Isle of the Snake People (La Muerte Viviente) (1971)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Juan Ibanez/Jack Hill
Starring: Boris Karloff and a bunch of people you've never heard of before
From: Somehow, it was released in the United States by Columbia
Each March, I spend some time (although not all of the movies I view that month fit into this category) watching foreign movies due to it being a yearly tradition at Letterboxd. This one is Mexico/USA and it is rather lousy; there isn't even much in the way of snakes.
All that said, I could have started this off with a revisit of a classic or something I suspect would be ****+. Instead, I went the cheesy route, viewing something that was a special feature on the old Something Weird DVD of the 70's exploitation movie Rattlers-which I haven't watched in all that time, as that is one of my trademarks-one of the movies that Boris Karloff made in the twilight of his life w/ Mexican producer Luis Enrique Vergara where his scenes were shot separately in Los Angeles by Jack Hill and the rest were done by Juan Ibanez in Mexico. I've seen Fear Chamber before-which confusingly is sometimes known as The Snake People-and that was so bizarre I was never bored; sadly, this is no Fear Chamber.
Karloff is a mad scientist on a tropical island and the other characters include his teetotaler niece and inept French colonial A-holes-the leader of which is given a Pepe Le Pew accent by the English dubbing-who rule over the island, the setting I would guess to be the early 20th century. A Lieutenant is named Wilhelm but regrettably, neither him nor anyone else does The Wilhelm Scream. Anyhow, rituals are being done to create zombies and this is led by the masked Damballa... gee, I wonder who that could be. You think this would be exciting and there are some out-there moments involving a “little person” and an exotic lady known as Kalea (not to mention, random telekinesis)... but much to my dismay, too much of this is just dreadfully dull, a dreary slog to get through.
Fear Chamber is about a sentient rock creature that is hooked up to computers-don't ask, as the movie doesn't answer-communicates in Moog sounds and needs the adrenaline of women to survive! Between that, the over the top ways that women are scared to get them full of adrenaline and a hilarious hulking brute character named Roland, this wackiness provided plenty of amusement. Henceforth, this movie lacking in much entertainment value, scares, kills worth a damn, or a zombie tale that seemed worth telling... not even Karloff dressed like he was Colonel Sanders or having his pants pulled up all the way up to almost his nipples was something I could guffaw about, as he was in poor health by this point and much of this movie is best left forgotten.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Friday, February 28, 2020
Hardcore
Hardcore (1979)
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Paul Schrader
Starring: George C. Scott, Peter Boyle, Season Hubley, Dick Sargent, Leonard Gaines
From: Columbia
George C. Scott served up some great looks in this movie.
I've known of Hardcore for years now yet despite it sounding like something I'd consider to be my jam, Wednesday night was my first viewing of this Paul Schrader joint. Shame on me for not checking it out sooner and only knowing of its general plot and such random moments as an adult star calling himself BIG DICK BLAQUE appearing in one scene. I knew I was in good hands when I saw that John Milius was an executive producer and Jack Nitzsche did the score... and what a score it was, sometimes electronic and sometimes disco-riffic.
Scott is the patriarch of a Calvinist family in Grand Rapids, Michigan; he does well and even runs his own furniture-making business. Then disaster strikes as his daughter vanishes in Southern California while attending a religious convention and after hilariously sleazy PI Peter Boyle is unable to track her down but discovers that she is in a stag movie, George C. heads on over to trashy Los Angeles and what a change that character goes through. Religion is neither praised nor demonized; rather, it is used as a way to compare an incredibly conservative (and naive) person to the horrors of real life that he finally gets to witness after leading a sheltered life, or the dialogues he has with some of the people in the industry or other sex workers. This doesn't demonize the sex workers themselves, but it sure as hell does so for those who run the industry and takes advantage of them.
George C. Scott is fantastic in the lead role; his character goes on quite the journey where he goes through a litany of changes as he is obsessed over the search for his daughter. This is a serious drama with some serious themes and some rough or intense scenes, directed & shot well... but of course I did enjoy the tawdry nature of this harsh look into such a seedy scene. There is some dialogue that is so vulgar, it made me howl with laughter. So did the modern-at the time-clothing that Scott eventually wore to blend in; of course, late 70's clothing is pretty wild and usually has the most ferocious patterns. One scene as George C. sporting a toupee and a fake porn 'stache; it is even more astonishing than it sounds. There are also unexpected moments, such as there being a valid comparison to the Kool-Aid Man. I also have to give credit for Season Hubley's role as a prostitute; what interesting conversations she and Scott had where they compared their drastically different lives that in a way were both phony and naive, no matter the contrasting reasons.
This was a film I hoped I would dig; it was better and more engrossing than I expected. As I said, shame on me for not giving this a shot well before this week.
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Paul Schrader
Starring: George C. Scott, Peter Boyle, Season Hubley, Dick Sargent, Leonard Gaines
From: Columbia
George C. Scott served up some great looks in this movie.
I've known of Hardcore for years now yet despite it sounding like something I'd consider to be my jam, Wednesday night was my first viewing of this Paul Schrader joint. Shame on me for not checking it out sooner and only knowing of its general plot and such random moments as an adult star calling himself BIG DICK BLAQUE appearing in one scene. I knew I was in good hands when I saw that John Milius was an executive producer and Jack Nitzsche did the score... and what a score it was, sometimes electronic and sometimes disco-riffic.
Scott is the patriarch of a Calvinist family in Grand Rapids, Michigan; he does well and even runs his own furniture-making business. Then disaster strikes as his daughter vanishes in Southern California while attending a religious convention and after hilariously sleazy PI Peter Boyle is unable to track her down but discovers that she is in a stag movie, George C. heads on over to trashy Los Angeles and what a change that character goes through. Religion is neither praised nor demonized; rather, it is used as a way to compare an incredibly conservative (and naive) person to the horrors of real life that he finally gets to witness after leading a sheltered life, or the dialogues he has with some of the people in the industry or other sex workers. This doesn't demonize the sex workers themselves, but it sure as hell does so for those who run the industry and takes advantage of them.
George C. Scott is fantastic in the lead role; his character goes on quite the journey where he goes through a litany of changes as he is obsessed over the search for his daughter. This is a serious drama with some serious themes and some rough or intense scenes, directed & shot well... but of course I did enjoy the tawdry nature of this harsh look into such a seedy scene. There is some dialogue that is so vulgar, it made me howl with laughter. So did the modern-at the time-clothing that Scott eventually wore to blend in; of course, late 70's clothing is pretty wild and usually has the most ferocious patterns. One scene as George C. sporting a toupee and a fake porn 'stache; it is even more astonishing than it sounds. There are also unexpected moments, such as there being a valid comparison to the Kool-Aid Man. I also have to give credit for Season Hubley's role as a prostitute; what interesting conversations she and Scott had where they compared their drastically different lives that in a way were both phony and naive, no matter the contrasting reasons.
This was a film I hoped I would dig; it was better and more engrossing than I expected. As I said, shame on me for not giving this a shot well before this week.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
8 1/2
8 ½ (1963)
Runtime: 138 minutes
Directed by: Federico Fellini
Starring: Marcello Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale, Anouk Aimee, Sandra Milo, Rossella Falk
From: Cineriz/Francinex
I don't ALWAYS watch sleaze & trash. There are occasions where I view cinema classics then discuss them here. As nothing was on my agenda late last night and Turner Classic Movies was playing this, it was the only logical progression from viewing Showgirls... to be less frivolous, knowing beforehand that a motion picture is going to be surreal and/or avant-garde... it gives me pause as such things I do not always enjoy. There's always the possibility of thinking it is pretentious claptrap or smug BS from someone who has their head too far up their own hindquarters. The plot about a director dealing with personal issues, it may be hard for some to sympathize w/ such problems.
Much to my relief, the story was not hard to follow or understand despite the surrealistic flourishes and the unique way the story unfurls as director Guido Anselmi struggles to complete a science fiction film with some autobiographical touches. His problems cause him to look back at his life, both good and bad; this also reveals aspect of Fellini's life as this movie has autobiographical touches of his own life. Thankfully, the movie does end up being relatable so it's not a “who gives a damn about this?” sort of plot that kept me away at at distance. The symbolism and metaphors are not too difficult to figure out, meaning this isn't an exhausting journey as you try to piece together the puzzles or get lost in a labyrinth attempting to decipher what the director is trying to say. Thus, it was clear that this movie was brutally honest, Fellini feeling free to discuss many of his faults & fears.
I dare not reveal too many details for those that haven't viewed the film before; what you see and hear should be a surprise. I will just note that Marcello Mastroianni was tremendous as the director and naturally, there is greatness in front and behind the camera, both aurally and visually. I mean, some of the dialogue and the visuals are downright legendary; for people on a site like Letterboxd, this seems to be one of those motion pictures that are required viewing.
Runtime: 138 minutes
Directed by: Federico Fellini
Starring: Marcello Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale, Anouk Aimee, Sandra Milo, Rossella Falk
From: Cineriz/Francinex
I don't ALWAYS watch sleaze & trash. There are occasions where I view cinema classics then discuss them here. As nothing was on my agenda late last night and Turner Classic Movies was playing this, it was the only logical progression from viewing Showgirls... to be less frivolous, knowing beforehand that a motion picture is going to be surreal and/or avant-garde... it gives me pause as such things I do not always enjoy. There's always the possibility of thinking it is pretentious claptrap or smug BS from someone who has their head too far up their own hindquarters. The plot about a director dealing with personal issues, it may be hard for some to sympathize w/ such problems.
Much to my relief, the story was not hard to follow or understand despite the surrealistic flourishes and the unique way the story unfurls as director Guido Anselmi struggles to complete a science fiction film with some autobiographical touches. His problems cause him to look back at his life, both good and bad; this also reveals aspect of Fellini's life as this movie has autobiographical touches of his own life. Thankfully, the movie does end up being relatable so it's not a “who gives a damn about this?” sort of plot that kept me away at at distance. The symbolism and metaphors are not too difficult to figure out, meaning this isn't an exhausting journey as you try to piece together the puzzles or get lost in a labyrinth attempting to decipher what the director is trying to say. Thus, it was clear that this movie was brutally honest, Fellini feeling free to discuss many of his faults & fears.
I dare not reveal too many details for those that haven't viewed the film before; what you see and hear should be a surprise. I will just note that Marcello Mastroianni was tremendous as the director and naturally, there is greatness in front and behind the camera, both aurally and visually. I mean, some of the dialogue and the visuals are downright legendary; for people on a site like Letterboxd, this seems to be one of those motion pictures that are required viewing.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Showgirls!
Yes, I talk about that infamous movie after seeing it for the first time in ages:
I should have seen this while wearing some “Ver-sayce.”
For a few days there I was busy with other activities (including people I know being in town for the week, one of them a 10 month old baby) but now things should be back to normal and last night I realized there should be a real change of pace to what I've seen as of late, and why not revisit one of the most divisive movies on Letterboxd, one I had only seen once before, many (full) moons ago. Many legit love it now... if only I could feel the same way.
I am not against sleazy or tawdry tales; I've given some positive reviews to movies that fit in such a category. One that looks at what turns out to be a nightmare as someone tries to fulfill The American Dream, and in Unfortunately, this was just utterly preposterous and not believable at all; the biggest issue is that I hate Nomi and her constantly bizarre behavior. She has what I'll call Movie Bipolar Disorder; of course I have no problem with those that legit are Bipolar and my sympathies to those that do their best to manage this affliction. Nomi's behavior here is all over the place, her mood switching on a dime and I can't stand the character. Of course she did not have to be a 100% babyface for me to like her... it's just that I was never given a reason to care about that weirdo or her plight. The rest of the movie is filled with repellent or obnoxious characters and that does take away a bit from all the unintentional laughs. Writer Joe Eszterhas, there is someone that is a product of a different time and no surprise that he's hardly done anything since the 90's; believe me, with him and especially director Paul Verhoeven, there are other words of theirs I'd rather see or see again rather than this.
Still, there are plenty of laughs that I derived from this claptrap. How ludicrous the story becomes, the incredibly unsexy sex scenes, the pitiful dialogue, how nasty everyone is, dancers in petty feuds, Kyle MacLachlan's hair... no wonder this became a midnight movie favorite and even resulted in a spoof low-budget play. But there's the big problem of how there is a gross moment late in the movie, and the movie closes out with multiple scenes that bugger belief they are so divorced from reality. Elizabeth Berkley... she was good as Jessie Spano on Saved by the Bell, although I don't know what actress could have made that character more bearable for me. At least Robert Davi and (especially) Gina Gershon knew to camp it up as they realized this was cheese of the ripest sort.
I won't fault anyone who unironically-or even ironically-enjoys this trashy tale. It was quite the Hollywood risk to have a wide release of a NC-17 movie... there is something I imagine won't happen ever again in this day and age and with how risk-adverse Hollywood has become. Others can watch this together or alone as they drink their champagne... me, I might never see this again, unless perhaps it is at a theatrical screening with a crowd, as I am sure that is a gas.
I should have seen this while wearing some “Ver-sayce.”
For a few days there I was busy with other activities (including people I know being in town for the week, one of them a 10 month old baby) but now things should be back to normal and last night I realized there should be a real change of pace to what I've seen as of late, and why not revisit one of the most divisive movies on Letterboxd, one I had only seen once before, many (full) moons ago. Many legit love it now... if only I could feel the same way.
I am not against sleazy or tawdry tales; I've given some positive reviews to movies that fit in such a category. One that looks at what turns out to be a nightmare as someone tries to fulfill The American Dream, and in Unfortunately, this was just utterly preposterous and not believable at all; the biggest issue is that I hate Nomi and her constantly bizarre behavior. She has what I'll call Movie Bipolar Disorder; of course I have no problem with those that legit are Bipolar and my sympathies to those that do their best to manage this affliction. Nomi's behavior here is all over the place, her mood switching on a dime and I can't stand the character. Of course she did not have to be a 100% babyface for me to like her... it's just that I was never given a reason to care about that weirdo or her plight. The rest of the movie is filled with repellent or obnoxious characters and that does take away a bit from all the unintentional laughs. Writer Joe Eszterhas, there is someone that is a product of a different time and no surprise that he's hardly done anything since the 90's; believe me, with him and especially director Paul Verhoeven, there are other words of theirs I'd rather see or see again rather than this.
Still, there are plenty of laughs that I derived from this claptrap. How ludicrous the story becomes, the incredibly unsexy sex scenes, the pitiful dialogue, how nasty everyone is, dancers in petty feuds, Kyle MacLachlan's hair... no wonder this became a midnight movie favorite and even resulted in a spoof low-budget play. But there's the big problem of how there is a gross moment late in the movie, and the movie closes out with multiple scenes that bugger belief they are so divorced from reality. Elizabeth Berkley... she was good as Jessie Spano on Saved by the Bell, although I don't know what actress could have made that character more bearable for me. At least Robert Davi and (especially) Gina Gershon knew to camp it up as they realized this was cheese of the ripest sort.
I won't fault anyone who unironically-or even ironically-enjoys this trashy tale. It was quite the Hollywood risk to have a wide release of a NC-17 movie... there is something I imagine won't happen ever again in this day and age and with how risk-adverse Hollywood has become. Others can watch this together or alone as they drink their champagne... me, I might never see this again, unless perhaps it is at a theatrical screening with a crowd, as I am sure that is a gas.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
I'm For The Hippopotamus
I'm for the Hippopotamus (Io Sto Con Gli Ippopotami) (1979)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Italo Zingarelli
Starring: Terence Hill, Bud Spencer, Joe Bugner, May Dlamini, Dawn Jurgens
From: Zadar Film/Denver Film Productions
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Italo Zingarelli
Starring: Terence Hill, Bud Spencer, Joe Bugner, May Dlamini, Dawn Jurgens
From: Zadar Film/Denver Film Productions
I actually posted this review on Letterboxd 48 hours ago; I've been too busy since then to see anything or even post it here until now. Hopefully from this point there will be more normalcy for me:
Yes, I did choose this due to its title. Amazon Prime has a number of Hill/Spencer movies available for free if you are a member; such a title (which isn't far off from the literal Italian title translation of I'm With the Hippos) stands out, along with the African setting. It's not mentioned in the movie or credits, but several sites said that it was South Africa, which I am sure was a nice shoot, the majesty of the savannah, the unique culture, being up close with many exotic animals... if only there wasn't that whole Apartheid thing...
Anyhow, the setting is a few decades before 1979; Hill and Spencer are related (but of course) and they work together, although they often disagree. They do battle against Ormand, a vile white European who is not only stealing land from villagers, he either poaches animals or sells them to zoos; indeed, the commentary against colonialism is implied. It will be easy to root for our heroes as they engage in “animal liberation” (to quote the title from a film clip that someone put on YouTube; no comment on that thorny topic) and support the natives to the point that in one scene, Spencer drives a bus through a village and stops there so people can get out and purchase items from the villagers. Our heroes run a safari but don't worry, those on the trip don't know that the guns are filled with blanks instead of real bullets.
There are cartoony moments and it is quite silly... that said, I am sure I could say this for all the Hill/Spencer joints: their charm is a big asset. There's slapstick violence aplenty and subplots such as gambling, three-card Monte and the most conspicuous jailbreak ever. Much of the movie is pretty genial; to list an example, one scene has Bud singing with a group of children-and it's his own singing voice instead of the dubbing that I otherwise expect to come out of his mouth-the ditty Grau Grau Grau; whether or not you like the tune, expect to hear the melody on several occasions.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
They Call Me Trinity
They Call Me Trinity (Lo Chiamavano Trinita) (1970)
Runtime: I saw the version that is 115 minutes long
Directed by: Enzo Barboni
Starring: Terence Hill, Bud Spencer, Farley Granger, Steffen Zacharias, Dan Sturkie
From: West Film
Defining the term “laid back film.”
Those outside the United States reading this (or at least your parents) may have their eyebrows raised when they hear this but the legendary duo of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer were never a big deal in this country; from my movie obsessions I understand they were immensely popular in Europe and were well-known in some other territories. Seeing then discussing some of their work here seems like a swell idea.
At least I knew going into this Spaghetti Western sendup that it was not only leisurely paced, but the duo-playing brothers!-had an antagonistic relationship throughout. They meet up with each other in a dusty old town where Spencer is the sheriff... because he killed the man going there who was actually going to be the new sheriff in town. Bud wants the horses that the heel of the movie (Farley Granger!) possesses, and the bad guy also wants to drive Mormons off of the area they have settled in, because he is a gigantic jerk. Stereotypical Mexican banditos also get involved.
The movie is silly and juvenile-after all, there are more fists and feet used than guns; for me that was not a negative with this story. How laid back this is... that is more of an issue than anything else but for me, the charm of the two leads go a long, long way. Plus, when there is action, it is usually a lot of fun and there are enough laughs, random odd moments (a cow on the roof of a cantina, for example) and wacky minor characters where this was a good time, even at the almost 2 hour dubbed version I found... nevermind how.
Runtime: I saw the version that is 115 minutes long
Directed by: Enzo Barboni
Starring: Terence Hill, Bud Spencer, Farley Granger, Steffen Zacharias, Dan Sturkie
From: West Film
Defining the term “laid back film.”
Those outside the United States reading this (or at least your parents) may have their eyebrows raised when they hear this but the legendary duo of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer were never a big deal in this country; from my movie obsessions I understand they were immensely popular in Europe and were well-known in some other territories. Seeing then discussing some of their work here seems like a swell idea.
At least I knew going into this Spaghetti Western sendup that it was not only leisurely paced, but the duo-playing brothers!-had an antagonistic relationship throughout. They meet up with each other in a dusty old town where Spencer is the sheriff... because he killed the man going there who was actually going to be the new sheriff in town. Bud wants the horses that the heel of the movie (Farley Granger!) possesses, and the bad guy also wants to drive Mormons off of the area they have settled in, because he is a gigantic jerk. Stereotypical Mexican banditos also get involved.
The movie is silly and juvenile-after all, there are more fists and feet used than guns; for me that was not a negative with this story. How laid back this is... that is more of an issue than anything else but for me, the charm of the two leads go a long, long way. Plus, when there is action, it is usually a lot of fun and there are enough laughs, random odd moments (a cow on the roof of a cantina, for example) and wacky minor characters where this was a good time, even at the almost 2 hour dubbed version I found... nevermind how.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Dead & Buried
Dead & Buried (1981)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Gary Sherman
Starring: James Farentino, Melody Anderson, Jack Albertson, Dennis Redfield, Robert Englund
From: Barclays Mercantile Industrial Finance
I believe that Dead & Buried, The Fog, and Halloween III: Season of the Witch are in the same cinematic universe.
In a “Vintage Blair” move, I've had this movie on Blu-ray (from Blue Underground; more on that later) for a few years and was going to finally view it last fall-before things went awry there-but it wasn't until last night that it was finally seen by me. It was positive buzz that made me go with a rare blind buy, and it is not a decision I regret.
The plot isn't too complicated and in fact multiple plot descriptions I've seen online and on the back of the Blu reveal that not only are creepy things happening in the small town of Potters Bluff (“no bigger than a postage stamp”) and people are being murdered, but they are soon then coming back to life, so I'll also do so. Sheriff Dan Gillis-played by James Farentino-is the only one trying to investigate these bizarre matters. What follows includes big band music & photography.
I compare this to The Fog (no, not the atrocious remake... the original) and Halloween III not just for them all shooting in Northern California and the physical locations all being nice, bucolic locations... it is the general vibe of all three that are similar; Dead & Buried even has foggy night scenes, making the comparisons more obvious. A nice collection of talent came together to make this: Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon (allegedly, it was mainly Shusett) wrote the script, the great Stan Winston did the effects except for the one that noticeably doesn't look great, and the cast is full of “that guy” faces... Lisa Blount, Barry Corbin, Michael Pataki, Bill Quinn, and Glenn Morshower. But of course it was great seeing Robert Englund in a small role, although the best performance was not from Farentino, at times way over the top. Rather, it was Jack Albertson, who was ill with cancer at the time and would pass away soon after this was released. Him as the sardonic mortician is leagues away from being Grandpa Joe in Willy Wonka, which I imagine most will best remember him as despite his success on Broadway or being on the TV show Chico & The Man.
To be frank, this is not the sort of story you want to scrutinize too closely, especially once the details are revealed. Rather, just enjoy this methodically-paced creepy chiller for what it is... a bizarre mystery which has sudden bursts of weird, gruesome moments among a story that is otherwise languid. Believe it or not, I've seen mentioned in some reviews online that this was originally made as a black comedy (!) but the distributors didn't want that so much of that was cut out and we got something that had more gore instead w/ some gallows humor mixed in. Winston definitely did not do the one bad effect involving someone's head that OBVIOUSLY was a wax model... perhaps by sheer luck, Dead & Buried ended up as a weird little mystery picture you'd halfway expect to see on The Twilight Zone.
As for the Blu I have, the picture & sound were nice and I did see the special features involving Winston & Englund; it would have been nice if the disc did not stop twice (including during the climax; this was a problem on both Blu players I have) and I had to skip ahead approximately 30 seconds each time... still, it was a minor issue.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Gary Sherman
Starring: James Farentino, Melody Anderson, Jack Albertson, Dennis Redfield, Robert Englund
From: Barclays Mercantile Industrial Finance
I believe that Dead & Buried, The Fog, and Halloween III: Season of the Witch are in the same cinematic universe.
In a “Vintage Blair” move, I've had this movie on Blu-ray (from Blue Underground; more on that later) for a few years and was going to finally view it last fall-before things went awry there-but it wasn't until last night that it was finally seen by me. It was positive buzz that made me go with a rare blind buy, and it is not a decision I regret.
The plot isn't too complicated and in fact multiple plot descriptions I've seen online and on the back of the Blu reveal that not only are creepy things happening in the small town of Potters Bluff (“no bigger than a postage stamp”) and people are being murdered, but they are soon then coming back to life, so I'll also do so. Sheriff Dan Gillis-played by James Farentino-is the only one trying to investigate these bizarre matters. What follows includes big band music & photography.
I compare this to The Fog (no, not the atrocious remake... the original) and Halloween III not just for them all shooting in Northern California and the physical locations all being nice, bucolic locations... it is the general vibe of all three that are similar; Dead & Buried even has foggy night scenes, making the comparisons more obvious. A nice collection of talent came together to make this: Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon (allegedly, it was mainly Shusett) wrote the script, the great Stan Winston did the effects except for the one that noticeably doesn't look great, and the cast is full of “that guy” faces... Lisa Blount, Barry Corbin, Michael Pataki, Bill Quinn, and Glenn Morshower. But of course it was great seeing Robert Englund in a small role, although the best performance was not from Farentino, at times way over the top. Rather, it was Jack Albertson, who was ill with cancer at the time and would pass away soon after this was released. Him as the sardonic mortician is leagues away from being Grandpa Joe in Willy Wonka, which I imagine most will best remember him as despite his success on Broadway or being on the TV show Chico & The Man.
To be frank, this is not the sort of story you want to scrutinize too closely, especially once the details are revealed. Rather, just enjoy this methodically-paced creepy chiller for what it is... a bizarre mystery which has sudden bursts of weird, gruesome moments among a story that is otherwise languid. Believe it or not, I've seen mentioned in some reviews online that this was originally made as a black comedy (!) but the distributors didn't want that so much of that was cut out and we got something that had more gore instead w/ some gallows humor mixed in. Winston definitely did not do the one bad effect involving someone's head that OBVIOUSLY was a wax model... perhaps by sheer luck, Dead & Buried ended up as a weird little mystery picture you'd halfway expect to see on The Twilight Zone.
As for the Blu I have, the picture & sound were nice and I did see the special features involving Winston & Englund; it would have been nice if the disc did not stop twice (including during the climax; this was a problem on both Blu players I have) and I had to skip ahead approximately 30 seconds each time... still, it was a minor issue.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
The Cat o' Nine Tails
The Cat o' Nine Tails (Il Gatto A Nove Code) (1971)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Dario Argento
Starring: James Franciscus, Karl Malden, Catherine Spaak, Pier Paolo Capponi, Horst Frank
From: Various companies in several European countries
Sunday night I saw the Director's Cut of Doctor Sleep, which I enjoyed about as much as the theatrical version.. meaning "quite a bit." Some of the additional footage was nice, while the rest I understand why it was originally cut. I'm glad I saw it, even at 180 minutes long. This in comparison was short:
It was not the plan to see several horror movies in a row (including revisiting the original My Bloody Valentine on the 14th) but it just turned out that way. This trend may continue for a few more days; it randomly struck me last night that it's been more than a year since a giallo was last seen, so I went with one that turned out to be subdued and had a logical story-surprising, considering the director-which does not mean The Cat o' Nine Tails was not an interesting watch.
A newspaper reporter and an older blind man who makes crossword puzzles (!) team up to investigate crimes connected to a genetic research institute. The blind man was not born that way, yet this aspect-along with him being assisted by his 10 year old niece-was amusing; it was tremendous when uncle and niece actually questioned a suspect. The girl is gone for long stretches, which was for the best when it came to plausibility... although I would have loved to have seen them query multiple subjects and get in all sorts of peril for absurdity's sake.
Otherwise, it was the newspaper reporter who did most of the sleuthing. It was more of a mystery than a horror movie and the kills were not wildly over the top like you expect from a giallo... that was OK with me. There were some setpieces done very well, one involving milk and another in a cemetery, along with some expected Argento flourishes, such as a super close-up of the killer's eye whenever they are on the attack, or the various POV shots.
The story always intrigued and there are enough memorable/odd moments where I was never bored with this tale. James Franciscus & Karl Malden were quality as the two lead, and there are various amusing ancillary characters, my favorite being Gigi the Loser, a crook with a black cloud over his head who at least is able to win an insult contest against a PRIEST; to clarify, the priest said 125 insults in a row without stopping, while Gigi did 137! This was even better than the astoundingly awkward way someone tries propositioning someone for sex. Such moments tickled me pink and so did the Morricone score. Such things make up for the illogical moments of the plot, especially the whole chromosome thing that is nothing but a load of bollocks. Then again, in an old Italian genre movie I suppose that scrutinizing the story is sort of like examining the drapes in a house of ill-repute...
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Dario Argento
Starring: James Franciscus, Karl Malden, Catherine Spaak, Pier Paolo Capponi, Horst Frank
From: Various companies in several European countries
Sunday night I saw the Director's Cut of Doctor Sleep, which I enjoyed about as much as the theatrical version.. meaning "quite a bit." Some of the additional footage was nice, while the rest I understand why it was originally cut. I'm glad I saw it, even at 180 minutes long. This in comparison was short:
It was not the plan to see several horror movies in a row (including revisiting the original My Bloody Valentine on the 14th) but it just turned out that way. This trend may continue for a few more days; it randomly struck me last night that it's been more than a year since a giallo was last seen, so I went with one that turned out to be subdued and had a logical story-surprising, considering the director-which does not mean The Cat o' Nine Tails was not an interesting watch.
A newspaper reporter and an older blind man who makes crossword puzzles (!) team up to investigate crimes connected to a genetic research institute. The blind man was not born that way, yet this aspect-along with him being assisted by his 10 year old niece-was amusing; it was tremendous when uncle and niece actually questioned a suspect. The girl is gone for long stretches, which was for the best when it came to plausibility... although I would have loved to have seen them query multiple subjects and get in all sorts of peril for absurdity's sake.
Otherwise, it was the newspaper reporter who did most of the sleuthing. It was more of a mystery than a horror movie and the kills were not wildly over the top like you expect from a giallo... that was OK with me. There were some setpieces done very well, one involving milk and another in a cemetery, along with some expected Argento flourishes, such as a super close-up of the killer's eye whenever they are on the attack, or the various POV shots.
The story always intrigued and there are enough memorable/odd moments where I was never bored with this tale. James Franciscus & Karl Malden were quality as the two lead, and there are various amusing ancillary characters, my favorite being Gigi the Loser, a crook with a black cloud over his head who at least is able to win an insult contest against a PRIEST; to clarify, the priest said 125 insults in a row without stopping, while Gigi did 137! This was even better than the astoundingly awkward way someone tries propositioning someone for sex. Such moments tickled me pink and so did the Morricone score. Such things make up for the illogical moments of the plot, especially the whole chromosome thing that is nothing but a load of bollocks. Then again, in an old Italian genre movie I suppose that scrutinizing the story is sort of like examining the drapes in a house of ill-repute...
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Blumhouse's Fantasy Island
Blumhouse's Fantasy Island (2020)
9% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 46 reviews)
Runtime: A long 110 minutes
Directed by: Jeff Wadlow
Starring: A bunch of actors, many of whom deserved better than this
From: Besides Blumhouse... Sony/Columbia
The night of Valentine's Day, I revisited the original My Bloody Valentine, which was good times. This... not so much:
This was not a sweet, sweet fantasy.
The original television show, if I ever watched it, that would be in reruns and I would be toddler age so in essence, I would only know the basics such as the general idea, the cast and its famous catchphrase, which is heard in the movie. The trailer did now blow wind up my proverbial skirt but as this fit my schedule, I need to use the AMC A-List app more often, and the reviews I heard prepared me for something laughably bad, which this was. I've heard some compare this to Lost, a show I maybe saw 30 seconds of total. From hearsay, I am glad that was a show I invested zero time in.
Of course this would have worked better as something like a Netflix miniseries; the various stories presented here, I do understand why it was done as a movie instead of in separate episodes because of what they were going for. Unfortunately, in this case it did not work. This was obviously shot as an R and edited down to a PG-13, which prevented any of the kills from being any fun, for example. The various stories are WILDLY different in tone, so them cutting between them gave me whiplash, as there is serious drama involving regret over past choices, loathsome bros engaging in “humorous” debauchery, action, and a girl looking for revenge against a high school bully. Speaking of cutting, this is edited to death to make it a still long almost two hours long; this being longer than two hours would be more a nightmare than a fantasy. The dialogue... besides one of the worst and least realistic attempts I've ever heard at a character telling the audience what year a segment is set in, it too often explains way too much as if they have zero faith in the audience to figure out what is not complex material.
Then the second half of the movie happens, and this unravels w/ stupid plot twist after stupid plot twist, each dumber and more story-breaking than the last. The end result is an attempt at being clever but instead we get a story that is utterly baffling and devoid of logic, making me feel I wasted my time with this claptrap. Some of the actors do fare better than others... Maggie Q did the best with the material and it's always nice seeing Michael Rooker. But, on the flip side of the coin, the two actors who were the bros, they couldn't make them not likable in the least; they were pop culture spouting buffoons, obnoxious D-bags who the audience was supposed to like yet it was impossible to. Also, whether by design or accident, they came off as homosexual lovers instead of half-brothers.
In a tremendous example of “failing upwards” in Hollywood, the main people and even the same lead of the movie Truth or Dare also made this; I'll presume Truth or Dare is a funnier bad movie experience. They did film at a beautiful island in Fiji, but that is not enough to suggest that anyone ever see this. The audience (which was large), I think only some of them enjoyed this foolishness. One person I heard scoff a few times in the final act-an appropriate reaction-and another whispered what he thought would be a plot twist to their friend; it didn't happen, but it would have been better than the twists we actually got, which is of the blindsiding variety as they are barely hinted at beforehand, if at all.
9% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 46 reviews)
Runtime: A long 110 minutes
Directed by: Jeff Wadlow
Starring: A bunch of actors, many of whom deserved better than this
From: Besides Blumhouse... Sony/Columbia
The night of Valentine's Day, I revisited the original My Bloody Valentine, which was good times. This... not so much:
This was not a sweet, sweet fantasy.
The original television show, if I ever watched it, that would be in reruns and I would be toddler age so in essence, I would only know the basics such as the general idea, the cast and its famous catchphrase, which is heard in the movie. The trailer did now blow wind up my proverbial skirt but as this fit my schedule, I need to use the AMC A-List app more often, and the reviews I heard prepared me for something laughably bad, which this was. I've heard some compare this to Lost, a show I maybe saw 30 seconds of total. From hearsay, I am glad that was a show I invested zero time in.
Of course this would have worked better as something like a Netflix miniseries; the various stories presented here, I do understand why it was done as a movie instead of in separate episodes because of what they were going for. Unfortunately, in this case it did not work. This was obviously shot as an R and edited down to a PG-13, which prevented any of the kills from being any fun, for example. The various stories are WILDLY different in tone, so them cutting between them gave me whiplash, as there is serious drama involving regret over past choices, loathsome bros engaging in “humorous” debauchery, action, and a girl looking for revenge against a high school bully. Speaking of cutting, this is edited to death to make it a still long almost two hours long; this being longer than two hours would be more a nightmare than a fantasy. The dialogue... besides one of the worst and least realistic attempts I've ever heard at a character telling the audience what year a segment is set in, it too often explains way too much as if they have zero faith in the audience to figure out what is not complex material.
Then the second half of the movie happens, and this unravels w/ stupid plot twist after stupid plot twist, each dumber and more story-breaking than the last. The end result is an attempt at being clever but instead we get a story that is utterly baffling and devoid of logic, making me feel I wasted my time with this claptrap. Some of the actors do fare better than others... Maggie Q did the best with the material and it's always nice seeing Michael Rooker. But, on the flip side of the coin, the two actors who were the bros, they couldn't make them not likable in the least; they were pop culture spouting buffoons, obnoxious D-bags who the audience was supposed to like yet it was impossible to. Also, whether by design or accident, they came off as homosexual lovers instead of half-brothers.
In a tremendous example of “failing upwards” in Hollywood, the main people and even the same lead of the movie Truth or Dare also made this; I'll presume Truth or Dare is a funnier bad movie experience. They did film at a beautiful island in Fiji, but that is not enough to suggest that anyone ever see this. The audience (which was large), I think only some of them enjoyed this foolishness. One person I heard scoff a few times in the final act-an appropriate reaction-and another whispered what he thought would be a plot twist to their friend; it didn't happen, but it would have been better than the twists we actually got, which is of the blindsiding variety as they are barely hinted at beforehand, if at all.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)
Runtime: I saw the unrated version that's 97 minutes
Directed by: Tommy Wirkola
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen, Pihla Viitala, Thomas Mann
From: Paramount/MGM
Exactly what I expect from a movie where two of the (many) producers are Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.
This seemed to be the logical progression for viewing right after checking out Gretel & Hansel. Even more so than expected, this was diametrically opposite from that. While the Oz Perkins joint was moody and arthouse, this is a LOUD and in your face movie where especially in unrated form, there are some tremendously over the top gore moments, anachronisms all over the place, plenty of foul language, and attempts at humor which don't always land.
The script is simple enough: the famous duo survive the evil witch and in fact from that point become witch hunters, killing hundreds of them over the years. Famke Janssen concocts a scheme where after a ritual under a blood moon, her kind will apparently become invincible forever. Along the way there are evil sheriffs, fanboys, a kind ork and Hansel has diabetes, which is only a minor plot point; really. The tone is rather farcical; after all, there are plenty of jokes-only some of which work-and the heroes sometimes wield weapons from an arsenal that are more appropriate for Rambo rather than Germany back a few centuries ago.
Despite how dopey this is, I can still prescribe a “fine” rating to this slice of cheese. At least they went all-in on this story gone haywire and it moves at a rapid pace. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton as the siblings work rather well together, and Peter Stormare appropriately hammed it up as the evil sheriff. The ork character was brought to life via practical effects... which was a good idea considering some of the CG can accurately be described as “shoddy”; thankfully there was a decent amount of practical instead of lousy computer graphics... and this wasn't seen in 3D.
This is pretty stupid yet will be crowd-pleasing for some and I am sure the unrated cut is greatly preferable to the R-rated version, especially if you want to see over the top gore.
Runtime: I saw the unrated version that's 97 minutes
Directed by: Tommy Wirkola
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen, Pihla Viitala, Thomas Mann
From: Paramount/MGM
Exactly what I expect from a movie where two of the (many) producers are Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.
This seemed to be the logical progression for viewing right after checking out Gretel & Hansel. Even more so than expected, this was diametrically opposite from that. While the Oz Perkins joint was moody and arthouse, this is a LOUD and in your face movie where especially in unrated form, there are some tremendously over the top gore moments, anachronisms all over the place, plenty of foul language, and attempts at humor which don't always land.
The script is simple enough: the famous duo survive the evil witch and in fact from that point become witch hunters, killing hundreds of them over the years. Famke Janssen concocts a scheme where after a ritual under a blood moon, her kind will apparently become invincible forever. Along the way there are evil sheriffs, fanboys, a kind ork and Hansel has diabetes, which is only a minor plot point; really. The tone is rather farcical; after all, there are plenty of jokes-only some of which work-and the heroes sometimes wield weapons from an arsenal that are more appropriate for Rambo rather than Germany back a few centuries ago.
Despite how dopey this is, I can still prescribe a “fine” rating to this slice of cheese. At least they went all-in on this story gone haywire and it moves at a rapid pace. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton as the siblings work rather well together, and Peter Stormare appropriately hammed it up as the evil sheriff. The ork character was brought to life via practical effects... which was a good idea considering some of the CG can accurately be described as “shoddy”; thankfully there was a decent amount of practical instead of lousy computer graphics... and this wasn't seen in 3D.
This is pretty stupid yet will be crowd-pleasing for some and I am sure the unrated cut is greatly preferable to the R-rated version, especially if you want to see over the top gore.
Gretel & Hansel
Gretel & Hansel (2020)
61% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 75 reviews)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Oz Perkins
Starring: Mainly, it's just Sophia Lillis, Samuel Leakey, and Alice Krige
From: In the United States, good old Orion Pictures
Like a training wheels version of an A24 movie.
I am paraphrasing something I've heard from more than one person; that is despite this not being made by the highly regarded indie studio. The reasons why I saw this theatrically: I feel bad its performance at the box office is not great, and the Cinemascore is rather lousy, I heard some things which sounded appealing to me, and somehow I haven't seen any Oz Perkins joints before. I know that they are all divisive so eventually I will check out the rest.
Everyone knows the German folk tale as made famous by The Brothers Grimm; this uses the basic idea but makes a variety of changes, which is fine. This shows how arthouse it is right away: after a widescreen ratio, the aspect ratio changes to 1.55:1, of all things. This time, Gretel is like twice the age of her brother and after their mom goes crazy, they walk through the woods before reaching the house of the witch, which unfortunately is not made out of candy. I understand those that think the story is too slow and there isn't that much to the plot... from hearsay, the latter can be said about every Oz movie, and as for the former, apparently this is fast-paced compared to his previous work. Me, I could carp about the plot or how it was told... yet I won't rake this over the coals about it as this wasn't dull to me and even if it's more creepy than scary, it was the sort of thing I am glad was seen by me theatrically.
Chiefly, that is due to how gorgeous the film looks throughout, with the striking moments that color is used, the lovely woods that comprises the setting (it was filmed in Ireland), the framing that has everyone centered-which isn't for everyone-and it was a visual delight. Most of this is either two or three characters; thankfully the performances are all fine-Alice Krige being the highlight as the witch-although everyone having different accents is a little curious. It is on the pretentious side, although not insufferably so like a decent number of actual A24 pictures. I'll blame the narration you sometimes hear on the dreaded “studio notes”; at least aurally, there is a bitchin' synth score. There definitely are weird moments throughout, although this is PG-13 instead of some bizarre R-rated thing you'd get from any random independent production company.
No surprise that even on Letterboxd, I've seen ratings all over the map for Gretel & Hansel, whether it be people I follow or everyone on the site who has provided a rating. For me, while I wish the story would have been as stunning as the visuals, it was not terrible & at least I can say this was fine and I will safely presume this was much more worthwhile than the other January horror movies this year, The Grudge and The Turning. In the United States, this was put out by Orion; I am happy that their logo is the same as from the 80's, as seeing that on the big screen brought back some nice memories of childhood.
61% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 75 reviews)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Oz Perkins
Starring: Mainly, it's just Sophia Lillis, Samuel Leakey, and Alice Krige
From: In the United States, good old Orion Pictures
Like a training wheels version of an A24 movie.
I am paraphrasing something I've heard from more than one person; that is despite this not being made by the highly regarded indie studio. The reasons why I saw this theatrically: I feel bad its performance at the box office is not great, and the Cinemascore is rather lousy, I heard some things which sounded appealing to me, and somehow I haven't seen any Oz Perkins joints before. I know that they are all divisive so eventually I will check out the rest.
Everyone knows the German folk tale as made famous by The Brothers Grimm; this uses the basic idea but makes a variety of changes, which is fine. This shows how arthouse it is right away: after a widescreen ratio, the aspect ratio changes to 1.55:1, of all things. This time, Gretel is like twice the age of her brother and after their mom goes crazy, they walk through the woods before reaching the house of the witch, which unfortunately is not made out of candy. I understand those that think the story is too slow and there isn't that much to the plot... from hearsay, the latter can be said about every Oz movie, and as for the former, apparently this is fast-paced compared to his previous work. Me, I could carp about the plot or how it was told... yet I won't rake this over the coals about it as this wasn't dull to me and even if it's more creepy than scary, it was the sort of thing I am glad was seen by me theatrically.
Chiefly, that is due to how gorgeous the film looks throughout, with the striking moments that color is used, the lovely woods that comprises the setting (it was filmed in Ireland), the framing that has everyone centered-which isn't for everyone-and it was a visual delight. Most of this is either two or three characters; thankfully the performances are all fine-Alice Krige being the highlight as the witch-although everyone having different accents is a little curious. It is on the pretentious side, although not insufferably so like a decent number of actual A24 pictures. I'll blame the narration you sometimes hear on the dreaded “studio notes”; at least aurally, there is a bitchin' synth score. There definitely are weird moments throughout, although this is PG-13 instead of some bizarre R-rated thing you'd get from any random independent production company.
No surprise that even on Letterboxd, I've seen ratings all over the map for Gretel & Hansel, whether it be people I follow or everyone on the site who has provided a rating. For me, while I wish the story would have been as stunning as the visuals, it was not terrible & at least I can say this was fine and I will safely presume this was much more worthwhile than the other January horror movies this year, The Grudge and The Turning. In the United States, this was put out by Orion; I am happy that their logo is the same as from the 80's, as seeing that on the big screen brought back some nice memories of childhood.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
I'd Review A Movie Now...
But Letterboxd is down now; that will be delayed until Friday afternoon. Friday evening should be a review of something else.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Gamera vs. Viras
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: Noriaki
Yuasa/Shigeo Tanaka
Starring: Kojiro Hongo,
Toru Takasuka, Carl Craig, Michiko Yaegagi, Mari Atsumi
From: Daiei
What a deeply, profoundly stupid movie this is, even if it features Super Catch Rays:
I know I saw this movie before, as a
kid; damn if I could remember a single thing about it before revisiting
this last night, to be frank. Presumably, this was so stupid it was a
deliberate action on my part to forget this nonsense was ever viewed!
The movie follows two boys (one Japanese, the other American, presumably to make foreign sales of this easier) and among other things, they reverse the controls on a two person submersible, as a gag on someone; believe it or not, this factors into the plot later. They are kidnapped by aliens and they are used to control Gamera; now the giant reptile is controlled by said aliens; much stock footage is used. At first, there is a TEN minute stretch where they try to find his weakness via “reading its mind.” Then, Gamera's attacks on Earth is actually footage from the first three films. Note that the original film is in black and white... and that footage is presented in black and white instead of being colorized! For some reason, I doubt audiences were convinced there
.
Then, there is how the two boys alternate between acting smart and stupid, which is better than I can say for the Viras aliens. The way that the children hoodwink and escape from the villains is amazingly dumb. A giant kaiju monster finally appears, and it's an octopus thing. The final battle... in several aspects it makes zero sense, although during this befuddling contest, I was happy that this cheap piece of crap was finally concluding. Not even the debut of the Gamera theme song and a minute of pathos where the two leads are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order for the world to attack the spaceship and thus save the planet... not even that nor some psychedelic imagery befitting of the late 60's make this movie worthwhile.
The movie follows two boys (one Japanese, the other American, presumably to make foreign sales of this easier) and among other things, they reverse the controls on a two person submersible, as a gag on someone; believe it or not, this factors into the plot later. They are kidnapped by aliens and they are used to control Gamera; now the giant reptile is controlled by said aliens; much stock footage is used. At first, there is a TEN minute stretch where they try to find his weakness via “reading its mind.” Then, Gamera's attacks on Earth is actually footage from the first three films. Note that the original film is in black and white... and that footage is presented in black and white instead of being colorized! For some reason, I doubt audiences were convinced there
.
Then, there is how the two boys alternate between acting smart and stupid, which is better than I can say for the Viras aliens. The way that the children hoodwink and escape from the villains is amazingly dumb. A giant kaiju monster finally appears, and it's an octopus thing. The final battle... in several aspects it makes zero sense, although during this befuddling contest, I was happy that this cheap piece of crap was finally concluding. Not even the debut of the Gamera theme song and a minute of pathos where the two leads are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order for the world to attack the spaceship and thus save the planet... not even that nor some psychedelic imagery befitting of the late 60's make this movie worthwhile.
Monday, February 10, 2020
I Revisited Top Gun, And...
It's 80's dated yet still entertaining:
Of course I've seen this 80's-tastic movie before; it's just that the
last time had to be around 2008, when there was a revival screening of
it at a Regal Cinemas in Orlando. As there is a sequel coming in the
summer, might as well get on board and take flight with this again.
The movie is cheesy and slick entertainment, but I can still say this is fine. The lead is a reckless aggressive person who of course has a buddy in the Top Gun program, who of course has a skilled rival, and of course has a love interest. It's a stock story which has such things as a crises of confidence, motorcycles, gruff instructors at the academy, an enemy that is implied but never explicitly stated to be the Soviets and yes... like many 80's films, homoeroticism. It's not just “the volleyball scene”, which even back in '08 when I saw the movie theatrically w/ a small crowd, most of them started giggling right as that infamous bit started. For a long time, people have laughed at how that scene plays years after the fact.
Even I had to look up the movie's title, but the reason why anyone would know the otherwise obscure 1994 film Sleep with Me is that none other than Tarantino has a cameo as a random guy talking to one of the film's leads about how Top Gun is “one of the greatest scripts” because it is “a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality” where everyone else at the academy is gay while Kelly McGillis represents heterosexuality and several moments in the movie represent this opinion, including the ending line said by Iceman to Maverick, “You can be my wingman” (which QT either accidentally or on purpose for authenticity's sake gets wrong in the monologue). It is exactly the sort of speech you would expect from Quentin and for most of the time that YouTube has been around, there are multiple versions of that scene floating around.
As cliché and goofy as the movie is, at least it is a fun watch. Tom Cruise's charisma as Maverick of course goes a long way, and there are plenty of quality actors bringing those characters to life; some of them I actually forgot were in this, such as James Tolkan and Meg Ryan. Harold Faltermeyer creating a score incredibly of its time was a positive for me (along with a nice soundtrack) and naturally, all of the aerial sequences and dogfights you see are aces as it's real instead of phony CGI. Who knows if the sequel will be worthwhile but at least this-one of the biggest movies of the entire decade-is not too cringeworthy to enjoy in 2020, no matter if you interpret the story as intended or think it's about Maverick wrestling with his sexuality.
The movie is cheesy and slick entertainment, but I can still say this is fine. The lead is a reckless aggressive person who of course has a buddy in the Top Gun program, who of course has a skilled rival, and of course has a love interest. It's a stock story which has such things as a crises of confidence, motorcycles, gruff instructors at the academy, an enemy that is implied but never explicitly stated to be the Soviets and yes... like many 80's films, homoeroticism. It's not just “the volleyball scene”, which even back in '08 when I saw the movie theatrically w/ a small crowd, most of them started giggling right as that infamous bit started. For a long time, people have laughed at how that scene plays years after the fact.
Even I had to look up the movie's title, but the reason why anyone would know the otherwise obscure 1994 film Sleep with Me is that none other than Tarantino has a cameo as a random guy talking to one of the film's leads about how Top Gun is “one of the greatest scripts” because it is “a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality” where everyone else at the academy is gay while Kelly McGillis represents heterosexuality and several moments in the movie represent this opinion, including the ending line said by Iceman to Maverick, “You can be my wingman” (which QT either accidentally or on purpose for authenticity's sake gets wrong in the monologue). It is exactly the sort of speech you would expect from Quentin and for most of the time that YouTube has been around, there are multiple versions of that scene floating around.
As cliché and goofy as the movie is, at least it is a fun watch. Tom Cruise's charisma as Maverick of course goes a long way, and there are plenty of quality actors bringing those characters to life; some of them I actually forgot were in this, such as James Tolkan and Meg Ryan. Harold Faltermeyer creating a score incredibly of its time was a positive for me (along with a nice soundtrack) and naturally, all of the aerial sequences and dogfights you see are aces as it's real instead of phony CGI. Who knows if the sequel will be worthwhile but at least this-one of the biggest movies of the entire decade-is not too cringeworthy to enjoy in 2020, no matter if you interpret the story as intended or think it's about Maverick wrestling with his sexuality.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
The Haunting of Sharon Tate
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Daniel
Farrands
Starring: Hilary Duff,
Jonathan Bennett, Lydia Hearst, Pawel Szajda, Ryan Cargill
From: Some companies which
should probably be embarrassed
I was pleasantly surprised by the results from the Oscars tonight. Last night I viewed a movie that is almost as far away from an Academy Award winner for Best Picture that you can get:
Sometimes I see a movie because I can tell a good story about it.
This being one of them came about due to a Facebook post, of all things. A young lady I know shared a post concerning an Instagram post that Hilary Duff made on the set of this film. Some people (including my friend) considered the post to be insensitive of Tate and her unborn child. I won't get into the whole rigmarole as it resulted in a discussion both of “being woke” and “cancel culture”; of course, this means that the thread was a total disaster. I only remarked that I knew of the rotten reputation this has due to several YouTube reviews I've come across. It wasn't something I was planning on ever checking out as this picture sounded downright offensive, the wrong kind of exploitation.
I understand why Sharon's sister Debra was aghast about this; besides the crass nature, the movie is a fictional look at a real life tragedy which actually goes supernatural at times and is based on a dream that Tate apparently had a year before her death where she was murdered, and that's what this is all about... her being haunted by various dreams & premonitions, pondering if she could change her fate, etc. Believe it or not, this artless schlock was actually pretentious. Then there's how this ends... appalling in numerous ways. Arguably even worse was the filmmaking craft you see here, or lack thereof. The outdoor scenes were obviously dubbed because they did not even have any sort of mics worth a darn, the CG is ghastly in quality, the script and dialogue is incredibly on the nose, and worst of all... it pays no respect to Sharon Tate, her friends, or all the people that were killed in August of 1969.
This has more in common w/ Once Upon a Time in Hollywood than you might expect; there's a film I did not love yet of course I can say that was a much better tale involving Tate and Margot Robbie was far greater than Hilary Duff, although Duff did not give the worst performance nor did she have the most laughable/befuddling accent... one guy sounded like a D-rate version of Dracula. Hollywood at least greatly presented Los Angeles in 1969 while Haunting is made on the cheap and you don't believe it was the year of Woodstock. At least Hollywood was not padded with multiple dream sequences, wobbly drone shots, ponderous scenes, real life footage that includes clips from the aftermath of the murder, potshots at Roman Polanski because we know in modern times that he's a creep, and a whole lot of boredom. This might sound entertaining if I gave a spoiler-filled review of the movie... but it's just so dull there's no campy laughs to be had.
This “young lady I know,” I did not go into specifics on why this movie has made so many mad, even though I had practically had everything spoiled beforehand; I just brought up how I heard it was tasteless. Because reasons, The Haunting of Sharon Tate would be something real upsetting to her so I am glad this is something she will avoid. Also brought up was how the same director just released a Nicole Brown Simpson picture that by all accounts is even worse than this, which is a big reason why Haunting did not get the lowest of the low ratings from moi; of course, she was appalled. The thing I most do not understand is that the director is Daniel Farrands, who created two tremendous documentaries in Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy and Crystal Lake Memories: The Complete History of Friday the 13th; I highly recommend both. I cannot comprehend why his fictional movies being such slapdash affairs that are so poor in quality, not to mention the gross nature of those films or how the scripts are total amateur hour. He DID write Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers... but from what I understand, neither version of the movie came close to what his original script was.
The main reason why I saw this was that it was free on Prime; perhaps one day I'll discover for myself if The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson is as much an atrocity as all reviews have said it is... it is something I'll never look forward to, that is all I can say for certain.
This being one of them came about due to a Facebook post, of all things. A young lady I know shared a post concerning an Instagram post that Hilary Duff made on the set of this film. Some people (including my friend) considered the post to be insensitive of Tate and her unborn child. I won't get into the whole rigmarole as it resulted in a discussion both of “being woke” and “cancel culture”; of course, this means that the thread was a total disaster. I only remarked that I knew of the rotten reputation this has due to several YouTube reviews I've come across. It wasn't something I was planning on ever checking out as this picture sounded downright offensive, the wrong kind of exploitation.
I understand why Sharon's sister Debra was aghast about this; besides the crass nature, the movie is a fictional look at a real life tragedy which actually goes supernatural at times and is based on a dream that Tate apparently had a year before her death where she was murdered, and that's what this is all about... her being haunted by various dreams & premonitions, pondering if she could change her fate, etc. Believe it or not, this artless schlock was actually pretentious. Then there's how this ends... appalling in numerous ways. Arguably even worse was the filmmaking craft you see here, or lack thereof. The outdoor scenes were obviously dubbed because they did not even have any sort of mics worth a darn, the CG is ghastly in quality, the script and dialogue is incredibly on the nose, and worst of all... it pays no respect to Sharon Tate, her friends, or all the people that were killed in August of 1969.
This has more in common w/ Once Upon a Time in Hollywood than you might expect; there's a film I did not love yet of course I can say that was a much better tale involving Tate and Margot Robbie was far greater than Hilary Duff, although Duff did not give the worst performance nor did she have the most laughable/befuddling accent... one guy sounded like a D-rate version of Dracula. Hollywood at least greatly presented Los Angeles in 1969 while Haunting is made on the cheap and you don't believe it was the year of Woodstock. At least Hollywood was not padded with multiple dream sequences, wobbly drone shots, ponderous scenes, real life footage that includes clips from the aftermath of the murder, potshots at Roman Polanski because we know in modern times that he's a creep, and a whole lot of boredom. This might sound entertaining if I gave a spoiler-filled review of the movie... but it's just so dull there's no campy laughs to be had.
This “young lady I know,” I did not go into specifics on why this movie has made so many mad, even though I had practically had everything spoiled beforehand; I just brought up how I heard it was tasteless. Because reasons, The Haunting of Sharon Tate would be something real upsetting to her so I am glad this is something she will avoid. Also brought up was how the same director just released a Nicole Brown Simpson picture that by all accounts is even worse than this, which is a big reason why Haunting did not get the lowest of the low ratings from moi; of course, she was appalled. The thing I most do not understand is that the director is Daniel Farrands, who created two tremendous documentaries in Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy and Crystal Lake Memories: The Complete History of Friday the 13th; I highly recommend both. I cannot comprehend why his fictional movies being such slapdash affairs that are so poor in quality, not to mention the gross nature of those films or how the scripts are total amateur hour. He DID write Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers... but from what I understand, neither version of the movie came close to what his original script was.
The main reason why I saw this was that it was free on Prime; perhaps one day I'll discover for myself if The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson is as much an atrocity as all reviews have said it is... it is something I'll never look forward to, that is all I can say for certain.
Friday, February 7, 2020
Ace In The Hole
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Billy Wilder
Starring: Kirk Douglas
(RIP), Jan Sterling, Robert Arthur, Porter Hall, Frank Cady
From: Paramount
I give Ace in the Hole the highest possible rating. See why below:
This movie stings and is as venomous as a rattlesnake.
After Kirk Douglas had passed away at the age of 103 on Wednesday, I knew my next movie would be something starring him; Spartacus has been seen a few times by me before (and reviewed a few years ago) so this seemed like the next obvious choice to go with.
I heard this was rather cynical and misanthropic but I was blown away with how this movie turned out. Douglas plays Chuck Tatum, a down on his luck newspaper reporter who by happenstance ends up in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He talks his way into a job and even admits he has been let go from major newspapers in the past for indiscretions on his part. It's not long before the movie reveals just how rotten and reprehensible a person he is; Tatum wishes for bad news to happen so he has something to write about and circulation can increase. What a stroke of luck then that he stumbles upon a man named Leo who is trapped in a cave after it collapses on him while he is looking for Native American pottery. It is a horrifying sight to see how Tatum manipulates Leo and the people in the rural New Mexico area (including his family) for his gain and nothing more.
You'll get pretty mad at seeing his behavior and how others are destroyed by his actions. Although, I also got mad at seeing how others were corrupted by greed... Leo and his family operate a small shop in the middle of nowhere and because of the collapse becoming a national story, their business is great. If it's not appalling enough that Chuck is teamed with a neophyte reporter that soon becomes corrupted and his ideals come crashing down, it's how people showed up outside of the caves and treat the event as a must-attend get-together, as if it's a giant party... solely due to the media's portrayal of the event as a bad news story worth the public's attention. Ace in the Hole showed that Chuck wasn't the only one who was rotten & reprehensible.
The movie says a lot about such topics as greed, capitalism, the human propensity for the love of tragedy and (especially) the power of the media, including its ability to be manipulative. I am not a “fake news!” sort of guy and I have no problem with most media. However, tabloid journalism I am no fan of as I don't care for gossip or tawdry discussion of vapid celebrities and all the cable news networks in the United States (not just the usually-loathed Fox News) are more about entertainment than actual journalism and they should not be anyone's source to learn about the world's events. Thankfully not everyone you see in Ace is a poor human being or someone manipulated by this tragedy; therefore, this acerbic movie is not a punishing sit. Rather, this is incredibly powerful as you are horrified at how everything spirals out of control and you worry about Leo's fate.
As this was a film Billy Wilder made at Paramount, naturally it was a high-quality and high-class production both in front and behind the camera; many of the exteriors were actually shot in rural New Mexico. The cast was full of quality actors but it was Douglas who was a tour de force in such a detestable role. The movie has lost little of its power over the past 7 decades as regrettably, its themes are not a thing of a past and not only did it make for a memorable episode of The Simpsons back in the 90's (when the show was worth a damn) but it wouldn't take much updating to have a remake. Not that I usually love such things... to be frank, the general public today could learn a lot from viewing Ace in the Hole's messages.
After Kirk Douglas had passed away at the age of 103 on Wednesday, I knew my next movie would be something starring him; Spartacus has been seen a few times by me before (and reviewed a few years ago) so this seemed like the next obvious choice to go with.
I heard this was rather cynical and misanthropic but I was blown away with how this movie turned out. Douglas plays Chuck Tatum, a down on his luck newspaper reporter who by happenstance ends up in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He talks his way into a job and even admits he has been let go from major newspapers in the past for indiscretions on his part. It's not long before the movie reveals just how rotten and reprehensible a person he is; Tatum wishes for bad news to happen so he has something to write about and circulation can increase. What a stroke of luck then that he stumbles upon a man named Leo who is trapped in a cave after it collapses on him while he is looking for Native American pottery. It is a horrifying sight to see how Tatum manipulates Leo and the people in the rural New Mexico area (including his family) for his gain and nothing more.
You'll get pretty mad at seeing his behavior and how others are destroyed by his actions. Although, I also got mad at seeing how others were corrupted by greed... Leo and his family operate a small shop in the middle of nowhere and because of the collapse becoming a national story, their business is great. If it's not appalling enough that Chuck is teamed with a neophyte reporter that soon becomes corrupted and his ideals come crashing down, it's how people showed up outside of the caves and treat the event as a must-attend get-together, as if it's a giant party... solely due to the media's portrayal of the event as a bad news story worth the public's attention. Ace in the Hole showed that Chuck wasn't the only one who was rotten & reprehensible.
The movie says a lot about such topics as greed, capitalism, the human propensity for the love of tragedy and (especially) the power of the media, including its ability to be manipulative. I am not a “fake news!” sort of guy and I have no problem with most media. However, tabloid journalism I am no fan of as I don't care for gossip or tawdry discussion of vapid celebrities and all the cable news networks in the United States (not just the usually-loathed Fox News) are more about entertainment than actual journalism and they should not be anyone's source to learn about the world's events. Thankfully not everyone you see in Ace is a poor human being or someone manipulated by this tragedy; therefore, this acerbic movie is not a punishing sit. Rather, this is incredibly powerful as you are horrified at how everything spirals out of control and you worry about Leo's fate.
As this was a film Billy Wilder made at Paramount, naturally it was a high-quality and high-class production both in front and behind the camera; many of the exteriors were actually shot in rural New Mexico. The cast was full of quality actors but it was Douglas who was a tour de force in such a detestable role. The movie has lost little of its power over the past 7 decades as regrettably, its themes are not a thing of a past and not only did it make for a memorable episode of The Simpsons back in the 90's (when the show was worth a damn) but it wouldn't take much updating to have a remake. Not that I usually love such things... to be frank, the general public today could learn a lot from viewing Ace in the Hole's messages.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Heavy Trip
Heavy Trip (Hevi Reissu) (2018)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Juuso Laatio/Jukka Vidgren
Starring: Johannes Holopainen, Samuli Jaskio, Antti Heikkinen, Minka Kuustonen
From: Several Finnish companies
Featuring symphonic post-apocalyptic reindeer-grinding Christ-abusing extreme war pagan Fennoscandian metal.
I've known of this since before it came out in the United States; it's gotten pretty good buzz in some circles yet because I am me, I put off something that's been on Prime for months as I am me. In addition, sometime in the first half of 2020 I'll FINALLY post a Top 10 of movies I've seen for 2017 and 2018. Absurd, yet I will get those completed. This stands a decent chance at being on the 2018 list. As for the death metal that you get to hear in Heavy Trip, the “Cooking Monster vocals” are something which don't appeal to me, although the music itself I can respect as it must be difficult to craft such a brutal sound. To clarify, the metal from the 70's through the 90's is pretty rad, such as Priest, Ozzy, the silly hair metal from the 80's, some of it in the 21st century is cool (such as symphonic metal), I like thrash and Slayer's Reign in Blood is a stone cold classic, to briefly mention but a few of all the opinions I can share about the genre.
This covers a quartet of misfits who live in a small Finnish town and have had a band for 12 years... which has only played in a basement of a slaughterhouse, has no original songs and don't even have a name until in the middle of the film they decide upon IMPALED REKTUM. They finally get a chance to perform in public but there are many complications across the way as they try to win the respect of the squares in their village. Now, this does poke fun at the more ludicrous elements of the death metal genre yet it was done in a loving, respectful way that doesn't thumb its nose at the outcasts we follow. Along the way, we see the (few) friends they have, their judgmental enemies... and me discovering that 80's Chevy vans were sold in Finland. It does take a good amount of time before the actual trip takes place; as an aside, the plot description here and elsewhere... it gives away too much. Try not to look at it beforehand.
The movie was not only funny throughout as we see the absurdities of Impaled Rektum's journey to success, all the band members are easy to root for as awkward, different underdogs who try to succeed as outsiders; one even attempts a romance with a blonde florist... who has a gruff police officer dad. It was a fun journey as the situation becomes more and more absurd. Each member of the band is different, all having their quirks and concerns as they all work “normal” jobs. Even if you aren't a fan of death metal, not much from Impaled Rektum is heard and the score/soundtrack is either rock that is not as heavy, or not rock at all. At times there is lovely Nordic scenery to look at.
For those that love even some of the comically large number of permutations of metal out there-something the movie adroitly pointed out-this should be a must-see.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
The Great Race
The Great Race (1965)
Runtime: 160 minutes
Directed by: Blake Edwards
Starring: Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Natalie Wood, Peter Falk, Keenan Wynn
From: Warner Bros.
Why not view a screwball comedy, even if it's 160 minutes long?
This movie played late last night on Turner Classic Movies and as I like screwball humor, its length was not too much of a concern. I easily got through the 197 minute version of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, after all. Blake Edwards made this as a tribute to the silent movies... to me it was more like a live action Looney Tunes cartoon, which is fine also.
Tony Curtis plays The Great Leslie, a showman who always dresses in white and does dangerous stunts. His rival is Professor Fate (Jack Lemmon), clad in black and who always tries to thwart those attempts or tries to top his opponent, to no avail. Leslie is assisted by Keenan Wynn, while Fate's partner is Peter Falk. The heroes are low-key while Lemmon and Falk... “over the top” doesn't even begin to describe those performances. Anyhow, both sides decide to join a New York to Paris auto race, where of course they drive West instead of East. Oh yeah, it's the turn of the 20th century and the plot is based on there actually being a 1908 New York to Paris race, back when there were hardly any roads to speak of and automobiles were in their infancy. In addition, Natalie Wood is also there as a suffragette who
Of course this has its ups and downs and some segments I did not love as much as others. Even then, I was never bored with a genre effort that I normally prefer be much shorter and for me, the biggest risk was being fatigued by something that was usually pretty LOUD and unsubtle. All that said, I can still say this was pretty good. This had enough laughs throughout to where I was never annoyed or bored. Every main player was funny and Lemmon had a dual role where he also played a foppish prince of a fictitious country that uses a Cyrillic alphabet and he laughs like Pee Wee Herman; curious. For what was the most expensive comedy of all time at this point, naturally everything is big in scale, including all the locations visited & some epic stunts and bravura moments that are borrowed from famous scenes of old; e.g., like a barroom brawl held in a place that wasn't a bar at a dusty old saloon and other scenes I dare not spoil here.
There's also an appropriate Henry Mancini score and while this sort of comedy will naturally not appeal to everyone, it at least entertained me in being so damn zany.
Runtime: 160 minutes
Directed by: Blake Edwards
Starring: Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Natalie Wood, Peter Falk, Keenan Wynn
From: Warner Bros.
Why not view a screwball comedy, even if it's 160 minutes long?
This movie played late last night on Turner Classic Movies and as I like screwball humor, its length was not too much of a concern. I easily got through the 197 minute version of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, after all. Blake Edwards made this as a tribute to the silent movies... to me it was more like a live action Looney Tunes cartoon, which is fine also.
Tony Curtis plays The Great Leslie, a showman who always dresses in white and does dangerous stunts. His rival is Professor Fate (Jack Lemmon), clad in black and who always tries to thwart those attempts or tries to top his opponent, to no avail. Leslie is assisted by Keenan Wynn, while Fate's partner is Peter Falk. The heroes are low-key while Lemmon and Falk... “over the top” doesn't even begin to describe those performances. Anyhow, both sides decide to join a New York to Paris auto race, where of course they drive West instead of East. Oh yeah, it's the turn of the 20th century and the plot is based on there actually being a 1908 New York to Paris race, back when there were hardly any roads to speak of and automobiles were in their infancy. In addition, Natalie Wood is also there as a suffragette who
Of course this has its ups and downs and some segments I did not love as much as others. Even then, I was never bored with a genre effort that I normally prefer be much shorter and for me, the biggest risk was being fatigued by something that was usually pretty LOUD and unsubtle. All that said, I can still say this was pretty good. This had enough laughs throughout to where I was never annoyed or bored. Every main player was funny and Lemmon had a dual role where he also played a foppish prince of a fictitious country that uses a Cyrillic alphabet and he laughs like Pee Wee Herman; curious. For what was the most expensive comedy of all time at this point, naturally everything is big in scale, including all the locations visited & some epic stunts and bravura moments that are borrowed from famous scenes of old; e.g., like a barroom brawl held in a place that wasn't a bar at a dusty old saloon and other scenes I dare not spoil here.
There's also an appropriate Henry Mancini score and while this sort of comedy will naturally not appeal to everyone, it at least entertained me in being so damn zany.
Monday, February 3, 2020
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Kindergarten Ninja!
Kindergarten Ninja (1994)
Runtime: 78 minutes
Directed by: Anthony Chan
Starring: Dwight Clark, Juan Chapa, George Chung, Suzanne Stanke, Vinny Cerrato
From: Pegasus Films
Runtime: 78 minutes
Directed by: Anthony Chan
Starring: Dwight Clark, Juan Chapa, George Chung, Suzanne Stanke, Vinny Cerrato
From: Pegasus Films
Last night I revisited the poliziotteschi Caliber 9 and it is something I still dig quite a bit. Thursday night was this... talk about completely different. Believe it or not, this motion picture is relevant for the weekend:
Yes, this is a real movie... made by D.A.R.E.!
For you (American) football fans, the star of this movie is Dwight Clark, the late San Francisco 49ers star who was on two Super Bowl winning teams in the 1980's and as the 49ers are playing against the Kansas City Chiefs Sunday in Super Bowl LIV (or as I like to call it, Super Bowl Olivia), what better time to finally view something I've had on disc-which is a glorified DVD-R-for awhile now? I am not even sure where I heard about this first... perhaps it was Letterboxd. Before I go on, I need to explain the concept of D.A.R.E. It is a program where elementary school kids are taught the evils of drugs by police officers. It was actually a thing in my school way back when... I understand it is not as much a thing now, as the program doesn't work. Personally, I hardly knew anything about speed at the age of 10 and allegedly, the main thing the program did... give knowledge of various drugs to young children!
Clark plays BLADE STEEL-despite the name, not an 80's pro wrestler or adult actor; rather, he was... a football player-who is a “bad boy” and has to do community service at a community center after being arrested for driving in his Mercedes while drinking a Bud Light, w/ a cooler of beer in the back seat and a 20 year old girl in the passenger seat. From Heaven (actually, some park in the San Francisco Bay area) you have God asking Bruce (as in, Bruce Lee!) to save Blade for the purpose of Mr. Lee becoming an angel. This is done after Bruce engages in martial arts w/George Washington and Charlie Chaplin... no kidding. Somehow, this isn't the strangest iteration of Bruce Lee... look at the movie The Dragon Lives Again for something really bizarre. Note that Bruce's face is never shown clearly, is only referred to as “Bruce”... and after about the 10 minute mark, he disappears! Instead, Bruce's blind student (not known as Zatoichi but might as well have been) is the one who teaches Mr. Steel. Should Bruce really get his wings in this case?
Anyhow, the community center class is not just full of kindergarten students... but who cares, as the title being Kindergarten Ninja was one of the reasons I even tracked this down. Of course, with Zatoichi teaching him karate, Blade turns his life around and he comes to enjoy his interaction w/ the children. Perhaps Bruce should have tried saving Michael Vick, Aaron Hernandez or Antonio Brown... back on track, there is a villain. HECTOR MACHETE has kids sell drugs in the neighborhood, which results in martial arts showdowns with his goons getting their asses kicked by Steel. Now, this is incredibly low-budget and there are hilariously bad screen wipes that even George Lucas would object to.
That said, I can't get too mad at this wacky production. After all, it's usually tongue-in-cheek; one example is that when Machete first appears, a flashing “Bad Guy” credit appears on screen. The action scenes are acceptable and at least I could laugh at most of the bad actors. One thing I was not expecting was that kids would get beat up, but they do; even more of an eyebrow-raiser... Clark doing karaoke of Edwin Starr's 25 Miles at his own restaurant and he beats up thugs during this performance, yet it happens. Even with this promoting a program that don't work, this has good intentions, promotes some nice messages and much to my surprise, more often than not the actual comedy at least made me chuckle.
Dwight Clark passed away in 2018, unfortunately due to ALS that he believed was due to concussions he got in his playing days. After he retired from the sport he was in executive roles behind the scenes for the 49ers then the Cleveland Browns. As an actor he was not bad and he looked the part so perhaps he could have starred in legit B-action movies during the 90's. Overall, I was relieved this was not intolerable and infantile like it very well could have been; this was easier to get through than I expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)