Rhinestone

Rhinestone(1984)

Runtime: 111 minutes

Directed by: Bob Clark

Starring: Sly Stallone, Dolly Parton, Richard Farnsworth, Ron Leibman

From: 20^th Century Fox

Here's something rather random and not usually the type of movie I watch. I came across it on cable a few nights ago so I decided to watch it. I saw some random clips of it before and plus some people online say it doesn't deserve the toxic reception it has gotten since it came out. 

The plot is that this is a comedy concerning a country singer who moved to New York City; she's Jake (Parton, who looks as boobalicious as always) and she is in a contract with a sleazy guy (Leibman) to perform at a rough joint in the city known as the Rhinestone. She wants to leave and after a conversation a bet is made that if she can turn anyone into a country singer that can withstand a performance with the nasty regulars then she can get out of the contract. He chooses the person, though; they came across doofus cabby Nick (Sly), and he eventually agrees to do it.

This movie... I wouldn't say this is one of the worst comedies I've ever seen, let alone one of the worst movies. After all, I got a decent amount of laughs out of it. But, there were also many moments that were too broad and too ridiculous for me, from the way that Sly drives his cab, to his initial singing (which is him screaming) to how Jake's small town of Tennessee is depicted when they go visit it to help him train to not be so damn terrible. It's the typical stereotype of people being complete hick hayseeds who drive ancient pickup trucks and barnyard animals, that sort of thing. There's the expected of Sly being a fish out of water, problems with the locals, he and Jake falling in love, them arguing, and that sort of thing.

At least most of the music you hear is fine. Sly does improve although you can't call him a technically great singer by any stretch of the imagination. Also, I have to remark that most of the outfits Sly wears are hilarious, mainly the shirts. His New York gear appears to be mid 80's New Wave styles, and they're so ridiculous they're great. Also great is the country clothes he wears; think Porter Wagoner in terms of being gaudy and loud, which is ironic given his history with Parton.

Like I said, at least this wasn't God-awful terrible. If you want an example of what Sly wears in the movie, go here. If you want to hear him on the soundtrack perform the classic song Drinkinstein, go here.

I'll be back on Tuesday night, as I'm spending the weekend in Miami.

Super Mario Bros.

SuperMario Bros. (1993)

Runtime: 104 minutes

Directed by: Annabel Jankel, Rocky Morton (along with at least one uncredited person)

Starring: Bob Hoskins, John Legiuzamo, Dennis Hopper, Samantha Mathis

From: Hollywood Pictures

Here's another movie from my childhood, but this time, boy is this a stinking pile. It's not too difficult to find in full online, but it's real easy to find on YouTube and plus, do you really want to spend more than an hour and a half watching it? This was really the first videogame movie that I can think of, and boy does it set a trend for just about all of them being God-awful terrible and a disgrace compared to the great game it was based upon. Here, everyone knows these great games (at least from the original Super Mario Brothers to Super Mario World) and did this movie fail. While making the story realistic would be a challenge for anyone, they failed with what they went with.

The plot as it is... Mario Mario and Luigi Mario (yes, that's their names) are a pair of plumbers in Brooklyn who meet up with archaelogy student Daisy (Mathis); it turns out that her mom escaped from a parallel world and left Daisy at a church. Two bumbling idiot goofs (Richard Edson and Fisher Stevens!) kidnap Daisy and they go into said parallel world to try and get her back from the evil King Koopa (Hopper). It turns out that world is filled with dinosaurs that evolved into humanoids. That's about all you need to know, except that Daisy is needed in order to merge the two worlds together.

The main problem, besides the terrible script and plot, is that the alternate world looks almost exactly like Venusville from Total Recall! You know, the bad part of Mars where the undesireables hang out. It's a rather ugly world which is the opposite of the colorful worlds of those famous games. It makes me realize that the Arnold film is a million times better, that's for sure. And to think that the remake of TR is coming out this year, when it is the videogame film that really deserved a remake. But... Hollywood is pretty stupid. Oh yeah, and the film being all chaotic and so busy (as in, the dinosaur world is full of people and it's always crowded and noisy and it's just tiring to watch) doesn't help either.

You can tell that there were massive production problems; besides all the directors, there were massive screen rewrites and it's so confused; it doesn't know if it wants to be an adult film or a children's flick; it tries to be both and it suceeds at none. And of course, the Englishman Hoskins and his much younger “brother” John L. as a Hispanic trying to play Italian brothers... pretty dumb. LOL at the trivia section of IMDb mentioning how all the stars hated working on the movie and the two leads had to get drunk often just to make it through the whole ordeal. Not to mention the goofs section, with my favorite of how a supposed genius character gives the wrong answer to a math question. Those two bumbling boobs get put into a machine which makes them smarter, and they use big words... ok, not words that are too big, but you get the point; then one of them screws up a math question that was supposed to be right, and that says a whole lot about this movie.

I'll be back Thursday night with a new review.

Casa de mi Padre

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

45% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 69 reviews)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: Matt Piedmont

Starring: Will Ferrell, Genesis Rodriguez, Diego Luna, Efrain Ramirez

From: Lionsgate

What would make me go see a movie starring a guy that I generally do not like? Why, a Spanish-language subtitled film (yes, Will speaks only in Spanish) based on Mexican telenovelas that's also a grindhouse low-budget sort of thing. Yes it's true. When I first saw the trailer for it about a year ago, it just looked odd and I had trouble believing it was something legit. Then, months later I saw another trailer and yeah, it was true.

I decided to check it out despite my feelings on the lead. Yep, throughout all these years I've never thought of Will Ferrell as all that funny. What I've seen of his most beloved films (i.e. Anchorman and Step Brothers) I didn't laugh once and I was more puzzled than anything else that people actually thought this was hilarious, as I thought it was the opposite. I never laughed at what little I've seen of him on SNL, and I am just baffled he is so beloved amongst people my age (early 30's) and the 20's set. I just don't get it.

Still, even I have to admit that at least sometimes he picks interesting roles, so he's better than the worst of the worst and I'd pick him over someone like Sandler or Christ, Tyler Perry. And this is certainly a strange role to take, but I'm glad something this unique got released to almost 400 screens in the United States. If only the movie would have been better... but if you like Old Will, then your mileage may vary.

The plot isn't too complex. Armando Alvarez (Ferrell, looking as Mexican as you'd imagine) works on the ranch of his father (Pedro Armendariz, Jr.) ; his brother Raul (Luna) returns to the ranch with the rather lovely Sonia (Rodriguez, and yeah she's quite easy on the eyes) and he wants to marry her. Two problems, though... Sonia has a rather seedy past, and Raul is a drug dealer who sends his supply to the Americans. Armando also happens to be a dumb-witted fellow-shocking, I know-so there's conflict there.

I won't reveal more of the plot but I'll say that the reason why I don't rate this higher is that the movie is not as funny as it thinks it is. A lot of the jokes are either supposed to be funny because they drag on for way too long or because they are awkward; sorry, but neither one of those styles tickles my funny bone. Plus, Will's character sometimes is really off-putting; that didn't help improve my opinion of the person even though I should only judge him on the character.

But hey, there are some good things; they go with the joke that this is a low-budget thing so you see actual squibs used during the shootouts (which are fine) and the special effects are obviously fake, as are the backdrops to some of the sets. There's also a take on the missing reel gag, and that sort of grindhouse thing. Plus, the outfits fit the movie and the groovy opening credits are the best part of the film, I say.

So, this wasn't awful at all. Lord knows I've seen many worse movies (even on the big screen; unfortunately in the future I'll have to watch Hell Ride again just so that I can rant and rave about how awful it is; that has to be the worst theatrical movie I've ever seen); it's more of a noble failure, you know, something I call a misfire but I'm glad it was made as it's not the usual cookie-cutter BS.

I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.

Hamburger: The Motion Picture

Hamburger:The Motion Picture (1986)

Runtime: 90 minutes

Directed by: Mike Marvin

Starring: Leigh McCloskey, Dick Butkus, Randi Brooks, Chuck McCann

From: Busterburger Limited Partnership (yes, that's who produced this)

As embarrassing as it is to admit, not only have I seen a movie with that title, but this is my second viewing of a movie with that title. WAY back when I rented it on VHS and I thought it was pretty terrible and also much stranger than you'd expect given it's a sex comedy from the 80's. Then, last week I was reminded of this film and I decided to try and track it down, mainly because I did not remember too much about it and plus I imagine it'd provided me plenty to write about, and boy was that true. I managed to find it via an obscure streaming site and as this is the only way most people will be able to see it...

The plot is rather simple; a kid who's supposed to be in his early 20's but looks to be at least 30 is not likeable at all but he's still the protagonist... anyway, he flunks various colleges because he's a shithead who would rather have sexual intercourse all the time rather than study. His parents get pissed (and they're a rich family too) so he gets sent off to Busterburger University to finally get a degree. He gets taught by Dick Butkus, who acts like a drill sergeant. The other people in the class are a motley crue, including the fat guy, a nun, and a Rick James ripoff who is played for laughs. Sad to say Rick James was a has-been by the time this movie came out. And Lord knows, this movie makes me think of “Cocaine is a hell of a drug”, as “mountains of coke” come to mind when thinking about this film.

For example, characters have such names as Nacio Herb Zipser (he plays a nerd, believe it or not), Drootin, Dr. Mole, Lyman Vunk, Fred Domino, Prestopopnick, and Magneto Jones. Drugs have to be the explanation for those names. Also, the movie gets so strange I wonder if this is supposed to be a parody or not; how else can I explain Nacio get turned into someone who acts like a chicken by Dr. Mole? Oh wait, drugs! Drugs has to explain it all.

Anyhow, Dick Butkus feuds with rich boy, romance happens, and yawn. Weird moments aside, the movie is just really stupid and juvenile, which doesn't work as there's plenty of cursing, sexual situations, and topless women. It's pretty predictable too. While I did laugh at some of the humor, overall it was just a poor and amateur example of a wacky 80's sex comedy; there are so many others worth seeing before watching this, its greatly distinctive title aside.

To give an example of some of the humor you get, an old woman argues with someone at a drive-thru, she has a heart attack and dies... and that's the punchline! Yikes. There's also humor related to homosexuality, fat jokes and fat people eating a lot of food and passing gas, and see what I mean about this being juvenile? Not even a 13 year old would laugh, or at least they shouldn't.


I'd recommend not seeing this movie, even if to say that you saw a film with such a title. Maybe if you did some coke beforehand, but otherwise...

I'll be back Wednesday night with something that should be better than this.

Chronicle

Chronicle(2012)

84% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 145 reviews)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by Josh Trank

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell (no relation), Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly

From: 20^th Century Fox

Here's a movie that proved to be a huge surprise to me and everyone else. I remember finding out about this late last year via an online ad and I thought it was goofy teenybopper crap, a la something like Jumper. Even after I found out it was written by Max Landis (yes, his dad is exactly who you think it is) I still had my doubts. Last year I heard him interviewed on an awesome podcast and he sounded like a guy that would write a serious movie and it wouldn't be upbeat, but as a lot of things can go wrong from script to screen... then I heard some really high praise for the movie, which wasn't what I was expecting. I finally was swayed enough to watch it on the big screen, which I did with a few other people a few days ago, and I was pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure you know the plot by now, but to go over it briefly: Three high school friends make a discovery of an unknown object and after making contact with it they discover they have telekinetic powers. However, the most maladjusted of the three, Andrew (DeHaan) explores his darker side and that's when the trouble begins...

I was taken aback by how mature and interesting this was. The three main characters are typical teenagers. Like I said, Andrew is an outcast type, who has an alcoholic father that's disabled and a mom who is also disabled due to what I presume is emphysema and that has a big impact on his life. Andrew's cousin Matt (Russell) hangs out with him but it's an uneasy relationship. They are both pals with Steve, who is a popular type that runs for class president, which he literally does. The three leave a party together and go into a hole in the ground-literally-and discover a mysterious object (thankfully not explained) which gives them telekinetic powers. At first it's all fun and goofing around. But as Andrew is a dark and moody person, he starts to use his powers for more sinister things, and you instantly have conflict; to reveal more would ruin things.

The special effects are fine for the low budget (things were so low-budget, a lot of it was filmed in South Africa, but you can't tell that was the case) and the story is always captivating and it's never boring for its short run time. The performances are also nice all around and you never get annoyed by any of the characters due to the how good the script is; even the characters that are mainly A-holes often have a scene or two where you can understand why they act the way they do. I have heard comparisons to the Star Wars prequel and that is actually true; the descent of the kid with special powers is told much better here than George Lucas did in the three Star Wars prequels, as amazing as that is due to how that should not have happened. I also heard a comparison to one of the old Superman movies (one of the good ones, don't worry) and that was also accurate.

This was actually a superhero origin story and yet one more realistic and better than most of those. Believe the hype, this is a really good and engrossing film. It may still be one of the best I see when I do my list at the end of the year for the best movies I saw in 2012. 


I'll be back Monday night with a new review.

Marked for Death

Markedfor Death (1990)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Dwight H. Little

Starring: Steven Seagal, Basil Wallace, Keith David, Joanna Pacula

From: 20^th Century Fox

Here is something I got on Blu-Ray recently as I had only seen it on DVD in a non-anamorphic way and as it's 2.35:1, that was annoying. It definitely does look better in Blu-Ray format, so that was good.

Here's the plot that really represents the time period as it deals with drugs, yo: John Hatcher is a former DEA troubleshooter. Upon moving back to his hometown of Chicago, Hatcher finds it taken over by a gang of vicious Jamaican drug dealers, led by Screwface.

I amended that from Wikipedia, and it works. The movie starts off in Central America as Seagal is on a mission with his partner. They chase down a bad guy (Danny Trejo!) and shortly after that a shootout happens, where his partner gets killed and Hatcher is forced to gun down a woman. This depresses him so he decides to retire from the force, and he returns to his home of Chicago to hang out with his family. He also meets up with his old buddy Max (the always great Keith David) and they soon stumble into a fight with those Jamaican drug dealers and some of them get killed. The over the top villain Screwface (Wallace) doesn't like this so he does battle with Hatcher as the drug dealers also deal with some Columbian drug dealers who also want the same turf.

The movie doesn't reinvent the wheel by any means but hey it's wildly entertaining. Seagal and David don't team up that much in this film but when they do they make a pretty great duo, which is not the norm for The Sensei. The setting of Chicago and then Jamaica (those scenes were filled in the land of reggae and Bob Marley) is interesting, and you do see and hear the music of legendary artist Jimmy Cliff, who briefly appears in the film. The action scenes are entertaining and there's a variety, from car chases to people getting shot, and of course Seagal using his Aikido skills, meaning people get tossed around and many limbs get broken. Sure, the bad guys are stereotypical Rastafarian types but that's OK. I'll say that the highlight is the car chase which takes place between an old Dodge Ram Charger and a BMW 7 series car which ends up in a jewelry store and much glass gets broken in the resultant fight.

If you haven't checked this out and you enjoy the action movies of the period then you must see this as I'm sure you'll get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

I'll be back Friday night with a new review.

Frontier(s) (Frontiere(s))

Frontier(s)(Frontiere(s)) (2007) 

Runtime: 108 minutes

Directed by: Xavier Gens

Starring: Karina Testa, Aurelein Wiik, Patrick Ligares, Samuel Le Bihan

From: Europa Corp.

Here is a movie that I've heard about for quite awhile but never was able to see as it wasn't available for rental at the local Blockbuster. I finally found it at a MovieStop store in Orlando where I picked it up used for not too much money. I heard mixed reviews for the film but I never heard anyone downright hate it. Now I wish I would have, but more on that in a bit.

Maybe the newer French horror movies that have gotten a lot of praise just aren't for me, given that I didn't like how Martyrs turned out and even if they wouldn't have had those stupid plot twists I would not have cared for Haute Tension.

As for this movie... before I talk about why it was one of the most aggravating movies I've ever seen (no exaggeration), here's the plot: Some small-time hoods from the slums of Paris (including one girl) need some cash so they decide to take advantage of the political riots taking place in the city at the time and they steal some cash and drive off to Amsterdam. But one of the gang gets shot so he and the girl go to the hospital while the rest drive off to the Netherlands. They decide to stop off at a hostel (yes) in the rural countryside for the night. It happens to be hosted by a pair of trampy women and a creepy middle-aged guy. From there... but I don't want to spoil anything even though I really should for this piece of crap film.

What really got me upset was that the lead characters are ALL loathsome human beings on a near-constant basis, both in general and to each other. Seriously, all you see is them acting terrible to each other, yelling and screaming at their alleged buddies with little to no provocation. Besides that just being numbing to watch it's aggravating as it insults my intelligence to have me believe these human beings could possibly be friends with each other. You don't even like the lead girl, who unfortunately gets saddled with an abortion angle for the film. I'm not going to mention my views on that hot-button issue. I just don't know why it had to be brought in here, unless they REALLY wanted to get the audience mad at the film.

The villains, there's a secret to them I won't reveal (even though I should) but despite them just being awful people themselves and not people you can love to hate, they almost seem to be more likeable than the protagonists! That's an awful thing to say given what the antagonists end up being but it's true.

Besides not liking anyone in the movie, I just thought it was poorly made. You know, scenes that went on too long or weren't long enough, jarring editng and transitions, that sort of thing. The fact that you also had the shaky cam/way too quick editing thing going on during the action scenes didn't exactly improve my mood as I hate that sort of filmmaking.

Sure, it's quite graphic at times so if you enjoy that sort of thing... (that's why the movie wasn't shown during the After Dark Horrorfest back when that disappointing thing was around, due to its content) but I need more than that, such as protagonists I actually like, or competent direction. You get the opposite of that here and I wish this piece of garbage would have stayed in France.

I'll be back Monday night (maybe early Tuesday) with a new review, hopefully of a film I enjoyed more than this one.

So...

This week has been entirely out of whack for me. I was going to go see something on the big screen yesterday but things got in the way; today was just crappy in general so I don't feel like watching or talking about any motion pictures, except...

That is the Australian movie for a film called (at least in the U.S.) The Raid: Redemption. It's a movie from Indonesia, of all places, and I've heard some VERY high praise for it. From what clips I've seen, it could be my film of the year, no kidding. It's supposed to be in limited release starting next month. I hope it doesn't take too long to make it to Orlando, as it'll be a must-see for me.

I'll be back Friday night, this time with my usual review of a film.

The Godfather Saga (Or Whatever You Want To Call It)

The Godfather: A Novel For Television (1977)

Runtime: 434 minutes (yes, you read that right)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola

Starring: This is obvious but I'll mention it anyway: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, James Caan, etc.

From: Paramount

Here's something I've been wanting to see for years but haven't been able to, for various reasons; whether it be under the name it's listed on IMDb, AMC using the alternate title of The Godfather Saga, or something else, here is the two Godfather movies re-edited into chronological order with additional scenes added. While I know most or all of those scenes were on the DVD box set release and surely on the Blu-Ray release, seeing them put into this massive undertaking was a thing I've been waiting a long time to see. I finally got a chance from the AMC network, which happens to be a network that I think is shit compared to their original days when they were like TCM (and I could give a good Goddamn about their highly regarded shows) but I still watched them for 10 hours in a row from 8 PM Eastern time all the way to 6 AM; how I made it I don't know but I did. Sure, it took some multitasking to make it the entire way... I still call it a success.

Back in February of '10 I saw the first movie and then the second one on Blu-Ray; you can go read those reviews to get my take on those movies. It also happens that late that month the first Godfather happened to be at AMC's Universal Studios location, and I was happy to see such a classic in that way.

As for my 10 hour experience, I'll have to echo the opinion that the original story was best the way it was told. The first movie is awesome as is and the added scenes-while interesting-don't add too much. The second movie should be how it is, which is the rist of Vito Corleone early in the 20^th century along with the downfall of Michael Corleone in the middle of the century. It just worked best the original way it was told. Still, I am quite happy I got to see the alternate version.

I'll be back Wednesday night with another review.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Yes!)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Steve Barron

Starring: The four humanoid Turtles: Donatello, Leonardo, Raphael, and Michaelangelo, along with actors such as Judith Hoag and Elias Koteas

From: Golden Harvest

Yes, I'm reviewing a movie I loved as a kid (I was a HUGE Turtles fan, as many people were if you are currently in your later 20's to early 30's) but I hadn't seen in what had to be between 15 and 20 years. I'll tell you that I loved this and the sequel with the now almost-meme title of Secret of the Ooze; I saw both on the big screen. By the time the third one came out, I waited until I saw it on VHS. I thought it was crap with one of those plot points that really pissed me off at the time, back in my less critical days. One of these days I have to watch those sequels to see how they hold up. Viewing TMNT for the first time would also be interesting. By the way, the news that Platinum Dunes (i.e. Michael Bay and his buddies, known for all those shitty remakes of the past 5 to 10 years) is going to put out a Turtles movie... major sigh. I'm expecting that movie to be the diarrhea worst. Thankfully this movie doesn't fit that label at all.

I'm sure everyone knows the plot but I'll copy and paste from IMDb as at least it's short: “A quartet of humanoid turtles trained by their mentor in ninjitsu must learn to pull together in order to face the menace of Shredder and the Foot Clan.” Yep, that sums things up pretty well.

Overall, I say that a family film about this odd of a subject is pretty strange if you think about it, it still is fine as a PG movie you can watch as an adult with children. The violence will be fine to them, you don't have to worry about such thing as filthy language, and there are various things (such as lines of dialogue) which I'm sure I didn't get as a kid but I get now. Sure, there are goofy things for both kids and adults (such as them being pizza eaters or Michaelangelo in particular being a surfer dude, or Michaelangelo doing a Rocky Balboa impression) but it isn't too grating watching it as a grown up. It's a fine story that anyone can enjoy; it's an origin story that introduces everyone in a satisfactory manner. The costumes all look fine; it didn't have to be CGI for it to be effective.

The movie is darker than the cartoon as it was largely based on the original comic book; I was fine with it then and I'm find with it now. You don't have to have it be dumbed down and have it be full of buffoonery to appeal to kids. Youngsters are able to watch and enjoy things with a dark tone! Youngsters can even enjoy things that have some intelligence to them! I know that others (including people I know) have said much the same thing but I wanted to put it out there. I know I enjoyed this movie as a 9 year old and this had a dark tone and talked of such things as Raphael having anger issues and becoming distant from his pals and teenagers having to resort to crime in order to try and survive in the world. I just wanted to make it clear that you don't have to be dumb in order for children to like you.

Let me ramble on a few more things... as an adult, I realized that Casey Jones was pretty cool as a hockey stick-wielding masked man who is happy to be a vigilante. I don't know why the movie took a potshot at the movie Critters, but it did. I forgot how much of a badass Shredder was in the movie. I mean, he really is good at kicking ass, something that was usually not the case in the cartoons. And finally, in 2012 it's funny to see two guys that became famous in later years, Sam Rockwell and Skeet Ulrich, as thugs, with Sam having a much larger role.

Overall, like I said, it's not just nostalgia which is making me say that this was a perfectly acceptable movie to watch whether you are a child or a grown up. I am glad I was able to watch it, and I'm also happy this was not something that I ended up hating and thus ruining all those good childhood memories.

I'll be back Monday night with a review of something pretty interesting that I've been wanting to watch for years now.