Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

Review #2572: Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

Cast:

Mickey Rourke (Harley Davidson), Don Johnson (Robert Lee "Marlboro Man" Edison), Chelsea Field (Officer Virginia Slim), Tom Sizemore (Chance Wilder), Daniel Baldwin (Alexander), Vanessa Williams (Lulu Daniels), Giancarlo Esposito (Jimmy Jiles), Robert Ginty (Thom), Tia Carrere (Kimiko), Big John Studd (Jack Daniels), Julius Harris ('The Old Man' Jiles), Eloy Casados (Jose Cuervo), and Kelly Hu (Suzie) Directed by Simon Wincer.

Review: 

You're never going to believe this: a buddy biker action movie (that could also be called a "neo-Western") that wasn't a hit on release. The film was directed by one Simon Wincer, an Australian director that had done plenty of television before becoming a film guy with such movies as Snapshot (1979), D.A.R.Y.L. (1985) and Quigley Down Under (1990). The original script was written by aspiring actor Don Michael Paul that apparently took inspiration from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid [1969] (which is strange because the movie has exactly one robbery while Cassidy features multiple robberies and a failed attempt at going straight, although a "super-posse" does sound pretty prevalent in both). It soon found a deal with MGM (at the time in hell with Giancarlo Parretti in management) and a quick turnaround with Wincer and company (you might be wondering - Paul? Yes, that's correct, Paul ended up being the writer/director for Half Past Dead [2002]*). Sure, Johnson and Rourke were mostly in it to try and get out of career ruts, but they apparently had a decent time making the movie. Released on August 23, 1991 (the same week as movies such as Dead Again) with little expectations from even MGM's own president at the time with a budget of roughly $18 million, the movie made less than half of that. Wincer went on to make a string of movies that surely sound normal: Free Willy (1993), that movie with a big whale in it, Lightning Jack (1994), an ill-fated attempt at a Paul Hogan vehicle (?), Operation Dumbo Drop (1995), a movie involving an elephant in the Vietnam War (no, really), and The Phantom (1996), a comic strip movie with a big purple costumed hero.

The heroes being named after brands was, well, not trying to sell cigarettes (which suck anyway*) or motorcycles. The real movie basically starts about nearly an hour after the heist is done and it's just two folks riding around trying to make the best of the fact that one can barely shoot a gun and the other wears duct-tape boots. Rourke was there solely for the money because of a string of flops and decided that as a 39-year-old in 1991 to do, and I'm not kidding, focus his time on boxing (he wound up doing a few fights around the world before going back to acting). Meanwhile, the elder Johnson (i.e. early forties) was still hoping to branch out from being more than Crockett from Miami Vice (hey, in fairness, he was fine in A Boy and His Dog [1975]). Even with that type of freewheeling attitude, there is still a veneer of interest in watching these people meander across the screen engaging in the most predictable type of adventure imaginable because they do conjure up a smile for those who are familiar with wiseasses that should know better. It's the kind of movie for those who thought Tango & Cash (1989) or Stone Cold (1991) were sick as hell, honestly. What other movie goes around having characters spend 99 percent of the time in duct-taped boots to go along with stunts of jumping onto pools or say, a person falling off a motorcycle just so it rolls at a group of people (who naturally all jump over it at the same time)? Or arm wrestling / bar fights? 

Much like the film, there are no excuses for what I do (see, I do crib quotes) in saying that this was a pretty decent movie in basically exploring two people that don't really know what they want besides having as much as possible before, well, the ride of the grim reaper hits. It just happens to be a movie where folks decide to rob a bank threatening to foreclose their favorite bar. Sure, it doesn't have much for Field to really do opposite Johnson (Williams also gets exactly one scene that doesn't involve singing), and sure, Baldwin and Sizemore don't get that much to particularly do as the primary adversaries (one basically travels in a straight line with other black-coated dudes but you still go, "cool"), and sure, it's a movie that hinges on selling drugs *back* to the people they robbed (equal opportunity robbers that don't love addictive drugs, what a pairing) but I got a kick out of its entertainment value. When your favorite place gets trashed (or in the modern sense, bought out or turned lame) by a bunch of stooges from a bank (capital?) just because they can, yeah, I would think wish fulfillment in getting revenge sounds like a fun time for 98 minutes, quite honestly. 35 years haven't exactly elevated it all the way to a cult movie, but it is the kind of curious movie to watch get on the road to ass-kicking and a few chuckles along the way.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: At last, a movie title worthy for this month: Freaked.

*Supposedly, Johnson had his friend Sean "Arizona Slim" Walsh (a Miami Vice script doctor) and Jay Helfert write the pool hall scene that introduces his character. Wikipedia is fairly trustworthy on select movies, but I prefer a clickable link, so who knows?

*Movie Night explicitly says that cigarettes are a shitty product in every shape or form. Hell, that goes for vaping too. 

*I really should watch Rourke in The Wrestler, I keep forgetting to do that one. A whole lot easier to justify than watching Sean Penn in Milk, that's for sure. 

Snakes on a Plane.

Review #2571: Snakes on a Plane.

Cast: 

Samuel L. Jackson (Agent Neville Flynn), Julianna Margulies (Claire Miller), Nathan Phillips (Sean Jones), Rachel Blanchard (Mercedes Harbont), Flex Alexander (Clarence "Three G's" Dewey), Kenan Thompson (Troy), Keith Dallas (Big Leroy), Sunny Mabrey (Tiffany Engelhard), Bruce James (Ken), Lin Shaye (Grace), Terry Chen (Chen Leong), Elsa Pataky (Maria), Mark Houghton (Agent John Sanders), David Koechner (Rick Archibald), Bobby Cannavale (Special Agent Hank Harris), and Todd Louiso (Dr. Steven Price) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, #2137 - Final Festination 2)

Review: 

Hey, this is a month dedicated to the flops from audiences in its time, and this technically counts. 20 years ago, New Line Cinema believed they were on the cusp of a pretty good hit on their hands with an "internet phenomenon"...and then it wasn't. I'm not kidding, there were magazines that put it on the cover and asked if the "Hokey Horror Flick" could "Change The Movie Business". The project was first discussed in 1999 after a Dreamworks executive in Craig Berenson read a script called "Venom" by David Dalessandro, an administrator at the University of Pittsburgh and first-time scriptwriter that had been inspired by reading an article about Indonesian brown tree snakes climbing on cargo planes in World War II and eventually was inspired to have a script, with, well, lots of snakes. Berenson found that script and on a "happy hour" type of party, he pitched it as "Snakes on a Plane" and thought, hey, maybe there is something to it, which is where he got the services of John Heffernan to work on the story. Years of pitching and re-writes (which added one more credited writer with Sebastian Gutierrez) eventually got it to New Line Cinema and Ronny Yu to direct and Jackson to star in it, mainly because of the title. Sure, they quickly lost Yu due to disagreements (which led to the hiring of stuntman-turned filmmaker Ellis, behind films such as Final Destination 2), and sure, New Line tried to rename the project "Pacific Flight 121" (others report it as "Pacific Air 121"), and sure, they initially aimed for a PG-13 rating even during shooting, but eventually there was a movie ready to go for people to speculate on (such as screenwriters) online. New Line aimed to engage with fan-generated speculation and take the movie seriously. Debuting for audiences (with no screenings for critics) on August 18, 2006 (other choices that month included films such as Barnyard, The Descent, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, World Trade Center, Step Up, The Illusionist) and released on a budget of $33 million, the movie made almost double its budget that was labeled as just an "Internet-only phenomenon" and a "dud". Ellis directed three further films (one direct-to-video), with the last being Shark Night in 2011 prior to his sudden death in 2013 at the age of 60.

For a movie that shows at least a dozen people joining the body count movie, it sure doesn't feel like a horror movie (that "hokey" label seems more like a joke). The opening seems more of a reworking of the crap you saw in those Airport movies (27 minutes, mainly) but it eventually becomes obvious where they tried to shoehorn it being an R-rated movie (with the occasional shot of blood). It may interest you to know that most of the snakes in the film are either CG or animatronic, especially the ones that don't attack people or encounter Jackson. I suppose it could make a doubleheader with Cocaine Bear (2023) in the "hey, it's a movie with a title like that, why not?" department*, although most people probably are more spooked by bears than wondering about what type of snake is venomous. To be honest, as a person who actually has had a snake around their shoulders (as I vaguely remember from a trip to a nature center), I'll take the snake over flying right about now, trusting a tin can flying in the air where you could theoretically get blown up or deal with aircraft decompression or deal with, well, a crappy-made plane. I guess I'm stalling at trying to understand what all the fuss about this movie was, which, really, is it known for anything other than that one line said about 80 minutes into its 106-minute runtime about having had enough of these [you know the swear] planes on this ... plane? Anybody? It's an overgrown B-movie made for way too much money to be considered one that has exactly one joke (tongue in cheek because ha ha, get it, it's a movie that can be used in a punchline of a sitcom) and the bare minimum to actually have fun with. You've got three folks better known for TV (Margulies, Alexander, and Thompson*) paired with basically nothing from Phillips for a movie that thinks throwing snakes around the compartments and having the bare minimum of carnage is enough. Nope. I like Jackson, and he seems to be having some fun here, but this is a movie that begs to just be an Air Force One (thought be some as a Die Hard pastiche) ripoff rather than pairing him with basically nothing to really engage with (imagine if it was say...Gans Hruber threatening to release snakes from a time-controlled crate unless he gets money while also motioning to kill the witness anyway - it would be the most delusional movie ever). Creature features can't really reach the levels of Jaws (1975), so folks basically try to get on the level of trying to rise above say, Anaconda [1997] (honestly, that movie might be a bit more interesting, at least it has an actual adversary in the mayhem).

Oh, but you don't need to know much about their personal lives besides the intro, well, I want to at least feel like people are going to go through peril, and it's not saying much when Shaye's character going down under is the highlight of seeing sacrifices and "into the jaws of death" moments (you could count a yapping dog being thrown into the path of a snake, but, well, really?). You'd think going around using a taser on snakes and having a kickboxer character would be enough, but it just feels like a movie going through the motions with an assured feeling of doing enough without actually proving anything. The snakes just aren't that spooky enough to make me unsettled beyond the "will they take down any of the comedy relief?" (get it, the musician with guards is actually a germophobe? get it? get it, one of them gets bit in the ass? get it? get it, the movie rests on the power of PlayStation* flight simulating? get it). There are certain movies that feel like "fast food movies" that basically go through you with one viewing and satisfy the bare minimum, and some of them accomplish the job of satisfying the general expectation laid out by its viewer (action movie with explosions, horror movie with scares*, whatever). Snakes on a Plane just feels like microwaved leftovers: you've done this before and you just don't feel like it matters to actually do it again (to say nothing of those mockblusters that come out from folks such as The Asylum - a waste of time if there ever was one!*). Some movies can get on by with an decent lead among its cast and middling tension, but this is one that has no actual fangs in it that results in an overhyped, overblown mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: who knows? 

*Also the department of "includes kids in the peril but in the mildest possible way that totally isn't cowardly". 

*The three in particular for 2006 was ER*, One on One and Saturday Night Live. Anyway, The only modern TV show I really got into when it was *new* was Lucifer (before Fox was too stupid to cancel it) and The Blacklist. as for Margulies, what the hell is a The Good Wife?

*Lmao, Nintendo forever.

*I don't care what they say, you do have to be a bit scary in your horror movie. 

*Sharknado was made for television but at least that went into a few theaters for midnight showings. But most of their crap goes direct-to-video, which is something I explicitly do not aim for. 

Cisco Pike.

Review #2570: Cisco Pike.

Cast: 

Kris Kristofferson (Cisco Pike), Gene Hackman (Detective Leo Holland), Karen Black (Sue), Harry Dean Stanton (Jesse Dupre), Viva (Merna), Doug Sahm (Rex), Roscoe Lee Browne (Pawnshop Owner), Joy Bang (Lynn), Severn Darden (Lawyer), Antonio Fargas (Brother Buffalo), with Don Sturdy (Recording Engineer), and Allan Arbus (Sim Valensi) Directed by Bill L. Norton.

Review:  

My favoritism does ring strong for select folks, admittedly. How many people can beat Barbra Striesand at their own game in trying to be the big fish in terms of actual presence in a movie (I fondly still remember watching A Star is Born (1976) and being amazed its sheer mediocrity). The Brownsville-born nomad was prolific enough at Pomona College that there were ideas of him being a writer, complete with study at the University of Oxford. Instead, he ended up as a jack of all trades in odd jobs (okay there was stuff in the middle of that such as being in the Army), one of them being a janitor at Columbia Records as a wannabee songwriter. He did appear in his first film with the adventure from hell in The Last Movie (1971). Apparently, in the aftermath of drunkenly stumbling through being rejected for a part in Two-Lane Blacktop, he got offered the script for this film and decided against the advice of taking acting lessons for a character that he thought he related to. Inadvertently, this also is a chance to spotlight a forgotten filmmaker that had a brief flash in the sun. Bill L. Norton was the son of William W. Norton, who actually was a writer in Hollywood that ranged from television with The Big Valley to movies with White Lightning [1973]*. As for the younger Norton, he graduated from UCLA and went from writing stuff such as How to Succeed with Girls (1964) and (uncredited) camera operating on movies like The Fortune Cookie (1966). But when film producers looked for any type of "freethinkers" or "hippie" perspective in the wake of Easy Rider's success in 1969, Norton got his chance to be a director with a script (with one working title being "Dealer") that attracted producer Gerald Ayres and Columbia Pictures. Robert Towne was asked to look over the script, with his most noted contribution being the addition of Hackman's character, although he was left uncredited. Lumped in some circles to other counterculture movies such as Getting Straight [1970] and Making It [1971], the movie had its opening premiere in late 1971 before going into limited release in 1972 that resulted middling reviews and a lack of an audience. The next Norton movie was More American Graffiti (1979). While there were a few showings to theaters that still had a print, the movie wasn't available on home media such as VHS or DVD until a release in the latter format in 2006. 

I suppose it makes sense that Norton called it his rendition of La Dolce Vita but set in L.A." In the domain of the Venice neighborhood with things of yesteryear such as the Pacific Ocean Park (closed since 1967). You could consider how Kristofferson considered acting to be as one that could be "just understanding a character, and then being just as honest as you can possibly be" (as said in 1974), or, for what he thought about the movie over 50 years later, one where he mused about what exactly "gave me the audacity to think I could act." The movie coasts along with a lead character that basically is an anachronism going through a travelogue in a type of California (West L.A.) that either runs on the fumes of banality or, well, is curious enough to actually see all the way through its 95-minute runtime. Kristofferson is the drifter, the has-been, the elusive one, the guy in all of us that can't just be one thing without some smart aleck or oddball trying to get one over us (such as trying to not be a dealer). Hackman made the movie right before doing The French Connection (Cisco premiered shortly after Connection). His panicky oddness popping in every now and then (for what could generously be estimated as being less than 20 minutes) is a curious one to see when compared to the familiar comforts of the kooky Black (by this point a recent Academy Award nominee with Five Easy Pieces [1970]) or the splattering of support that comes with Viva or the withered Stanton. Any observation about the movie, positive or negative, basically can be responded to with "it depends, man". The songs from Kristofferson are delightful for those who roll with doing something for the sake of it that basically is the movie in a nutshell: you drift in and drift out and maybe figure something out by the time it all has come to pass (or not). I can't call it a great movie, but a drifting movie with likeable enough folks and music is more than enough to at least call it a possible gem for the curious.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: Fuck it, it's 20 years old: 8.18.06: SNAKES ON A PLANE

*Honestly, I have no bias against Streisand, I just...never got into watching her movies. Or her songs. I accidentally took nearly 15 years of Movie Night to actually get to a Jane Fonda movie, it isn't exactly a surprise that I've seen two Streisand movies in the span of 16 years.

*Mr. William W. Norton was a strange guy. He crapped on his contributions to movies (once stating that one would only know his films if their "I.Q" [was] low enough"), later moved to Ireland and got mad about Roman Catholic residents getting attacked to the point where he went back to the States to run guns to the Irish National Liberation Army. He got caught and served 19 months in prison. He moved to Central America only to get robbed and killed one of the robbers. He moved around before finally being smuggled back to America. He died in 2010 at the age of 85 while his son Bill still lives.

*Forgot to send a link: LIFE - Google Books

Soldier (1998).

Review #2569: Soldier (1998).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (Sergeant Todd "3465"; Jesse Littlejohn as 8-year-old Todd; Wyatt Russell as 11-year-old Todd), Jason Scott Lee (Caine 607), Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum), Connie Nielsen (Sandra), Sean Pertwee (Mace), Jared & Taylor Thorne (Nathan), Mark Bringelson (Lieutenant Rubrick), Gary Busey (Captain Church), K. K. Dodds (Lieutenant Sloan), James R. Black (Riley), Kyle Sullivan (Tommy), Corbin Bleu (Johnny), with Sara Paxton (Angie), and Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig) Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (#1670 - Mortal Kombat, #1688 - Alien vs. Predator, #2158 - Resident Evil)

Review:

Sure, let's have another movie to test my bias for select presences in movies and also movies that came out either before I was born/when I wasn't old enough to stumble onto it on a DVD shelf. It may interest you to know that the movie was written by David Peoples. He was the co-writer of Blade Runner (1982) and other films such as Unforgiven (1992) and 12 Monkeys (1995). Soldier, much like Unforgiven, had languished in development hell for years.  Evidently, at one time, Clint Eastwood was tapped to be involved with filming (you might remember that Eastwood had directed/starred in People's script Unforgiven [1992]) before it eventually fell down to Paul W. S. Anderson and Kurt Russell. While claims have been made that it was envisioned as being a side-sequel to that film, Peoples has denied this, stating that he wrote it in 1984 after having seen The Terminator and wanting to make a movie with a tough guy who actually is the hero, and yes, yes, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, 1991, but hey, Soldier came out in 1998 (at any rate, a movie that shows the combat history of someone at the "Shoulder of Orion" along with getting a "Plissken Patch" is probably just having fun with stuff). The regimen of workouts for Russell led to delays in starting production (which apparently led to Anderson using the time to do Event Horizon [1997]) that also led to planned locations being unused due to bad weather in favor of sets; reportedly, Anderson did a re-write of the film, with Peoples claiming to have not seen the film. Released in October 1998 (a month where the most noted movie released that month was Antz) on a budget of $60 million, the movie was a flop that made less than a fourth of its budget back (dollars aren't everything, of course, but consider the timescape). Anderson's next theatrical project came with Resident Evil (2002) while this happens to be the last script done by Peoples to have been made into a movie.

I'm sure you've heard of a movie with a battle of "obsolete" versus "new" before, and I'm sure you've heard of a Western or two involving a weapon finding a family beyond the bullets. Sure, the adversaries are the bare minimum, and sure the environments are pretty set-bound. You've got a training sequence (told with as little dialogue as possible) to show the trained soldiers from birth in 1996 to the future...of 2036. I guess it depends on how much you take the movie seriously in what it gives you: Is it familiar to those who've seen one too many Westerns like Shane [1953] (only instead of having that little kid whining about coming back, the soldier simply kicks ass and stays around)? Sure. Is it filled with a few too many cliches? Maybe. Do you know where it is going to go where one man seeks to take fellow soldiers to hell? Yea. Did I enjoy this? Yes, I did. So, there's Kurt Russell in a role with as little words to say as possible learning about actual society and defending it by killing as many faceless dudes as it takes to keep himself and others alive. Sore foot or no sore foot, he wasn't going to let it get in the way of a big paycheck and goddamnit, I like his moxie in a movie that is saved from outright mediocrity because he really is that damn good here. He may have been in his late forties here, but he still has the physicality and the presence to make this an interesting character to see grow from a broken weapon to a guy with the semblance of a soul that people want to be around. The adversaries are not exactly given much to do to combat that as tools of a new order of brutality, mainly because Lee doesn't get much to say (as one does from a super soldier that gets their eye gouged out early before getting back to action) and Isaacs is more of a pencil-necked blowhard, but I like their stuff anyway in confrontation with the inevitable. Nielsen and Pertwee lead the ordinary folks down on the desolate lands (which look pretty neat at times) with mixed results - "soldiers deserve soldiers" basically sums up that yea, there's some folks worth saving, but yeah, our eyes are focused on that one guy no matter what. It's a 99-minute adventure that can be fun depending on how many cliches is enough in an obvious action movie. As a whole, the action sequences (such as for the climax) mostly hold things together for a movie that either falls by the wayside for those who don't fall for its cliche charms or has just enough enjoyment to actually make you believe that the film is worth a check. As a clear fan of Russell and a person who likes their action movies of varying levels of ambition, this one is decent enough to say it might be worth your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up - Kristofferson.

*I always try to find time to find a link to an interview or something for research or for fun, so enjoy a Peoples interview - Janet and David Webb Peoples at Cinequest I will say this one quote is kinda funny from Peoples: "Hollywood encourages violence". Well, yes! Isn't that the fun of moviemaking? What's next, wanting movies to have less sex?

Mystery Men.

Review #2568: Mystery Men.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Roy / Mr. Furious), Hank Azaria (Jeffery / Blue Raja), William H. Macy (Eddie / Shoveler), Greg Kinnear (Lance Hunt / Captain Amazing), Kel Mitchell (Invisible Boy), Paul Reubens (Spleen), Janeane Garofalo (Carol / Bowler), Wes Studi (The Sphinx), Claire Forlani (Monica), Geoffrey Rush (Casanova Frankenstein), Lena Olin (Dr. Anabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Artie Lange (Big Red), Louise Lasser (Violet), and Ricky Jay (Vic Weems) Directed by Kinka Usher.

Review: 

"But that’s the nature of filmmaking. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes you just have to go with what you get and just hope it doesn’t make that much of a difference.”

I'm not really sure when I first heard of this movie, to be honest with you. Maybe it was the silly title or seeing a trailer of it on one of those "hey, this is on DVD too" things. But time comes for all things, so screw it, why not this one? Obviously, this had to be based off a comic book, although it is a bit more interesting than the usual source material. It all started with Bob Burden, who wrote and drew a comic called Flaming Carrot Comics that had a guest star with the Mysterymen, a group of "other guys" that consisted of many oddballs such as, well, The Shoveler, Spleen, Mr. Furious, you get the idea (as for the Carrot, well, he had a utility belt, a really strong pogo stick and weapon, and whatever "Zen Stupidity" is). Burden wrote over 30 issues from 1984 to 2006 that had various publishers from Aardvark-Vanaheim to Dark Horse Comics to Image. His work attracted the attention of Lawrence Gordon and Universal Pictures and eventually came into fruition with a first-time director as rejections from filmmakers such as Danny DeVito and Ben Stiller. Kinka Usher had been born in France (to a dance teacher mom and graphic designer dad) before breaking into the film industry in his twenties, which included, and I'm sure this is a surprise, work as a cameraman on a Roger Corman production. He became a director in commercials for various companies and kept on directing them* after this film came and went. Neil Cuthbert (a co-writer on The Return of Swamp Thing [1989] and Hocus Pocus [1993] and future writer of The Adventures of Pluto Nash [2002]) is the credited writer of the film, which had various re-writes that mainly dealt with people wanting to personalize their parts; Burden was even present on set for a few of those days. August 6, 1999 had plenty of cool options for theater releases: this movie, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Iron Giant, The Sixth Sense (and, to be generous, Dick came out two days earlier and the wider release for Blair Witch Project came right before August), with some of those movies becoming successes and some, well, being flops. The movie made less than half of its $68 million budget back and was not exactly a critical darling. 

This is a movie that yearns to be loved by an appreciative crowd, one that knows of the campy weirdness of comic book movies of yesteryear such as say, Batman and Robin (1997) or the current crop of offbeat failures such as Madame Web (2024). Some movies have a chump in the midst of their movie, Mystery Men is basically an entire team of chumps, the kind of folks who basically all represent the many facets of misfits you would see in school for two hours. It's a jumbled mess that will feel like a long bout of twaddle to those who don't like what its selling or will feel like a dream for those who love ridiculous little movies with noted names and the time capsule of good ol' 1999 that has serious-minded people in a silly world that gives them one shot to be on top when the corporate suck-sorry, corporate superhero can't save the city for once. Stiller tries to play it both ways: the bravado of actually trying to ragebait himself into being an actual person that is sometimes interesting. I could take it or leave it with the interactions spent between him and Forlani (who among us has an interest in striking up conversations with the waitress again and again), though. Macy and his can-do attitude of plugging away as a would-be hero is probably the most interesting of the leads because of his charm in the face of what could've easily just been a sad schlub but instead is likable enough to see him try to rise above the crop of mediocrity. I get the joke with Azaria and the attempt at doing a British accent of the highest camp order and also think taking a fork to the throat would be preferable to hearing his bit again, which actually makes hearing the long-winded fart joke of Reubens (who among us wouldn't want to be in a movie basically playing a slob?) tolerable. Kinnear is vastly needed more in his ridiculous mannerisms as a hero who can't exactly handle being "too good" at their job, particularly since Rush is supposed to match him as the main threat of mischief and can only help but pop up every now and then. Garofalo, Mitchell, and a randomly appearing Studi round it out with varying levels of interest (namely with Garofalo). You've got folks who have plugged away (shovels, jobs, you pick one) for years at something only to get silent stares, people who have been overlooked long enough to think they are invisible, folks who put on an accent/act to try and sound normal, folks who have to be rattled to even feel something (strength is one thing, some people actually willingly look at stuff that will get them mad Online) ...and then you've got folks talking in riddles, throwing balls and, well, farting. If taken seriously, it flails around with flab that will foil less patient folks while those who know what they're getting in a "hit or miss" goofy type of comedy will surely find something worth liking with these misfits and their freewheeling of the usual ensemble of would-be heroes and the offbeat ambition and neurosis in all of us.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day! 

Next up: A familiar face with little to say but plenty to do.

*Evidently, there exists an urban legend that Tim Burton actually directed the movie. I cannot imagine a urban legend more absurd. What's next, thinking that Steven Spielberg directed Poltergeist? 

*I swear, this was completely coincidental to review the movie around its 27th anniversary. Also, for fun, enjoy a making of video: Mystery Men Featurette - Spotlight on Location - Interviews With The Cast | 1999

City Heat.

Review #2567: City Heat.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Lieutenant Speer), Burt Reynolds (Mike Murphy), Jane Alexander (Addy), Madeline Kahn (Caroline Howley), Rip Torn (Primo Pitt), Beau Starr (Pitt Lookout), Irene Cara (Ginny Lee), Richard Roundtree (Diehl Swift), Tony Lo Bianco (Leon Coll), William Sanderson (Lonnie Ash), Nicholas Worth (Troy Roker), Robert Davi (Nino), Art LaFleur ("Bruiser"), Arthur Malet (Doc Loomis), and Jack Nance (Aram Strossell) Directed by Richard Benjamin (#1024 - My Favorite Year)

Review: 

I have to admit, the key impetus to actually watching this movie was the fact that it was on a DVD pack, specifically a Clint Eastwood set (paired with Pink Cadillac, of all things). Sure, Eastwood is a curious presence, why not try a comedy? I didn't have enough time to see it back in 2024, but it sure seems time to actually watch what all the fuss is about. Blake Edwards penned the original story (once called "Kansas City Jazz") in the 1970s and it eventually found its way to Warner Bros. wanting to have Edwards direct Reynolds and Eastwood together (previously, Edwards directed Reynolds with The Man Who Loved Women [1983]) Somehow, Eastwood had disagreements over the script and his character and Edwards was soon replaced with Richard Benjamin; this was the second of two movies directed by Benjamin to come out in 1984 after Racing with the Moon. According to Reynolds, Eastwood was fine with Benjamin replacing Edwards while saying the dismissal "hurt [Eastwood] badly". Reynolds claimed that he knew the film was going down the tubes ten days into shooting because he saw his role as such: "playing Jack Lemmon in this strange film where people were getting blown away...The public wanted Boom Town or to see us in a contemporary film. They didn't want Dirty Harry vs. the Wimp." As a result of an accident (reported as either a metal chair to the face or falling from a chair and hitting his jaw), this was not a happy experience for Reynolds. As a result, Joseph C. Stinson was credited as a co-writer of the screenplay with "Samuel O. Brown" (get it? S...O...B.?). Expected to be a big hit with a budget of $25 million and released on the same week as Beverly Hills Cop and 2010 in December 1984, the movie made roughly $38 million as a considerable disappointment. Benjamin kept on as a director with films of extremely varied quality such as The Money Pit (1986), Mermaids (1990), and Marci X (2003).

This might be the most obvious case of seeing a movie and watching it die in real time. Sometimes it looks nice and sometimes it comes off as a comedy and sometimes it has some violence worth being in a buddy action movie...but it never comes off as a complete package. For such a "buddy movie", it just seems more like two short films that got cobbled together, with Reynolds seemingly having the more thankless job of trying to carry a film in doing silly lines and getting beat up a bit while Eastwood basically goes "nope" and "yep". Even being a sendup of the gangster movie isn't that fun because the movie just dawdles for 97 minutes with a blithering plot and little else to go which goes as such: two gangs want this briefcase of records but the guy who stole it ends up dead and a game of "where's the briefcase?" tangles up a cop and cop-turned-private eye into an alliance to not only avenge the dead man & his injured girl but also to rescue both of their would-be lovers (as you do) that ends up in both gangs getting plenty of bullets and fire in them. For such a star-studded cast, it's amazing to make a movie that just feels so small. Sometimes I chuckled, sometimes I rolled my eyes: it's the ultimate 6/10 movie, arguably.

The fact that the movie almost gets to a quality finish line is more of a testament to Reynolds than Eastwood, arguably. I've had a soft spot for Reynolds for a number of years because of the varying heights that came with such a fascinating movie star that I knew was going to make for a curious experience when watching a stinker such as, say, this movie or Stroker Ace (released in 1983 that has been cited as the starting point of his downturn as a star). He may have been approaching middle age with shaky ground in terms of public appearance of his charm (his next movie ended up being the misfire Stick [1985]), but I liked what I saw of him here in the same way that one admires the hokum of someone trying to retain the appearance of legitimacy and virility. This is basically important to at least giving the movie a shot (grinning in the face of mediocrity, an American tradition?), because Eastwood and his routine that comes off as dry with the bare minimum in trying to make a pair that might accidentally make you appreciate The Rookie (1990) in the future of mismatched duos. Eastwood looks like he wants to be anywhere else than here and being a "can take this corny crap in stride" is not a compliment. It also extends to Alexander and Kahn, who are each given thankless tasks to pair off the two male leads that goes nowhere in actual charm (Kahn basically vanishes for a good chunk of the film too, making it even harder, but at least she is paired with Reynolds in...trying to do something). Roundtree and Cara are needlessly given little to actually do (besides being hit by a car), and Alexander being on the bottom edge of the totem pole of "what do they actually do?" is less helpful when you wonder why Torn or Davi are just...there. Whether because of Benjamin or studio arrogance of going "Eastwood and Reynolds, what could go wrong for printing money?" or something else, they never come off as much of a team together. As a whole, City Heat came and went with audiences and hasn't exactly rocketed in reputation four decades later. Flawed as it may be, you could find something curious here. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: A mystery...

*Truthfully, Reynolds was already on my mind for this month with, say, Rent-a-Cop or Striptease. 

Airheads.

Review #2566: Airheads.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Chester "Chazz Darby" Ogilvie), Steve Buscemi (Rex), Adam Sandler (Pip), Chris Farley (Officer Wilson), Michael McKean (Milo Jackson), Judd Nelson (Jimmie Wing), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant O'Malley), Amy Locane (Kayla), Michael Richards (Doug Beech), Joe Mantegna (Ian "The Shark"), Nina Siemaszko (Suzzi), Marshall Bell (Carl Mace), Reg E. Cathey (Marcus), David Arquette (Carter), Michelle Hurst (Yvonne), and Harold Ramis (Chris Moore) Directed by Michael Lehmann (#307 - Hudson Hawk, #1490 - Heathers)

Review:

"My feeling was that I had never done something like this. I was a young filmmaker. I had done a couple of independent movies that were really liked and out of the mainstream. And then I did Hudson Hawk, where definitely the sensibility was a little out of the mainstream and it didn’t play that well out of the mainstream. But I still hadn’t learned my lesson, thankfully, and I thought, I’m going to get people in this movie that you wouldn’t expect to see in a movie like this and that’s going to make it more like something I want to see."

You'll never believe this: an ensemble movie with a bit of music and plenty of attempts at comedy that didn't exactly gel with audiences. The script was done by Rich Wilkes, who had been inspired by a movie he loved with Dog Day Afternoon (1975), specifically in doing a comedic rendition that involved rock and roll. He had done music journalism and interviews prior to writing the spec script that eventually went from Island Pictures to 20th Century Fox. Apparently, Lehmann was the first choice in mind for the movie, with Airheads being his fourth movie as a director, after Heathers (1988), Meet the Applegates (1990), and Hudson Hawk (1991)*. While the studio and Lehmann traded disagreements that resulted in a PG-13 movie rather than, say, the R-rated one he hoped to do, at least the studio did not win the request before production where they wanted to have a comedian to "do a pass on the script" (according to Wilkes, Dennis Miller was that guy). As it happened, Wilkes was involved in two film productions in the year of 1994: The Stone Age, which he co-wrote with James Melkonian that was released in February, and this film, which came out in August. Released in the first week of August alongside such films as Clear and Present Danger and The Little Rascals (with The Mask being a few days beforehand), Airheads was not a financial hit, making barely a third of its reported $15 million budget. Lehmann carried along as a director, with his next movie being The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996) and the reputation of the movie has probably increased in recent years if it inspired people to talk about it for, say, an anniversary retrospective (link here).

For whatever reason, there were actual critiques about the movie either not being an outright comedy or a "satire". Now, I'll level with you: do you really care about "satires"? Do you really care about being subtle in a comedy? Do you really care about anything other than the rockin' beat of a song? Does knowing the "scene" of music such as alternative rock truly matter? Some of those answers are "yes", some of those answers are "no", but I was fine with the overall trip as a whole (besides, it can alway be worse with insulting music, just as The Big Lebowski and that stupid Eagles joke). Sure, it works best when cribbing from The Blues Brothers (1980) rather than Dog Day Afternoon, but it is a neat little movie. It's kind of funny to look at a cast like this and say, yes, one of these folks ended up winning an Academy Award years later.  You've got a little cameo for Harold Ramis (and Lemmy, because hell yeah), Arquette mostly being in the background, three Saturday Night Live guys of the time (Sandler, McKean, and Farley*), a Mike Judge cameo (who among us?), Richards lurking around in his giant frame, but most importantly: a lovable trio of goofballs with Fraser, Buscemi, and Sandler. They have a type of charm that can only come from people wrapped in enough confidence to believe that they really could just waltz in and become rock stars because their stuff is totally the stuff "for the '90s" (not being to actually listen to their songs, for the most part, is kinda funny). They make for quite the trio together in timing, toeing the line in amusement where one likes to see where they go rather than say, laughing at their dream. Sure, I could take it or leave it with Locane* or Farley, but the supporting folks that go around the film such as McKean and his delightfully rat finky performance (less so from Nelson and his attempt to match) or Mantegna and his wannabee Howard Stern* act. I'm a sucker for the people and voices that pop in and out as a time capsule for its time (I imagine that over 30 years, Marky Mark does still suck, although the jury is probably still out on the "Rodney King" chant). For a 92-minute ride, it's a neat comfort movie for those who buy into what it is selling in goofy enthusiasm that likes its folks and likes the scene enough to make it a movie that definitely deserved better.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: At last: Reynolds and Eastwood in City Heat.

*I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Applegates is probably the most mediocre of the first four Lehmann movies if only because it is highly unlikely that Heathers, a movie I didn't like that much, is lower than Hudson Hawk, Airheads, and also a movie about mutant shapeshifters from Brazil living in Ohio.

*Yes, Michael McKean was on Saturday Night Live as a 46-year-old. Also, that would be *future WCW Heavyweight Champion* David Arquette. Hey, I didn't really give that much of a shit about watching him in Scream, were you expecting me to actually cite that movie? By the way, if you read the retrospective link, you'll probably be shocked as I was in the following sentence: Kevin Spacey wanted to be in Airheads! Good lord, imagine that guy being in the movie, what a dodged bullet. 

*Can I state a small pet peeve? I love Ghostbusters (1984), but am I the only one who thinks Ernie Hudson doesn't get the credit he deserves for being a key part of that movie? It's a QUARTET team, not a trio. Hell, The Real Ghostbusters didn't even let him play Winston, what kind of dumbass show does that? I think at least one percent of folks forgetting about Winston in comparison to the others is at least 0.1% based in weirdo prejudice where they can't even admit to being prejudiced. 

*In 2010, Locane, who was found to be over the blood alcohol level, was involved in a car collision that resulted in the death of a woman. She served a few years for vehicular homicide and assault by auto. Incidentally, in 1984, Vince Neil was involved in a car accident that resulted in vehicular manslaughter and DUI charges when a passenger in his car died. He served only 15 days in jail and paid restitution to the victims of the crash - The moral of the story: don't drink and drive.

*Remember when Howard Stern tried to be funny and not whatever the hell he is now? Incidentally, John "Stuttering John" Melendez appears in the movie and even has a song featured. 

Honky Tonk Freeway.

Review #2565: Honky Tonk Freeway.

Cast: 

Beau Bridges (Duane Hansen), Beverly D'Angelo (Carmen Odessa Shelby), William Devane (Mayor Kirby T. Calo), Hume Cronyn (Sherm), Jessica Tandy (Carol), Teri Garr (Ericka Kramer), George Dzundza (Eugene), Joe Grifasi (Osvaldo), Geraldine Page (Sister Mary Clarise), Howard Hesseman (Snapper Kramer), Paul Jabara (T.J. Tupus), Jenn Thompson (Delia Kramer), Peter Billingsley (Billy Kramer), Daniel Stern (Hitchhiker), Celia Weston (Grace), Deborah Rush (Sister Mary Magdalene), Frances Lee McCain (Claire Calo), with Jerry Hardin (Governor), and John Ashton (Otto Kemper) Directed by John Schlesinger (#1431 - Midnight Cowboy)

Review: 

"I see HONKY TONK FREEWAY as a comedy about characters, so it needs extremely fine care and acting. This is what appealed to me, because I’m mainly intrigued with the people in my films rather than with the plot. This is a comedy about people living on the brink, and that’s the way most people actually live, I think. "

To be honest, I had this film on my radar for a couple of months because of its unusual allure. You've got an Academy Award winning director (12 years, but sure), a couple of name actors...and a movie that was a noted financial failure (with Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment in particular taking the hit in a time where they also took part in productions of The Jazz Singer and Can't Stop the Music). Apparently, the first step in the making of the film came with producer Don Boyd, who was travelling around locations when working near Boston that gave him an idea to then take to playwright and aspiring screenwriter Edward Clinton. As it happened, John Schlesinger wanted to make a big comedy movie after finishing work on Yanks (1979). When Schlesinger came into the production (who once stated that some of the charm that attracted him came from the "naivete" and "fresh [writing]" of Clinton), a handful of drafts were crafted with the collaboration of Clinton (which namely involved the characters in town and development). With a movie production he called at the time his "most complicated" (owning to a production that ballooned to over $23 million with filming in Florida [Mount Dora, Sarasota, mostly] to go along with orphans and various animals) before more money was spent on promotion before distribution by Universal Pictures that, to put it mildly, did not find any type of audience. At any rate, Schlesinger did keep directing, with such movies as The Falcon and the Snowman (1985) and Pacific Heights (1990) while Boyd* produced a few films every now and then, most notably with Aria (1987) while Clinton never wrote another film. 

Evidently, certain folks thought the movie was "anti-American". What exactly is un-American about disciplined chaos? People love a good scalawag, particularly when they see themselves in the person getting, shall we say, screwed over. There's a wide variety of ridiculous people all covered with this movie (one with quite the time capsule: a person at one point is shown wearing an ERA yes button*) that happens to be funny (in shorter terms, it's the type of folks who don't care if you use the word "virago"* in a sentence). Is it a great "satire" or one with useful "irony"? Look, let me level with you on something that seems straight enough to ward off a conman: you are either going to have fun with a comedy because you laughed enough times to have it win you over or you did not have fun. I had fun with these oddballs, ones who don't have that much shame to go around. In their eyes, being subtle isn't worth a damn if it doesn't aid in chasing "the dream". Sure, the dream could be as simple as playing hardball to get an off-ramp (what's a little bribery in the name of community), believing that a carnivorous pony is the book ticket, or trying to make it to Florida of all places to settle down*. Some of the episodic elements are hit and miss, mainly because you can only go so far over the place with getting folks to a small Florida town. Devane is probably the best part of the movie because there is something so entertaining about his desperation as both mayor and preacher in a town that goes for whatever he wants in the simple art of the deal: even weird publicity is still publicity (beyond the attempt to make a safari park attraction, anyway*). Dzundza and Grifasi make for fair enough goofball robbers while you get some worthy religious (and inevitable) hypocrisy from the pair of Page and Rush. Others end up mostly fine in characterization but likable enough if you happen to appreciate the presence of say, Bridges (duh) or D'Angelo (sure) or Tandy (take it or leave it). My only quibble is the ending, because it doesn't really know how to end besides, I'm not kidding, a motor collision involving a character nobody cares about (Jabara, playing a wannabee singer in a movie that already loves its title song a bit too much) and a rhino. Sure, it can be construed as following along the lines of other madcap movies such as say, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), but you would hope for something a little better for a movie that already could be thought of as (wrongfully) a poor man's Nashville (1975). As a whole, it comes and goes for 108 minutes of useful enough entertainment that has its ebbs and flows with humor coming in all sides of the oddballs of America that may be up your alley on the curiosity freeway.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Yes, you heard that right, Acknowledged in August Again. I had enough fun with it back in 2024, so let's do it all over again with some movies that didn't get proper recognition back in its day and see if they deserved better. 

Next up...Fraser. Buscemi. Sandler. AIRHEADS!

*Special credit goes to this article I stumbled onto when googling the movie that I think delivers a bit of insight into the movie on their own terms: Box office failure: "Honky Tonk Freeway" and the risks of embarrassing the United States by Julia Prewitt Brown

*Boyd is a busy guy, as evidenced by stuff such as this: The University of Exeter - Honorary Graduates - Saturday 17 January 2009 morning ceremony

*The thing about not being religious is if you don't believe, then Phyllis Schlafly may just be dead rather than in Hell, or, worse yet, Heaven.

*Okay, I read that word in a tweet once.

*I knew someone who lived in Florida. They're dead to me now, but I hope they enjoyed that state because I'll be damned if I spend time there.

*Incidentally, Devane landed his most noted regular role as a politician-turned-businessman in the soap opera Knots Landing two years after this movie. Nice.

Red Sun (1971).

Review #2564: Red Sun.

Cast: 

Charles Bronson (Link Stuart), Ursula Andress (Cristina), Toshirō Mifune (Kuroda Jubei), Alain Delon (Gauche), Capucine (Pepita), Barta Barri (Paco), Lee Burton (Mace), Anthony Dawson (Hyatt), Gianni Medici (Miguel), George W. Lycan (Sheriff Stone), Luc Merenda (Chato), and Tetsu Nakamura (the Japanese Ambassador) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No, #278 - From Russia with Love, #335 - Thunderball, #1763 - Inchon)

Review: 

Yes, there are some movies that do slip by the radar despite having a few big names around the sun. Apparently, the film had been in development since 1968, complete with Toshiro Mifune being tapped early but the idea of having Clint Eastwood as a co-star eventually fizzled. Instead, in perhaps amusing irony, you've got Charles Bronson (one of the stars of The Magnificent Seven, the remake of Seven Samurai) co-starring with Mifune. Laird Koenig wrote the story for the film before a handful of screenwriters came in with Denne Bart Petitclerc (in his first screenplay after writing for TV and fresh off the one season run of creating Then Came Bronson [1969-70]), William Roberts (coincidentally a writer on the Seven film), and Lawrence Roman for what became a French-Italian-Spain production (i.e. filming in Spain and plenty of worldly companies producing the venture, which actually was supposed to be a Warner Bros.-Seven Arts movie). It was the second of three movies that Young made back-to-back with Bronson (a favorite of making movies in Europe that he once stated were thought to be foreign by Americans and American by the Japanese) with Cold Sweat (1970) and The Valachi Papers (1972) being the others (each with varying levels of involvement from French-Italian companies). Incidentally, Mifune learned his lines phonetically, as he did for roles in English (which, well, he didn't know the language, and this isn't even getting into movies where he is dubbed like with Midway [1976]). It didn't exactly become a widely well-known hit, although Mifune's presence apparently got it a couple of attendance records in the run in Japan. Apparently, Quentin Tarantino noted his appreciation of the film on at least one occasion.

 

The term "Spaghetti Western" referred to Westerns produced in Europe that were mostly made in either Italy or Spain. Here lies the setting in 1870, a couple of years after the first Japanese ambassadors arrived in America and yet there are perilous times ahead on a journey through the West through railroads and outlaws. You get an "East meets West" type of buddy movie that makes for an unwieldy but serviceable time to sit through at least once. By the first 25 minutes of its 112-minute runtime, you get the setup that appeals to the most ridiculous of time limits: if the duo fails to recover a gold-handled tachi in one week for the ambassador, the bodyguard and the ambassador will actually commit harakiri (ritualistic suicide*). Heck, by the time 40 minutes are gone, you already got a brief goofy fight to make light of Bronson trying to "fight" Mifune. In that sense, Bronson probably benefits from a clash of macho-ness with Mifune where he seems to not aim for the usual dry self in the "shoot-and-slash" pace of action. Sure, he still is outdone by Mifune in the type of presence that comes with basically commanding the screen without having to say much, but I think you get the appeal that each bring in learning what really matters in "honor". Honestly, the film needed a bit more from Andress and others, because it really is a road film with Bronson & Mifune and Delon basically sucks out the rest of the energy even with the limited time basically being a mustache-twirler type of adversary. The sequence near the climax where they have to confront Comanches does veer into a few cliches, but at least the movie finds a way to close itself out with a mostly deserving finish (predictable, sure, but familiar fun is still fun). The landscape may seem familiar, and the carnage may be inevitable (dynamite, train robberies, and double-crosses), but that's part of the fun if you buy what Young and company is selling for flim-flam charm. As a whole, it isn't a great movie by any means, but it has a few entertaining moments with a dynamite enough duo with Bronson and Mifune leading the way to make it a curious recommendation for those who like oddball type of Westerns.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Come one, come all, be ready for another month-long celebration in August on Movie Night with...Acknowledged in August Again

*Seppuku, harakiri, you get the idea.

Shin Godzilla.

Review #2563: Shin Godzilla.

Cast: 

Hiroki Hasegawa (Rando Yaguchi), Yutaka Takenouchi (Hideki Akasaka), Satomi Ishihara (Kayoko Ann Patterson), Ren Ōsugi (Prime Minister Seiji Okochi), Akira Emoto (Ryuta Azuma), Kengo Kôra (Yusuke Shimura, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary), Mikako Ichikawa (Hiromi Ogashira, Deputy Director), Jun Kunimura (Masao Zaizen, Integrated Chief of Staff), Pierre Taki (Saigo, Combat Leader), Kyūsaku Shimada (Katayama, Minister of Foreign Affairs), Ken Mitsuishi (Kozuka, Governor of Tokyo), Shingo Tsurumi (Yajima, Joint Staff Deputy), Kimiko Yo (Reiko Hanamori, Defense Minister), Takumi Saitō (Ikeda, Tank Captain), Takashi Fujiki (Tokyo Lieutenant Governor), Yû Kamio (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), with Suzuki Matsuo (Journalist), Takahiro Miura (Journalist) and Mansai Nomura (Godzilla, motion capture) Directed by Hideaki Anno (#2344 - The End of Evangelion) and Shinji Higuchi.

Review: 

"In the world of fantastical scifi, Godzilla isn’t just an embodiment of hopes and dreams, but a caricature of reality–almost a kind of satirical reflection of the world. Painting present-day Japan in that light is something of a crazy experiment." - Hideaki Anno

"Shin Godzilla is a very different kind of Godzilla movie to its predecessors. So I was bracing for the movie-going audience to say, "Oh, this isn't Godzilla." But they were surprisingly very receptive to what we were trying to do.  They also fully picked up the the intent and nuance I tried to pour into the film." - Shinji Higuchi

Once upon a time, the Godzilla movies were on ice. Godzilla: Final Wars, released in 2004, was the sixth and final movie released by Toho in their third phase of making the films (which is basically split into eras of their emperor with "Shōwa", "Heisei" or, "Godzilla [1998] sucked, let's make movies again" or, uh, "Reiwa, otherwise known as "Godzilla [2014] rocked, let's make movies again"). So, with the success of the 2014 American rendition, Toho moved quickly to announce the resurgence of the series being in production (one with a title that basically can be construed as "new", "true", or "god", as opposed to, say, "Godzilla Resurgence"). The film was directed by Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi, who had worked together on Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, both renditions of Neon Genesis Evangelion, along with Love & Pop (1998)*; Higuchi served as VFX director while Anno served as co-editor and writer for the movie, which drew inspiration from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. The effect for Godzilla was done with computer-generated imagery that saw motion capture utilized (after debating using a puppet). Released in Japan on July 29, 2016, the movie was a considerable success and a few months later it even got a release in America, the first one for the series since Godzilla 2000 [1999]. Due to the contract signed by Toho and Legendary Entertainment, the next live-action Godzilla movie could not be produced until at least 2020; it couldn't stop them from doing animated films, which is where the animated trilogy (Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters [2017], Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle [2018], Godzilla: The Planet Eater [2018]) comes in before Godzilla Minus One came around in 2023.

I wonder how this would've felt in 2016, with a 19-year-old* me, one who had only seen the 1954 movie and the 2014 American film at the time, I really do. Maybe I would've got a big kick out seeing it in a theater in the same way that Godzilla Minus One rocked my imagination years later. But this is 2026, I'm nearly 30, and at the end of the day, this is just an okay Godzilla movie that is not nearly as interesting as it believes itself to be for the approach that they aimed for.  This isn't even a complaint about what I wanted the movie to be, this is merely just me believing that things really haven't changed that much from the sequences in 1960s Godzilla movies in conference table discussion. Sure, the camera angles are sometimes neat, and there are little moments to chuckle with amidst the endless displays of who is who. But at a certain point, you can imagine someone watching the film at home (not in theaters, heaven forbid yelling there) and going, "who cares?" I suppose there is a bit of imagination need to believe there was something in their lives besides the minutiae of conference rooms just like with the older ones; I'll give it the pass that the entertainment value mostly overrides the middling characters.² Would the movie be higher on the supposed "bleak scale" some people label it, if, say, the National Diet had been vaporized? (I had a feeling that one of the Godzilla films of the past few decades had a different type of ending, and what do you know, Godzilla 2000 ends with Godzilla going through Tokyo). Going through conference rooms may be exciting to you in hearing what someone might do in the event of a disaster (do you also love doing your taxes?), but being outside feels freer for a movie. The atomic breath sequence is fun not only because it dispenses with one piece of the "who cares?" puzzle but also because, wait for it, it involves Godzilla being cool as hell in destruction. Sure, some folks probably loved it for being, say, complimentary of the Self-Defense Forces, but the real attraction is what you see of its monster, the eventual method of containment (face it, you know no matter what, the movie will not end like Terminator 3) and then, maybe remembering the face of one of the people in the movie. It really is a movie of adaptability: Godzilla adapts into multiple forms (some of them are pretty neat, arguably), the politicians either have to adapt for their country's sake or die (with or without the American government looming) and you either adapt to the film's rhythm for two hours or fall by the wayside.

There are moments with Hasegawa that does invite curiosity in juggling ambition and, well, actually being clever enough to listen and also lead people around him. In theory, the best one to tag along in the discussion part of the film (i.e., stuck in a room with nerds rather than political nerds*) is Ichikawa, mainly because they sound incisive...sure is a shame they only pop up here and there. Apparently, Ishihara felt the pressure in having to deal with the amount of lines in English (as one does when playing an American senior official) that ends up as pretty jarring (reading subtitles is one thing, imagine if you suddenly hear English all of a sudden) when compared to everyone else in vague nature anyway. Arguably, Minus One and this movie share a handful of aspects: both involve a fresh take involving the nature of man when confronting a great threat (bureaucrats in one circle, folks coming off the end of a war in another), both set themselves apart as a fresh reboot that doesn't involve introducing a second monster (the only other non-monster mash Godzilla movie in the last few decades was The Return of Godzilla back in 1984, although that one acted as a "direct sequel" to the first film), and both involve an ending inviting the possibility of a follow-up emergence(^). I felt like I cared more about what I saw in Minus One than what happened with this movie (the milage may vary when it comes to that 2014 American one), but I feel like I should be fairer to the 2016 movie for basically accomplishing its goal of a distinct take on a creature and government going in tandem in adaptability. As a whole, Shin Godzilla is basically fine, surely inspiring curiosity for its place within modern renditions of monster movies from the people that like its pacing and ones who don't have as much fun with it. At a certain point, I had to realize, yeah, this movie did achieve the goals set out on the scale and ambition required in a Japanese movie. Regardless, it has enough entertainment value worth recommending at least once for a movie that is now ten years old.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Incidentally, Anno wrote Higuchi's Shin Ultraman (2022) and later wrote and directed Shin Kamen Rider (2023).

*December birthdays stay undefeated.

²People love giving the Legendary Pictures Godzilla movies shit for their middling characterization in the face of monster mashes, which to me is funny as hell because brother, what do you think I'm here for in a theater? At a certain point for some movies, the line between "I wanted to see X in the movie" and "I wanted to be interested in the movie" collapses for some movies.

*People who are nerdy about politics are the biggest dweebs imaginable, change my mind. At least the guys who are weird about the lore of movies keep it roughly on the level. 

[^] Higuchi did mention a few small parallels with The Return of Godzilla - SHIN GODZILLA Interview with Shinji Higuchi, Discussing THE RETURN OF GODZILLA and SHIN GODZILLA's Shocking Finale - Daily Dead

Oddly, both also have an available version where you can see the movie in black and white. Also, good god, imagine a Shin Godzilla sequel that has actually *not* focus on the bureaucracy for a moment and actually care about people in the city? The horror! It almost feels like the reverse of my slight bone to pick with Evangelion: at a certain point, I did roll my eyes at Shinji's inner life and wanted to aim my eyes anywhere else. Specifically, Misato. 

In fairness to 2014 Godzilla, I remember loving it a bit back then and slightly less the next time I saw it over five years later because, hey, why the hell would you kill off Bryan Cranston's character? 12 years later, you really can ask: Who cares about (or remembers) Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character? 

Obligatory link, i.e. the only review of the movie I ever watched of the film (also, we love old Cinemassacre)

For the purposes of having a reference of previous Godzilla movies, inquire here: 

The original 1954 classic and its decent 1955 sequel

King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) - Godzilla fights King Kong to a relative draw.

Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964) - Mothra joins the mash!

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964) - A monster so important it made the title

Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) - Nick Adams in: Spaceman's Adventure

Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966) - Terrorists, lobsters, and more.

Son of Godzilla (1967) - A real family drama

Destroy All Monsters (1968) - Mash like it's 1999 in Monsterland

All Monsters Attack (1969) - Children and Minilla have to fight their own battles instead of Godzilla

Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971) - Trippy environmentally hip fun for the whole family

Godzilla vs. Gigan (1972) - Godzilla towers and a clip show all in one

Godzilla vs. Megalon (1973) - The one with Jet Jaguar the robot with a theme song.

I'll get to the ones from Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974) to Godzilla Final Wars (2004) eventually. Have fun!