maybe looked phony-but here, what was done I'll call “charmingly quaint.”

I don't fault the cast for how this turned out. Hitchcock was forced by the studio to do this film and well, when he was put in that situation, he did tend to half-ass it, as he is still a human being. Even one of the greatest directors of all time had some missteps in his storied career and this is only for completists. I will presume this was just a story not really worth telling.

Escape From The Planet Of The Apes

Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971)

Runtime: 97 minutes

Directed by: Don Taylor

Starring: Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter, Bradford Dillman, Natalie Trundy, Eric Braeden

From: 20th Century Fox

This movie was better than expected. And no, it was not because M. Emmet Walsh has a bit part, although it was a surprise to see him. Find out why instead below: 

This movie turned out better than what I had expected. I knew that it involved bipedal human-sized apes walking around early 1970's Los Angeles and at one point they wear posh early 1970's clothing, so from that description it does sound a little silly. Yet, it was more thoughtful than I expected.

I will forever be amused that they figured out a way to continue the same story after the way the 2nd film ended. Cornelius and Zira (along with a smart chip named Dr. Milo, although he might as well have been named Plot Convenience and he doesn't even live for that long) end up on Taylor's ship and they fly to 1973 Los Angeles, where people seemed surprisingly accepting of seeing bipedal human-sized chimps walking around; that was even before they started talking.

Once they do start talking, they reveal too much and thus there's controversy over what should be done with them, now that some people in power know humanity's future; the highlight for me was seeing serious discussion over whether they “should play God” and try to change the future or not by “getting rid” of our protagonists. The President of the United States is involved and as this is before Watergate, he is not a villain and he actually tries to do the right thing. You can understand why the villains think the way they do, but of course they act like A-holes so it's still easy to root against them. While the movie is indeed a little goofy sometimes, overall it was a solid watch and never boring. Not only is there the presence of Ricardo Montalban as a colorful ringmaster of a circus, but there's also dialogue that both explains the rise of the apes and sets up the plot for the next film, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

As is typical with this series (a fact I confirmed after last night), it doesn't have the happiest of endings. Hollywood was different now and to be honest, it'd be nice if more movies today did not have the stereotypical “happy ending”. As I am me, I just about guffawed when I saw that the ending shot was obviously footage that rewound and played forward again and it looped a few times... it's still a melancholy denouement for this installment but I laughed because of how blatant it was. Even then, I am glad this was a pleasant surprise and with any luck, I'll enjoy the final two films in this particular timeline of the franchise.

The Manxman

The Manxman (1929)

Runtime:84 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Anny Ondra, Carl Brisson, Malcolm Keen, Randle Ayrton, Clare Greet

From: British International Pictures

I will be seeing a few of Hitch's movies this month, as I explain below: 

Real late last night on Turner Classic Movies I saw this film. Every Wednesday and Friday night this month (July 2017) they will show many of his films, and in chronological order. I've only seen some of Hitch's early career so I figured I would go with this one, even though the plot sounded generic.

That plot is a young lawyer named Philip and a fisherman named Pete. They were pals, and in fact had been close buddies since kids. A standard love triangle happens when they both fight over a young dame named Kate. Pete wishes to wife her but her dad is a jerk and refuses because he's poor. Thus, Pete goes off to Africa to try and earn a fortune. Bad circumstances happen and that is when the love triangle starts. At first it's hard to blame anyone for Kate loving both men, but some poor choices were then made.

It's not the most dynamically directed movie from Hitch, but even this early in his career it's competent. The three lead performances are fine (although as it's a silent, sometimes it's rather expressive) and the Isle of Man setting-which does explain its title-adds some nice flavor. This sort of thing was not Sir Alfred's wheelhouse and I am glad he went on to his bread and butter but at least this ended up being a fine watch and wasn't a bore or a waste of time.

Revolution

Revolution (1985)

Runtime: I saw the version that's 126 minutes long

Directed by: Hugh Hudson

Starring: Al Pacino, Nastassja Kinski, Donald Sutherland, Joan Plowright, Steven Berkoff

From: Some UK companies... and a Norwegian one too

This is a movie that flopped so hard, the impact was almost as forceful as what happened with Heaven's Gate. Note that this is far worse than Heaven's Gate, at least in my opinion. See why below: 

NOTE: As there are three cuts of this movie out there, I have to specify that I saw the original theatrical version, as available on Amazon Instant Video. There is also a shorter version called Revolution Revisited (which is also on Amazon) which has narration, some cut scenes and a changed ending... and a longer Director's Cut, which is not on Amazon and is only on a UK Blu, which is not region-free. I can't be 100% about this, but I presume the other two versions don't make the movie a lot better.

As usual, in the evening I struggled with what I should watch before finally making a decision. There's no shortage of appropriate things to watch on July 4, the day celebrated in the United States as the day we declared freedom from England in 1776, and then fought the Revolutionary War to make our independence official. What better thing to see than a movie set in the Revolutionary War? That decision came from knowing for years that this movie was such a bomb and a flop, it ruined the career of director Hugh Hudson (he directed Greystoke and Chariots of Fire), did a lot of damage to British film studio Goldcrest-and honestly, the entire British film industry for awhile-and even caused a great actor-well, before he became a parody-in Al Pacino to quit acting until Sea of Love in 1989. What a movie to follow up Scarface with. Then again, a film from the UK about the American revolution from the perspective of the Americans seems like a bad idea to begin with.

What little buzz I heard about the movie through the years, it proved true; this was pretty bad. Its biggest sin is being really boring. Pacino has an average job in the dawn of American Independence, before his sh*thead son does something dumb (and he acts dumb often in the movie) and they both get involved in the War. There's also Nastassja Kinski as a young lady who sympathizes with the new nation while the rest of her family still sides with the British. I am sure that happened often in the War, but aside from some wacky moment that is also pretty dull. Of course, she and Pacino often run into each other, just because.

The film does not have exciting battle scenes-there aren't too many of them, as a matter of fact-it does not say a lot about the Revolution for those that have any interest in history, and as I keep stressing, if you're not careful this languid piece of work could make you doze off in your easy chair. Admittedly, some of the tracking shots are nice, as is the pretty scenery; it was filmed in the UK and... Norway, of all places.

Plus, there are other familiar faces, like Donald Sutherland, Joan Plowright (she gets to utter the phrase “Yankee bitch!”, which made me laugh out loud as it was not something I could have ever predicted), Steven Berkoff, Robbie Coltrane, Richard O'Brien, and Graham Greene. I thought it was nice that at least some mention was made about Native Americans and their involvement in this war; they are rarely talked about at all when it comes to that conflict. In addition, I was surprised to see the name “Annie Lennox” in the credits. Her role is actually pretty small, but I understand, as Eurythmics were still quite popular at the time. The movie also killed any chance at her becoming an actress; it was not a role requiring strong acting chops, but again this being such a turkey meant she couldn't even had the career Debbie Harry had on the silver screen.

Admittedly, Pacino has a hilarious hairdo and an even more hilarious accent; I have no idea how to describe it, except that I'll presume the colonials in the late 18th century did not actually sound like that. Hell, at times he sounds like Tony Montana. But that's no reason to ever see this. As Heaven's Gate was also a disaster at the box office and caused a ripple effect felt for years to come, comparisons have been made. Don't be mistaken, this won't be seen in the future as a very good to great film that did not get a fair shake at the time for various reasons like what happened with Heaven's Gate. There's plenty of other entertainment out there devoted to this war that are more worth your time.

Baby Driver

Baby Driver (2017)

97% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 204 reviews)

Runtime: 113 long minutes

Directed by: Edgar Wright

Starring: Ansel Elgort and all those people you saw in the trailers

From: Several film studios

I wish I could love this movie like most of the rest of the world did. Much to my dismay, it fell pretty flat for me, despite some quality elements. I try to explain my dissenting opinion below:

I realize there will be many people disappointed by how I rated this; believe me, there is no one more disappointed than me that as a whole I did not really like the film. I'll try to explain why without giving away too much or writing a doctoral thesis.

The entire thing felt incredibly forced to me, as if they were trying WAY too hard to be “cool”. It was unnatural and more annoying than anything else. Talk about “style over substance”, which I am not always a fan of, especially when it is constantly smacked in your face. Speaking of annoying, when you can't stand the title character and are never able to warm up to him... Baby is a walking nervous tic, a living embodiment of “quirk”, and I thought he was an annoying hipster asshat who does a bunch of weird s*** and has an old Lincoln as a daily driver just because and he does some things in the film I could not understand at all; character motivations in general was another problem I had, especially in the final act. But back to Baby... he is clumsy while walking, just because; I did not laugh when it happened the first time; I certainly did not laugh the 15th time it happened. Then there's such things as the identity of Baby's adopted father... there's a great example of forcing something in order to be “hip”. I did not care about his plight, like at all.

Sadly, early on I realized this movie wasn't for me, with Baby and none of the other characters being enjoyable or fun to hang around. Baby's prospective love interest (Debora), you hardly get to know anything about her, so why should I care about the relationship between her and some socially awkward goofball who had a potato in his pants when she was around!? Sure, the movie has an awesome soundtrack filled with cool songs-not all of them I knew beforehand-and there were some very exciting moments, but otherwise this fell flat for me. The moments that were highs were enough to make me say that this was average; when you were expecting far better... and at times I wish some things would have been shot differently, although other things were shot quite well.

I can't fault the cast as they did well with the material they were given. The “constant music” thing started to get old after awhile, even with the great soundtrack filled with tunes right up my alley (and it being a fact that some people use music to try and drown out their tinnitus). While I did note some things I did enjoy, there was far more that annoyed me. There being about 6 different endings did not help either. Overall, I am glad most people love this movie to death and it is nice it is not another damn superhero film (although it is a pastiche of various 70's and early 80's movies, which I'd rather watch or watch again as those typically don't try so damn hard to be “awesome”, some of them just are awesome), but this was still filled with cliché and this motion picture regrettably did not work for me.

If I tried really hard I imagine I could ramble on and in more depth about the problems I had with this, but I'll try to forget about this except for some new choice songs I learned about... and the loveliness of Eiza Gonzalez. It's nice more people now know about such acts as The Incredible Bongo Band, The Detroit Emeralds, and Bob & Earl-the original singers of The Harlem Shuffle-but as I already knew about them...

Malone Is Still Pretty Entertaining

That is all.

Planet Of The Apes (Yes, The 2001 One)

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Runtime: 120 minutes

Directed by: Tim Burton

Starring: Marky Mark, Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Roth, Estella Warren, Paul Giamatti

From: 20th Century Fox

Yes, this infamous film was a first-time watch. I did not think it was unwatchably bad but it's definitely not good either, and now that I know the loathed ending in context... no wonder why most despise it. I talk about this below: 

Yep, yep... I've never seen this film in full until Thursday night. I only had seen the infamous ending, which out of context was rather goofy. Now that I know its context, I understand why most hate it. Perhaps it would have been better if there would have been a sequel that explained what happened, but as is, it looks pretty bad, especially compared to the twist of the original movie, which was like a cherry on top of a sundae as it drove home the important points the movie was making about society in general, a message still relevant today. The Tim Burton movie addressed things on a surface level but this is mostly a typical stupid Hollywood blockbuster, one where they started shooting without a finished script, usually a sign of doom. The ending likely came only for its shock value and I'll surmise the guess that they had no idea how to complete the story if a sequel would have happened. I am now sad there wasn't one... the leaping through hoops to try and make it feasible would have been great.

The first few minutes of this are OK, then Marky Mark goes after a monkey in a spaceship capsule... sure, the monkey takes “smart pills” so that's why a chimpanzee was being tested piloting a capsule, but Mark (OK, his character is named Leo Davidson) is adamant about saving his pal from the electrical storm he flew in. Instead, he ends up on a world ruled by apes, and at least the movie has great makeup effects from the legendary Rick Baker and that world looked pretty cool. He's helped by the ape known as Ari and he has to lead the humans in the fight against the apes, led by the evil General Thade (poor Tim Roth; that character does some rather degrading things). There are other characters... whether simian or not, most are forgettable. Unfortunately for the movie, the most memorable performance is from Paul Giamatti, who had to demean himself by basically being a used car salesman orangutan and it's way over the top and way not appealing or entertaining, so naturally we get plenty of this character.

I realize there's no real good way to say this, but the relationship between Davidson and Ari is rather unsettling. She looks uncomfortably like a human and she has a thing for him. We see far more of those two than Leo and Daena (Estella Warren, a human character... and while I understand she still acts, for all intents and purposes, there's someone who seemingly fell off the face of the Earth), and to be honest, I wonder if Leo and Ari engaged in off-screen romance! I apologize for being gross but that's what I thought the movie was strongly implying.

Anyway, this is a pretty blah film, a typical micro-managed and rushed at the same time soul-less Hollywood blockbuster, something that overall can't compare to the original despite some things I highlighted which were done very well. Heck, there weren't even any of the expected Tim Burton flourishes. At least this movie can be ignored now that the series was rebooted in 2011, and much to my amazement that set of films (the two I've seen and all the overwhelming buzz I've heard about the new one) are better than the typical blockbuster and are pretty awesome. Who knows, if Burton had a better script and he could be himself, maybe this would have been at least alright. As is...