Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

The Grey Fox.

Review #2555: The Grey Fox.

Cast: 

Richard Farnsworth (Bill Miner / George Edwards), Jackie Burroughs (Katherine 'Kate' Flynn), Ken Pogue (Jack Budd), Wayne Robson (Shorty (William) Dunn), Timothy Webber (Sergeant Fernie), Gary Reineke (Pinkerton Detective Seavy), and Sean Sullivan (Newspaper Editor) Directed by Phillip Borsos.

Review: 

"If I had the time, all this attention would be very heady. I suppose I enjoy the wheeling and dealing more than most film-makers. It's a charge but [it] can't compare with being behind the camera." - Phillip Borsos

It seemed prudent to try and make an effort at celebrating a Canadian movie to start out July because there are little gems of curiosity that came around from the country up north. Phillip Borsos was born in Australia to a Hungarian sculptor and English nurse that moved to British Columbia in Canada when he was five years old. With an early interest in filming from a young age, he studied at the Vancouver School of Art. Borsos made a handful of commercials and documentaries, with Nails (1979) getting enough attention to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.  He was first interested in doing this film when he saw picture of Bill Miner in a restaurant. He credited Jan Troell with giving him the confidence to do a feature film himself. Production started in early 1980 with getting casting, unit selling (selling for thousands of dollars each) and the script (done by John Hunter) ready. Richard Farnsworth was cast in the title role when Harry Dean Stanton dropped out due to wanting to be in One from the Heart. For taking Stanton from under them, American Zoetrope allowed them the use of support facilities. Film was done in the winter before going through extensive editing in 1981 (at one point, the editor fell ill for months) without even having a distributor, although United Artists Classics eventually got the bid. Released in the winter of 1982 in its native Canada before a March 1983 release in the States, the movie was a mild hit with audiences at the time. He ultimately would do four more feature films of varying quality: the American thriller The Mean Season (1985), the Canada/US One Magic Christmas (1985), the biodrama Bethune: The Making of a Hero (1990), and Far from Home: The Adventures of Yellow Dog (1995), which was released shortly before his death from leukemia in 1995 at the age of 41. The Toronto International Film Festival rated The Grey Fox as among the best Canadian films of all time for their lists in 1984 and 1993). In 2004, the Whistler Film Festival named their main awards Competition program for Canadian films after Borsos. In recent years, it was restored and given a proper release on home media*.   

The real Bill Miner was a curiosity unto himself. The Michigan native served time in jail by the time he was 20 years old and eventually did enough stagecoach robberies to get him into San Quentin, where he did in fact stay until 1901, when he moved to the province of British Columbia, now 55 years old, which is where the film starts its story of the man associated with the first train robbery in the province. With the role falling to Richard Farnsworth, what you get here is a lovely Western filled with a rich look at the B.C. frontier and a look at a man out of time as a bandit in the new century. You won't see much bloodshed on this frontier, but you will still see a landscape of emotional relevance that studies a man who lives the way he knows best: an offbeat bandit. Farnsworth had appeared in countless movies over the past few decades as a stuntman-turned-actor, and it is his confident spirit that you see in his eyes and demeanor that make you understand the nature of being in his shoes, a man warped in time that sees the moving picture and regains the vigor to be what he desires most: a sly fox in a land of hens. We're enchanted by a gentleman who happens to love robbing things. Playfully fiddling with history (who says he didn't encounter a woman as free-spirited as Burroughs) as an elegy for a proud and vulnerable rascal that doesn't even move a muscle when he, well, knows when he is beat. In the real story, the wrong car of a train got robbed in 1904 that saw him make off with little money and kidney pills before he and his gang were subject to a successful manhunt and conviction. Miner did in fact escape the penitentiary in 1907 and never did get captured in Canada, although his attempts in robberies in the States eventually led to him going to prison (and escaping, twice). While back in jail in 1913, he died from gastritis from drinking bad water; he was 66 years old. But the film closes on him in the best place possible: adrift and, most importantly, free. At 92 minutes with a lovely Canadian landscape to gaze at and plenty of spirit to carry the way, there's a little bit of everything worth watching for all involved to encounter.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Happy Canada Day. I know I've skipped a Canada Day or two in the past few years, but I felt it was a good time to get one in and spotlight a worthwhile Canadian movie because I care about you folks. See you soon.

Song of the day!

Interview for the film: Canadian Radio Sanctuary: Richard Farnsworth and Phillip Borsos on their 1982 movie The Grey Fox.

*As late as 2014 apparently, this movie wasn't on DVD and only on iTunes and VHS, as evidenced by this - O Canada Blogathon: The Grey Fox (1982) – MOON IN GEMINI

The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Review #2554: The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Josey Wales), Chief Dan George (Lone Watie), Sondra Locke (Laura Lee Turner), Bill McKinney (Captain Terrill), John Vernon (Fletcher), Paula Trueman (Grandma Sarah Turner), Sam Bottoms (Jamie), Geraldine Keams (Little Moonlight), Woodrow Parfrey (Percy Long), Joyce Jameson (Rose), Sheb Wooley (Travis Cobb), Royal Dano (Ten Spot), Matt Clark (Kelly), John Verros (Chato), Will Sampson (Ten Bears), William O'Connell (Sim Carstairs), Madeleine Taylor Holmes (Grannie Hawkins), John Quade (Ciril E. Forebaugh), Frank Schofield (Senator James Henry Lane), Buck Kartalian (Shopkeeper), Len Lesser (Abe), and Doug McGrath (Lige)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter, #2487 - The Rookie)

Review: 

"When people stop me in the street, it tends to be about Josey Wales. They seem to like that one. I rented it recently, it still holds up."

As we approach the Semiquincentennial of America, I suppose it only makes sense to cover a film that came across in the dawn of the Bicentennial fifty years ago. The movie was based on a book called The Rebel Outlaw: Josey Wales (titled Gone to Texas in later editions), which was published in 1973 with the writer being listed as Forrest Carter. He had sent the book unsolicited to Eastwood's office with a letter talking about "Eastwood's kind eyes", and go figure, producer Robert Daley felt it looked like a good idea to approach it to Eastwood, who soon agreed to work with optioning Carter's book. When Philip Kaufman looked at the book for the first time, he thought, well, that it was written by a "crude fascist". He co-wrote the screenplay with Sonia Chernus, which included the characters of Terrill and Fletcher that was not previously included in the book. It didn't help with filming, as disagreements with Eastwood in the shooting led to Kaufman's firing in favor of Eastwood, which he once said was "the worst moment of my life"*. It was his fifth film as a director, after the release of The Eiger Sanction (1975). The resulting film made over eight times its $3 million budget back with audiences when released (premiering in late June for a festival before going into release in July and August). As for Carter, he actually was born Asa Earl Carter, an Alabama-born segregationist who for whatever reason decided to try and rebrand himself as a writer with Cherokee background that lived in Abilene, Texas. Sure, there were rumbling questions about who Carter really as early as 1975 (only a few years prior, he ran a failed campaign for governor of Alabama), but Carter kept the facade on long enough to have written three further books, one of which was The Education of Little Tree (which was adapted into a film in 1997). He died at the age of 53, which apparently came after choking on his own vomit after a fight with his son. Plans to do a movie based on his second novel with the Wales character in The Vengeance Trail of Josey Wales (1976) did not come to pass with Eastwood involved. In 1986, Michael Parks directed and starred in The Return of Josey Wales, which dealt with confronting corrupt lawmen in Mexico.

Sure, you might wonder how it goes to make a movie about an ex-Confederate guerilla (incidentally, Jesse James was one of them), particularly with a person that believed that the "values of a civilization never died so long as they’re kept alive in legend.” Simply put, there are people who really thought there was a lost cause to a group of losers who never won a war, never deserved a monument to being traitors, and never did anything meaningful for the United States of America besides dying, because goddamn it, you should know the war was fought over slavery before you leave high school*. But, and this is the important part, it is such a worthwhile movie to see a tale of a man at war with himself that becomes whole again (besides, some people called Dirty Harry "fascist", it didn't stop them from making four more of those movies), or at least much as possible when the iron in his words is akin to the iron of a pistol. All he wants to do is move on and pick up what was broken in him from the war and move on. As Eastwood once said, man becomes his most creative in war, so you can only do so much to clean the blood stain from the tapestry. It isn't even that much of a revenge tale, because McKinney (and to a lesser extent in adversarial nature, Vernon) is not present in the movie as much as, say, George is for the 135-minute runtime, as if to suggest that it matters to see the frontier for what it really is beyond the cliches matters more than if one is going to rattle the sabre right into a man's heart, which, well, yes. It's a violent movie that also has plenty of offbeat moments, such as the moment where one says that hell is coming to breakfast. Everything collides for a reckoning of the soul, whether that's Eastwood and his ambivalence, George and his straightforward nature or otherwise. New order, old order, we thrive on the myths and tales we tell for ourselves, regardless of where they may spring from. As a whole, The Outlaw Josey Wales freewheels history and the usual conventions of the Western for a pretty solid result in offbeat entertainment that is expertly filmed and executed by Eastwood and company for a movie that reckons with community and what really matters to live or die on the frontier.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*If one goes by this interview, Kaufman has never seen the film: Philip Kaufman: The Hollywood Interview | The Hollywood Interview

*If I remember correctly, my dad had a license plate cover of the Confederate battle flag. And yet, I turned out the way I did. 

Next of Kin.

Review #2553: Next of Kin.

Cast: 

Patrick Swayze (Detective Truman Gates), Liam Neeson (Briar Gates), Adam Baldwin (Joey Rosselini), Helen Hunt (Jessie Gates), Andreas Katsulas (Johnny "Papa John" Isabella), Bill Paxton (Gerald Gates), Ben Stiller (Lawrence Isabella), Michael J. Pollard (Harold), Ted Levine (Willy Simpson), Del Close (Frank), Valentino Cimo (Rhino), Paul Greco (Leo), Vincent Guastaferro (Paulie), and Paul Herman (Lieutenant Tony Antonelli) Directed by John Irvin (#1591 - Hamburger Hill)

Review: 

Sure, you probably saw this on a DVD pack sometime or maybe your dad had the film on the shelf (this is a case where both applies, because it lurks on both the bottom of the film shelf and also on an "action multi-pack" with stuff such as The Last Boy Scout). You might say this is a case of a movie being so mediocre that I have to strain to find words to talk about it. This was the seventh film of John Irvin, who had moved over from his native England (where he did documentaries, TV adaptations such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) to do feature films, with a few of his first being a mix of British and American productions, such as The Dogs of War (1980) and Raw Deal (1986), respectively. The years after this film saw him do a varied amount of films and TV work afterwards, mostly outside the States. The movie was written by Michael Jenning in his only film credit (the only other credit is writing for a TV movie called "Spot Marks the X"). Made on a budget of roughly $12 million and released a few months after audiences could see Swayze in, say, Road House, the movie was not a major success with audiences.

Admittedly, I wanted to like the movie. You've got young promising talent with Neeson, Hunt and Stiller (one of these people won an Academy Award, and somehow it wasn't Neeson) to go along with ideas of interest with Baldwin and Katsulas and a semi-game Swayze for a movie...that never really goes that far. It lumbers for 108 minutes with what can only be described as "the bare minimum" in generic nature that will work for some and make others shrug when it ends and leaves the memory bank just as quickly. It's a revenge tale that has an idea in mind: a tale serving revenge "country style" (no, I will not use the word "hillbilly") that you would imagine would sound like someone trying to drunkenly combine Deliverance and The Godfather. But no, it basically just meanders around Chicago with Swayze trying to corral Neeson from blazing a path fierier than Sherman's March to the Sea*, complete with one stunt about jumping onto a train. It is an aimless movie that only really commits to having a battle between country style folks and gangsters for the ending, which naturally has to be at night, with arrows being involved (somehow, there's a scene of preparing lunch for the travelling country boys that amuses me in its placement). There are flashes of lunacy from Baldwin to be compelling, but it mostly feels like moving the chairs on the deck waiting to see if something really comes into play beyond neutral gear. Swayze basically has the movie stolen from him by Neeson, who just has the offbeat energy to be more compelling in a misguided quest (and accent, because if you have the shot to cast a Northern Irishman to play a man from Kentucky, you take it) than whatever is supposed to be the case with an ordinary family dynamic between Swayze and Hunt. Obviously one character has to go at minimum to advance the plot, but it sure is a shame to see Paxton go so early, but it almost seems necessary to do so with Stiller in a nepo baby role that basically screams "move along". It all is just a long-winded revenge tale where you find yourself entranced at the stuff you've seen before in these type of movies or just check your watch. At least the climax tries to present something different in resolving the wounds of a blood feud, corny as it can be. As a whole, Next of Kin might as well be the Ink blot test of action movies: you see what you see and go from there in either liking the experience or forgetting it just as quickly as you saw it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Stretching a reference, sure. But fuck the Confederacy.

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

Review #2552: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Lieutenant Casey Ryback), Eric Bogosian (Travis Dane), Everett McGill (Marcus Penn), Katherine Heigl (Sarah Ryback), Morris Chestnut (Bobby Zachs), Nick Mancuso (Tom Breaker), Brenda Bakke (Captain Linda Gilder), Peter Greene (Mercenary #1), Patrick Kilpatrick (Mercenary #2), Scott Sowers (Mercenary #3), Afifi Alaouie (Fatima), Andy Romano (Admiral Bates), Dale Dye (Captain Nick Garza), Kurtwood Smith (Major General Stanley Cooper), and David Gianopoulos (Captain David Trilling) Directed by Geoff Murphy.

Review: 

"Films have a mind of their own, they are living entities. You discover them. I made a [Steven] Seagal film [Under Siege 2: Dark Territory] in America. It was a very dreary process and very highly contentious at the time - lots of arguments and stuff. There was a point during the editing where I observed this incredibly high energy beast emerging, and I didn't know where it had come from, because there wasn't any of that energy on the set. It seemed to grow out of the editing process. Whereas others, if you finish a shoot and think 'we've just shot a real beauty', then you're probably in trouble. Because they can jump up and bite you."

Yes, there was a second Under Siege movie. This was the seventh film with Steven Seagal as a star but the first one to come out after the ridiculously overblown On Deadly Ground (1994). You remember Under Siege (1992), right? The original script had been done by Matt Reeves and his college friend Richard Hatem, as they wanted to break into the market of spec scripts with action, with the script (with a working title of "Dark Territory", since, well, it refers to running track not controlled by signals) being described as "meant to be very much like a Die Hard movie". The market crashed for scripts, but it eventually was optioned and converted to what you see, with various script doctors such as Brian Helgeland delivering un-credited work. According to Chestnut, a good deal of the film was improvised, specifically when Seagal was on screen, which basically went, “Okay, this is what’s going to happen. You’re going to say this, I’m going to say this, then I’m going to do that and then you’re going to do that.” This was the last major production for its director Geoff Murphy, who had moved to Hollywood filmmaking after making films in his native New Zealand such as Goodbye Pork Pie (1981), Utu (1983) and The Quiet Earth (1985) that resulted in films such as Young Guns II (1990), Freejack (1992), and, well, this. He kept a busy profile with work in TV, smaller-scale stuff such as Race Against Time (2000) along with second-unit work on The Lord of the Rings. He died in 2018 at the age of 80. Made on a budget of $60 million (double the original), the movie was a mild box office hit, albeit not on the level of the original. Seagal's* next two films the following year were Executive Decision (a supporting role where he took a backseat plane ride to Kurt Russell) and The Glimmer Man. 

Is it unnecessary? Maybe. Is it not as good as the previous Under Siege? Mostly, yea. Is it worth it? Well, you know, I think so. I suppose this is where the apex of Seagal as a "star" has hit, complete with using a Apple Newton MessagePad 100 to really make this a high-tech thriller. But hey, a movie based in tension about trying to take a top-secret weapon looming in space with a hacker and multiple keyboards? This happened to be released a few months before Goldeneye, by the way. Sure, this is a movie that doesn't have the magic of two villains like before with Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey, but Bogosian, combined with the company of a cast that clearly is acting around Seagal, does hold the movie up enough to at least make the movie worth a check. Seagal, well, he mainly is there to lumber around and kick, with ounces of fun only really coming from seeing this guy seemingly try to hide the urge to say/do insane stuff when not engaged in the concentration of being the one-man army (okay, not always one-man, because Chestnut is there at times). He outruns a train crash, for God's sake. Bogosian saw Alan Rickman play a villain in Die Hard (1988) and decided, no I'm not kidding, that he wanted to play "a big, old fat villain in a big action movie". Sure, the end result had a bit of silliness due to the encouragement of Murphy to do so, but he apparently is quite satisfied with how it turned out with a crazed hacker wanting plenty of $ that quotes Louis Pasteur. And I agree with him! He is delightfully fun in this movie, managing to evoke menace with a jagged edge of wit. Then you have folks like McGill (a few years removed from being warmly cool in Twin Peaks*) trying to act tough (as one does when not being foiled by pepper spray) that amuses me greatly in his stature and the eventual result (nobody gets a long fight in this dojo). Chestnut provides a few chuckles as basically the Argyle equivalent that gets to trek across a train and throw people off helicopters while Heigl, well, there's always room to be a character in a different movie. It's an efficient movie for 100 minutes that fiddles in the ride of knowing what you are getting into with goofy scenarios (dropping people off helicopters, big ticking clocks) that you either appreciate or dismiss when it concludes. I liked it fine, and I'll accept the confusion over saying a movie with a middling lead does in fact work enough with the support under him to make it one to recommend. 

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

song of the day!

*If one goes by what Heigl said or Jenny McCarthy said about auditioning (link here), it was definitely a strange experience being around Seagal.

*I'm still in the second season. We shall see about the movie. Also, he ruled in Licence to Kill.

The Desperate Hours.

Review #2551: The Desperate Hours.

Cast: 

Humphrey Bogart (Glenn Griffin), Fredric March (Daniel C. Hilliard), Arthur Kennedy (Deputy Sheriff Jesse Bard), Martha Scott (Ellie Hilliard), Dewey Martin (Hal Griffin), Gig Young (Chuck Wright), Mary Murphy (Cindy Hilliard), Richard Eyer (Ralphy Hilliard), Robert Middleton (Samuel Kobish), Walter Baldwin (George Patterson), Whit Bissell (FBI Agent Carson), Ray Teal (State Police Lieutenant), and Ray Collins (Sheriff Masters) Directed by William Wyler (#509 - Roman Holiday, #1022 - Jezebel, #1360 - Mrs. Miniver, #1368 - The Best Years of Our Lives)

Review:  

In 1952, there was a family in Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania that encountered three escaped convicts (Joseph and Ballard Nolen, Elmer Schuer) that held them hostage for 19 hours. The Hill family did not receive harm, and the convicts were soon apprehended (read: two of them died in a shootout in New York while the other got years in jail) after leaving the house. Influenced by the ordeal, Joseph Hayes wrote a novel in 1953 called The Desperate Hours that soon saw a theater production in 1955 (set in Indianapolis*), which saw Robert Montgomery stage it while featuring Karl Malden & Nancy Coleman as the parents opposite the convict leader played by Paul Newman. For the film, they wanted Spencer Tracy to play the second role opposite Bogart, but neither wanted to yield top billing, so you get Fredric March instead. You might say this is Bogart coming full circle, as his turn in The Petrified Forest (1934 play and 1936 film) as a gangster on the run was the one that catapulted him into public attention (of course, months before this film was released, Bogart starred in a televised production of that play); diagnosed with esophageal cancer in 1956, this was his penultimate role prior to his death the following year. This was the fourth of seven movies in the 1950s for Wyler, sandwiched between Best Picture nominee films Roman Holiday [1953] and Friendly Persuasion [1956]. Hayes wrote the screenplay for the film (various others have been listed as doing contributions, although this might not be correct). Made on a reported budget of over $2 million, the movie was not exactly a hit with audiences. In later years, it was adapted into a TV film in 1967, a film for India with 36 Ghante [1974] and a 1990 American remake with Desperate Hours that had Michael Cimino as director.

Sure, it probably doesn't hit as well as other thrillers, particularly since it strains a bit of credibility at a certain point in its housebound trappings, but you'll get a few interesting performances to make a decent time regardless with the Hilli(ard) family. It's a thriller not so much about when the cops get into the picture but instead a thriller about if that would actually turn out well for the family at all. It mainly rests on the shoulders of Bogart to make it all work with such an unsettling nature that basically sets the tension on the same level as cutting through butter, doing so with such smoothness that you can't take your eyes off him and his weary eyes, regardless of how movies like this were inevitably going to go back then. March does hold it together in a different type of intensity that wants to hold it all together for the sake of his family that is fairly palpable to where you probably can see him working fine over if it had been Tracy instead. It's a bout of men trying to assert who is the bigger man that happens to involve spectators that could get in harm's way (well, in a movie made a few decades later, probably more so for "harm", but still). Scott and others are more just ordinary, although there is a few moments of sophistication from Young* to go with piggishness from Middleton. It's a big house to set a film in, which is why there are moments spent away from the house because, well, you can only go so far with tension unless you set in the workplace (or, in one instance, the dispatching of one of the criminals). By the time it closes out its 113-minute runtime, you've closed the book on a movie that is fairly solid in lean suspense involving the threat of those with the supposed power and strength to hold you down in your place of residence before the inevitable hit of reality (for a movie at least) steps in. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

song of the day!

*For whatever reason, Life magazine published an article about the doubt of the Broadway show and had pictures of the actors in the house that the family lived in when they were held hostage and called the play a "reenactment". The Hills decided to sue them for violating the privacy law in New York. It eventually wound up in the Supreme Court, where Richard Nixon actually argued for the Hills. Narrowly, in 1967, the court found in favor of Time, Inc.

*The play hasn't been on Broadway since. Incidentally, Sammy Davis Jr did do a run of it for a playhouse a few times: Sammy Davis, Jr. - Theatre - “The Desperate Hours”

*This is the first time I've covered a movie with Gig Young in it. Young, a future Academy Award winner, was plagued by alcoholism in the later years of his life. In 1978, he murdered his wife and killed himself at the age of 64.

White Lightning.

Review #2550: White Lightning.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Bobby "Gator" McKlusky), Jennifer Billingsley (Lou), Ned Beatty (Sheriff J. C. Connors), Bo Hopkins (Roy "Rebel Roy" Boone), Matt Clark ("Dude" Watson), Louise Latham (Martha Culpepper), Diane Ladd (Maggie), R. G. Armstrong ("Big Bear"), Conlan Carter (Deputy), Dabbs Greer (Pa McKlusky), Lincoln Demyan (Warden Sims), and John Steadman ("Skeeter") Directed by Joseph Sargent (#557 - Jaws: The Revenge)

Review: 

I imagine that no summer really starts unless you pick a movie with either good ol' boys or a star you are fond of. Burt Reynolds* had slummed around in television for several years (which included lead roles on Gunsmoke and Dan August) and a few movies of varying quality (100 Rifles [1969], Sam Whiskey [1969]), but it was his talk-show appearances that really got him noted attention before, well, Deliverance [1972] rocketed him into a name for film. Gradually, the films would rise in stature as a leading guy, with 1973 seeing him star in Shamus, The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing, and this movie, which he had worked with the producers previously with Sam Whiskey [1969] (incidentally, that film and Lightning had the same writer with William W. Norton). And yes, this is the movie that Steven Spielberg almost directed. As noted in a 2001 interview, he spent over two months on the film, scouted locations and was on the cusp of doing casting but he came to the realization that he "didn't want to start my career as a hard-hat, journeyman director", instead wanting something a bit more personal. He instead made a play for doing The Sugarland Express, which he ultimately made in 1974. It instead fell to Joseph Sargent (more of a regular TV director than a film director). It might have been his most noted film of the 1970s if it wasn't for his subsequent direction of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974). In 1976, Reynolds returned for Gator, which retained Norton as writer but with a twist: Reynolds as director (Norton was a character unto himself: he later became a would-be gun runner to the Irish National Liberation Army in the 1980s and shot an intruder in his home).

It's a match made in heaven for those who love a Southern tale of 101 minutes filled with a few car chases and a relatively game Reynolds in the reeds of a decent cast that holds it together for a pretty sobering time. Because, yea, it's a movie about getting one over the law, but don't forget that it starts with two guys getting shot on a boat (which is actually captured pretty well for a movie that basically makes one feel the sweat every now and then). It's a bout of obsession and hokum in trying to dodge both the sheriffs and those who don't like the idea of someone working as an informant (in this case the Department of the Treasury), and it is fun even if it meanders along for what could've really been a devious time, but hey, it is a good hellraiser movie. Before you got the Smokey and the Bandit rendition* of Reynolds, you get the inner workings of someone who was homing in gritty charm without straining in credibility of being a man of single-minded determination that is compelling and fun to see him crack through the conman stuff (it isn't easy playing friend and in one case, seducer). Beatty doesn't get as much time as you might think around Reynolds, but he makes for a quality adversary in the vein of a sundown town chief that clearly believes they are the knight of a community and that nobody deserves to be in their way: it's the kind of jagged confidence that is worth respecting from someone like him. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, rounding out the edges of small-town folks who play the line of swindler and swindled to varying effect. It's the kind of movie where the stunts of folks such as Hal Needham (a long-time friend of Reynolds, he first met him during production of Riverboat years prior) shine best, mostly with one particular car stunt in the film: the jump onto a moving barge. It isn't a great movie by any means, but it always end up doing something curious every now and then to make it worth a look, particularly on a warm summer day looking for familiar faces. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I probably give Reynolds a bit of leeway when it comes to what I want to see from him. Hell, City Heat and Striptease have been on the shortlist for months!

*Lest we forget the hair, which was still natural around Deliverance: Burt Reynolds On Toupees, Trump, and Why He’d Never Work with Paul Tho | GQ. Also, if you look hard enough, you'll see Diane Ladd (spelled "Diane Lad" in the credits) and her daughter, Laura Dern, in this film.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953).

Review #2549: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

Cast: 

Jane Russell (Dorothy Shaw), Marilyn Monroe (Lorelei Lee), Charles Coburn (Sir Francis "Piggy" Beekman), Elliott Reid (Ernie Malone), Tommy Noonan (Gus Esmond Jr), George Winslow (Henry Spofford III), Marcel Dalio (the magistrate), Taylor Holmes (Mr. Esmond Sr), Norma Varden (Lady Beekman), and Howard Wendell (Watson) Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep, #1352 - His Girl Friday, #1399 - Rio Bravo, #1687 - O. Henry's Full House, #1773 - Red River, #2060 - Bringing Up Baby)

Review: 

Sure, Howard Hawks made a musical. Apparently, Hawks had one more film he owed to 20th Century Fox, so it fell to this. The film is based on the 1949 Broadway musical of the same name (with the book by Joseph Fields and Anita Loos, lyrics by Leo Robin, and music by Jule Styne), which in turn was based on the hit 1925 novel (originally serialized as sketches in Harper's Bazaar) that had been written by Anita Loos about, well, a blonde gold-digger and a flapper. Sure, the film was not going to retain the original Broadway duo of Carol Channing and Yvonne Adair as the two stars, because Fox wanted Betty Grable and Ginger Rogers, but what they saw from Niagara (1953) with Monroe led to them going with her. Hawks stated he did none of the production numbers on purpose, which were staged by Jack Cole, once called the "the Father of Theatrical Jazz Dance"; he ultimately worked with Monroe on several films all the way to his last with Let's Make Love [1960]. In his book Hawks on Hawks, he described Monroe as "the most frightened little girl who had no confidence in her ability", with filming basically relying on the patience of Hawks and Russell, although he said he did have fun on the film. In 1955, United Artists released Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (as based on, what else, an Anita Loos novel) that had Russell in a different role paired with Jeanne Crain that had Cole involved but with Richard Sale as director, which did not end up as a major success.

This is one of those movies that I find myself waffling over how good it is, mainly because my patience for musicals is not nearly as great as I wish it was (I think when I was younger I never really got off the high of Singin' in the Rain). With this movie, it rides well on the shenanigans from a fairly game duo of leading women that make worthwhile friends from the jump that is far more curious than, say, seeing where the actual ending goes. It zips along with a few musical numbers of varying quality (mostly good, but I think we know which one is the most discussed) that has some glamour (along with mostly authentic singing* from the actual stars) for 91 minutes. To be honest, for me, Russell is the more interesting of the two leads when it comes to timing*, because she is quite funny without having to strain at actually having fun with the people around her or the good friendship with Monroe, because they exchange the type of pleasantries and hijinks that is alluringly curious. Monroe is just as fun, a real go-getter with the natural ability to just exude bubbly charm without being swallowed up in ditzy generalizations, which helps when considering the ditzy qualities that actually around with the prominent men in the film (Reid, Coburn, Noonan, although at least Holmes is supposed to be stuffy and Winslow, well, he's a kid). Basically, both Russell and Monroe glide through the film as if they were laughing the whole way through. Hell, they both get to do renditions of "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" (Russell in a wig for a delightfully funny scene near the end and, well, you know the sequence with Monroe in a pink dress), what's not to like? The diamonds may be somebody's best friend, but it's the dynamic between the two in that authentic sense of self that makes it all go together far more than wondering what the fuss about tiaras are about. As a whole, it's basically a movie that freewheels on the charm of Russell and Monroe with a few fine songs and some sparkly glamour to basically ride to the finish line with excitement for those who buy into its charms.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day (obvious choice)!

*Yes, the last musical I saw in theaters was Cats (2019), why do you ask?

*Varied claims say that Gloria Wood and Marni Nixon provided a bit of help with "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend"

The Black Swan.

Review #2548: The Black Swan.

Cast: 

Tyrone Power (Jamie Waring), Maureen O'Hara (Lady Margaret Denby), Laird Cregar (Sir Henry Morgan), Thomas Mitchell (Tom Blue), George Sanders (Captain Billy Leech), Anthony Quinn (Wogan), with George Zucco (Lord Denby), and Edward Ashley (Roger Ingram) Directed by Henry King (#1687 - O. Henry's Full House, #2223 - The Gunfighter)

Review: 

It probably helps to cover a swashbuckler movie every now and then, even one that basically freewheels around its alleged "source material". Taking the title of the 1932 novel of the same name by Rafael Sabatini (you might remember that he previously had his novels adapted into films with Captain Blood [1922/1935], and Bardelys the Magnificent [1926]), the movie had a screenplay by Ben Hecht and Seton I. Miller. At the helm for direction was the solidly reliable Henry King, fresh in the middle of directing Remember the Day (1941) and The Song of Bernadette (1943). This was one of three films with O'Hara (who had joined Fox with How Green Was My Valley [1941] as among the leading cast, which included To the Shores of Tripoli and Ten Gentlemen from West Point. She had meant to co-star with Power with Son of Fury: The Story of Benjamin Blake (1942) but dropped out due to illness. With this film, she noted her happiness in the film, once stating it was "everything you could want in a lavish pirate picture." The movie was a fairly decent hit at the time, and Leon Shamroy won an Academy Award for his cinematography (shot in color*) on the film.  

You've got a 1600s setting with a few interesting effects and shots to go along with a fairly efficient 85-minute runtime that freewheels with history (the real Morgan, a privateer and plantation owner who was knighted in 1674, served on the Assembly of Jamaica and also was a Lieutenant Governor and occasional interim governor before he died in 1688, as one does when living to his fifties) for a fairly decent effort. I don't think it's exactly on the level of say, The Mark of Zorro (1940) when it comes to a slapdash Power film, but it's still a pretty amiable time, mainly because you see enough enthusiasm from its main cast. It's the "love, gold, and adventure!" movie to swallow up like it was cotton candy, filled with hokum in the "loving care" type - you either have that patience or don't. With the war effort booming in 1942, Power enlisted in the Marine Corps in August, with Crash Dive being the last one before he went through training/combat missions until he returned in 1946. He has the panache required to just step into the swashbuckling type (debate all you want who managed it better between him and, say, Errol Flynn*) with general ease of charm without looking like he wants to be somewhere else. The leading ladies can change, the staging might differ, but you can still see the commitment present in the swagger to just go through the motions and not make it sound tired. O'Hara doesn't exactly as much to really grab onto for the character besides the usual swooning type for adventures where one sees the adventurer face the odds and beat them and, well, you know what happens. But at least she is game for matching with Power with fiery grace and got onto better things. Cregar (a stage-turned-film actor that got his supporting roles in 1941 and was going to be a leading man before his untimely death in 1944) hams it up with captivating warmth that probably captures the film more than anybody, and that includes the credible attempts from adversaries in Sanders and Quinn. It's a sword-splitting movie that looks decent enough, has a few credible moments in swinging around without swinging completely for the fences that doesn't dawdle - what more could you ask for? For a 1940s movie, an average movie of its time is still as desirable as ever.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Remember that folks could win for cinematography in black-and-white and in color for several years.

*At least people don't call Power a creep.

Disclosure Day.

Review #2547: Disclosure Day.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Margaret Fairchild; Delaney Cuthbert as young Margaret), Josh O'Connor (Dr. Daniel Kellner; Tyler Renaud as young Daniel), Colin Firth (Noah Scanlon), Eve Hewson (Jane Blankenship), Colman Domingo (Hugo Wakefield), Wyatt Russell (Jackson), Henry Lloyd-Hughes (Casper Boyd), Elizabeth Marvel (Sister Maura), Hettienne Park (Serena), Tommy Martinez (Dave Santiago), Gabby Beans (Angela Childs), Jeremy Shamos (Claypool), Brandon Wilson (Nathan Twinning), Priyanka Kedia (Grace Zhao), Elliot Villar (Diaz), Noah Robbins (Munsey), and Michael Gaston (General Dobbs)

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, #2000 - Duel), #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) 

Review

"At the core of Disclosure Day is the question: Where has all our empathy gone? Would an actual disclosure day reunite what's divided, or begin to repair what's broken in this siphoning away of empathy? And I think that was the personal link for me. There's more focus in this story on human connection than even the eventual and hopeful connection between an off-world civilization and the human species."

For a movie with such a clunky title (no, I don't care that there was already a movie called "Disclosure" in the 1990s), it sure is interesting to hear how many people apparently went to see it in its first week, mainly because I chose to not see much of the marketing for the film, particularly with its trailer. It's been a while since I saw a Spielberg movie in theaters, mainly because I don't remember what I was doing when West Side Story [2021]* or The Fabelmans [2022] (but I do remember seeing Ready Player One [2018]), but the curiosity was bubbling since the first rumblings of a "UFO film" came around in 2024. One inspiration listed was a New York Times article ("Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program") about a program exploring space phenomena without identification (okay you've got "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "unidentified flying object", what sounds better?); Spielberg wrote a story outline over two months in 2023. We've had a few things related to the disclosure movement* or conspiracies dictated about say, Roswell, ranging from the light fare such as getting a body from there in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or the 2002 miniseries Taken (as executive produced by Spielberg) to, well, documentaries such as The Age of Disclosure (2025), which had presented former government officials and disclosure movement people with varying claims and arguments and, well, little physical evidence. David Koepp wrote the screenplay (reportedly doing over 40 drafts). Recently, there was a de-classification of UFO-related files, but, well, there was nothing about it as interesting as was present in the movie, so that's certainly a thing to say.

What you get with this movie is a thriller about trying to have people listen to one another. Sure, the "disclosure" looms heavily throughout the movie, but what is most important is the danger of fearing what one doesn't know. It takes a handful of big swings for the ideas of faith over fear, interest in beings that aren't just ourselves, and, well, washing away the established order of things as perhaps not the only supreme being in the universe* which might be nice for those who, say, liked a film like Signs [2000] (speaking of movies where t. It is a thriller of illumination (essentially by stating one is not an idol, but an instrument, whether in understanding or in math) that gradually assembles the pieces together for a fairly satisfying movie, although I'm not sure exactly how it will sit with me in the years to come and I can certainly understand where others might not anoint it as highly. It takes its swings of wonder and doesn't yearn to answer every nibbling question, for better or worse; Spielberg himself has said it is not a "holistic review of the entire history of the UFO phenomenon". Blunt commands the film with a fairly entertaining performance, managing to evoke plenty of curiosity and humor in the fractured world she finds herself part of beyond is seen and unseen, particularly since her and Russell have decent timing together for a time. O'Connor is merely fine, but he never really gets into his own as a character when him and Blunt actually meet (to say nothing of one scene in particular involving the big reveal). Domingo provides a bit of serenity to counteract the real veteran presence in Firth, who is delightfully malevolent that underlies a yin-and-yang of people who see the status quo and the place of any potential wild card element differently (whether seeing it as one for control or one for co-existence), which is neatly interesting to see in how each play it. It's a strangely bloodless journey to get through, but the sense of wonder is inviting for those who have the patience for the inevitable meshing of empathy and numbers. Basically, it's a fable about if the world actually had some more idealism rather than the cynic slop that pervades our lives in such loud fashion that the only real way to pay attention probably would be to just listen.

Admittedly, it rests heavily on the idea that seeing is believing in a world that actively sees plenty of videos and images filled with despair (and then of course there is AI slop, which is disgusting, full stop). Would we tune out a theoretical creature from a different world than ours like people do when trying to tune out the rhetoric of hatred of others (or, alternatively, watching alternative media; my caveat is that if the film involved trying to distribute top-secret stuff on the Internet, people would've just said it was being cribbed from Glass [2019]). To say nothing of the news anchor in the climax, which actually took me out of the movie more than the CG for the animals (which I can at least defend as, well, something that is meant to be a bit off-kilter). In some ways, you could call this an extended version of say, an X-Files episode (at least it's not trying to rip off one of the lamer "mythology" ones?). It is a goofy and naive film all about getting people all tuned in on one thing, for better or worse. But even with the little quibbles*, you still have a solid movie worth looking into, one that is a finely tuned thriller in assembling its pieces where it wants to go for a film built on the milage of understanding more than anything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Okay, with West Side Story, I just thought it sounded like a waste of time to remake a beloved movie. Especially with Ansel Elgort as the lead.

*David Wilcock is, sorry, was, a hack and should've been thrown out of serious discussion years ago. Seeing his face on a Wikipedia article and clicking it just to find a hack is actually kind of annoying. Anyways.

*I would basically call myself agnostic, mainly because it seems illogical to fully deny the divine even if I am not the kind of person interested in church. To say nothing of the cringe nature of religion/atheism in certain circles online.

*One spoiler, if you like highlighting. The abduction scene is probably so heavy-handed that of course people equate it to molestation or Mysterious Skin [2004], which involved two boys being affected by a certain event that sees them lead different lives in young adulthood, with one being into alien abductions. My take? Nah. I just don't see it. If anything, it's just an overgrown fulfillment fantasy that we see over and over with powers that just happens to involve alien rocks. Besides, it's a friggin fable, not Dateline.

Assassins (1995).

Review #2546: Assassins (1995).

Cast:

Sylvester Stallone (Robert Rath / Joseph Rath), Antonio Banderas (Miguel Bain), Julianne Moore (Electra / Anna), Anatoly Davydov (Nicolai Tashlinkov), Muse Watson (Ketcham), Steve Kahan (Alan Branch), Kai Wulff (Remy), Mark Coates (Jereme Kyle), Kelly Rowan (Jennifer), and Reed Diamond (Bob) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, and #1542 - 16 Blocks, #1700 - The Goonies)

Review: 

"Assassins, I thought Stallone did one of the best jobs he’s ever done. He totally underplayed, he was quiet, he found the character and he went with it. I thought Antonio Banderas was wonderful. The picture came out, and it did not do very well at all. Sure, it hurts and you know why you wish it would do better? The studio gave you a lot of money and you want them to make their money back so that other people can make movies...And I thought we did a good job and they thought we did a good job, but the audiences and critics didn’t like it. Did I feel bad? Sure. Did it get me down? Nope, nope, nope — too lucky to be in this business to be down in the dumps."

Admittedly, I picked this movie because I felt it was time to look at another Richard Donner movie. So why not go with this one, a movie released near the tail-end (16th of 20*) of a fairly interesting career? You might think the film credit for the writing is interesting because it lists the Wachowskis for the story and a co-credit with Brian Helgeland (who at the point had worked on the scripts for the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street film, 976-EVIL, and Highway to Hell) for the screenplay. When Donner got the script from Joel Silver (who had bought the spec script along with The Matrix), he had re-writes done to it (which namely involved toning down the violence along with emphasizing the Rath-Electra storyline while not having a certain character included for the climax), which the Wachowskis did not like to the point where they tried to get their name removed from it, but the Writers Guild of America refused. Interestingly, both screenplays are available for viewing (the Wachowskis one is seen here, while the modified shooting script is seen here). Made on a reported budget for $50 million, the movie was not a huge success with audiences or critics at the time. Probably the only thing the movie ended up being noted for was a reaction shot by Banderas that became a "meme" on the Internet.

 

In some ways, it feels like a movie that is desperate to be liked. With such a limited cast of basically three (with one further person being shoehorned in for the start and end), you might be forgiven for wondering if there was a tiny bit of a Western yearning to come out (an old gunfighter wanting to retire, only to encounter one more gunfight could be seen in say, The Shootist [1976]). And there are moments that are fascinating in Stallone trying to play an understated hero to go along with a colorful Banderas. Of course, the sinking feeling of watching the film unravel around the backstretch of setting up the final  act combines with a middling Moore and an unwieldy runtime of 133 minutes for a sad disappointment that I cannot really defend beyond saying "I like the people* in it but not the vehicle they are driving." Banderas basically steals the show in the theatrics that come in "trying to be No. 1" for basic one-upmanship that desperately needs a funnier or tighter movie to really let him do his thing besides a listless one that seems to accidentally stumble into anything. He's fun, if only because it is Banderas, not so much the script or direction. Stallone could do things other than action movies, the righteous ones know that from Oscar (1991), but I do get why "subdued" isn't exactly an easy sell. Some of the time feels like doddering to try and make him sound more interesting than he needs to be, because really it could've just been a hard-lined silent type and that would work better than trying to play type with Moore, who just seems adrift in "hacker" cliches and little humor to really make for a connection beyond one you might see when stuck at the self-checkout lane at the supermarket. You would think a movie where a guy is chasing someone around in the craven pursuit of being "number one", complete with various "conversations" spent on the computer (as one does as a hired guy, talking with a supervisor) would be more interesting, but no, it's just generic stuff. For a movie with an alleged polish, it just seems all too sluggish to actually get anywhere in staging the action, particularly with a climax that relies on the adversary having to sweat out waiting to shoot a dude leaving a bank (see, because that guy did the same years ago, so it is...tasteful imitation) only to get frustrated to go the bank to confront said guy (which in turn leads to sneaking around the creaky hideout), because, yeah, okay. The twist for the end is just lazy and leads to an even lamer resolution because, screw it, we forgot to have a body count worth updating regardless of how silly it looks. As a whole, Assassins is just a bit too lazy to excel as anything other than a mediocre effort from people who can't override the feeling of watching an undercooked movie that never rises all the way above the bare minimum. It just doesn't have the milage to do better than picking any other action film of its ilk, which is a shame. It's an autopilot movie that you may or may not see some interest in if you really, really, really need to see a certain director or star all the way through. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*21 if you want to include Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

*What can I say, Sylvester Stallone is a fascinating person to see in movies? Sure, I doubt I would agree  with him on say, a certain political topic, but really, how can I turn away from seeing whatever ridiculous stuff he starred/directed? And Moore, well, I love women.

Masters of the Universe (1987).

Review #2545: Masters of the Universe.

Cast: 

Dolph Lundgren (He-Man), Frank Langella (Skeletor), Meg Foster (Evil-Lyn), Billy Barty (Gwildor), Courteney Cox (Julie Winston), Robert Duncan McNeill (Kevin Corrigan), Jon Cypher (Man-At-Arms), Chelsea Field (Teela), James Tolkan (Hugh Lubic), Christina Pickles (Sorceress), Tony Carroll (the Beastman), Pons Maar (Saurod), Anthony De Longis (Blade), and Robert Towers (Karg) Directed by Gary Goddard.

Review: 

Hey, remember Masters of the Universe? The impetus for trying to make the toy line came from Mattel's drive to come up with something good enough to possibly forget their rejection to produce action figures for a little film called Star Wars [1977] (Kenner famously did it first instead). Various concepts came around from people such as Roger Sweet and Mark Taylor. Coincidentally, this happened around the same time that the rights holder for Conan the Barbarian tried to do a toy deal with Mattel that fell through (they later sued Mattel claiming infringement, but Mattel won out in their toy line being original). The figures first came out with mini comics in 1981 before further waves of toys and, well, your parents probably watched the Filmation animated shows, with He-Man and the Masters of the Universe running from 1983 to 1985 and a spinoff with She-Ra: Princess of Power running from 1985 to 1987 (with that show, The Secret of the Sword [1985] was the premiere, a compilation of the first five episodes that was in theaters). According to one source, the original script by David Odell (writer of films such as Supergirl) had significant time spent on Eternia and Snake Mountain but this later changed to what you see here with a fairly Earthbound adventure (apparently, the link between the two places was that He-Man's mother was born on Earth). Mattel decided to be as cloying as possible for production, reportedly not paying their half of the production budget on time and they didn't want to their title character doing anything morally wrong. The film was directed by Gary Goddard (with his one other film credit being the co-writer of Tarzan, the Ape-Man [1981]) in the only theatrical film he has done. He has done theater shows along with dark rides and 3D movies.* Released around the same time as Stakeout and The Living Daylights in August 1987, Masters of the Universe was a flop, with its failure (along others such as Superman IV) hindering Cannon Films. They had planned to do a sequel film with Albert Pyun as director and even made some costumes and sets only to renege on a deal with Mattel that led them to re-tool it for what became Cyborg [1989].

Honestly, I never really got into He-Man, because, I was born in 1996, Legos were just more interesting (and as for the animated show...no, sorry). You might say that could help when talking about a movie that probably has a special cheesy place for those who watched it back then. No, not really, this movie is a lazy, middling film, a Conan/Star Wars wannabee mired in a "fish out of water" plotline and a monosyllabic lead.  Goddard claimed that the film's storyline was inspired by various Jack Kirby comic books (namely The New Gods), and he wanted Kirby to be a conceptual artist for the movie. I feel like play-acting a comic book would be a more entertaining experience, especially since it would probably have violence against actual humanoid-looking people in it (after the first couple of totally not Stormtroopers get shot by lasers, how far can you go?). Lundgren (in his first starring role after Rocky IV [1985]) and his dialogue was re-recorded and dubbed over the original footage, which at least sounds better than Goddard wanting to re-dub the whole film with someone else's voice...in theory. For a character that goes around dallying without using a sword too much, Lundgren is left adrift to really say anything of meaningful substance (this is me trying to be nice in not just calling him wooden*). It probably is a bit of a casting coup to have a willing Langella (of films such as Dracula [1979], which I'm sure somebody liked*) go all-out, apparently because his son was big on the animated show. He hams it up a bit and basically steals the movie, which is a bit of an accomplishment when wrapped in so much makeup (as one does for a skeleton). It doesn't save the movie, but still. Cox and McNeill (future featured players in television*) just look lost in this corny movie with little to really make you care about them in a film that just meanders around with the bare minimum to offer (to say nothing of an ending that basically is wish fulfillment without really earning it). Barty, cast as a freshly created character because they could not make Orko, a floating magician for the screen...is okay, but it probably makes one appreciate stuff like Legend (1985) and Willow (1988) by comparison in the "comedy relief" aspect that only goes so far to distract from a movie that has folks going around confronting the new realities of a bucket of ribs. In a sea of attempts of support from Foster and Cypher (and those totally comfortable suits), at least you can say Tolkan was trying to be funny. For someone who really does have a varying bar of giving films a chance, this is a movie that is just too shallow to really garner that much care for what goes on in it (a sorceress being trapped has never felt so small). As a whole, the movie didn't reach its target audience in its day (people who either loved their toys and sure love PG-rated flicks), and there are oodles of people who will try to call it a cult movie, but I'm just not a fan to where I can't even call it a "just missed the mark" type of movie. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*He may also be a pervert, as detailed by articles such as this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-anthony-edwards-pens-powerful-essay-1510344160-htmlstory.html

*Unpopular and unrelated take: I suppose there's something to say about He-Man being a "gay icon" or something. No, not really. People will claim anything as an "icon" if it sounds "cool" enough. You can say "Fortunate Son" is an anti-war song but people will still put that song on full blast because...it sounds cool. 

*I still can't get over mediocre that Dracula movie was. Goddamnit. 

*folks would see Lundgren on the big screen a few more times in the next ten years (Red Scorpion [1988], The Punisher [1989 - although America got it direct-to-video], I Come in Peace [1990], Showdown in Little Tokyo [1991], Universal Soldier [1992], Johnny Mnemonic [1995]) sprinkled in with direct-to-video fare.

*Friends stinks. I'll watch Star Trek: Voyager all the way through once before I see Friends.