House (1977).

Review #737: House.

Cast
Kimiko Ikegami (Gorgeous), Miki Jinbo (Kung Fu), Kumiko Oba (Fantasy), Ai Matubara (Prof), Mieko Sato (Mac), Eriko Tanaka (Melody), Masayo Miyako (Sweet), Yōko Minamida (Auntie), Kiyohiko Ozaki (Keisuke Tôgô), Saho Sasazawa (Father), and Ryoko Ema (Haruko Wanibuchi) Directed by Nobuhiko Obayashi.

Review
I don't know what to say. This is...weird. But for me, it's the kind of weirdness that I embrace. This Japanese world cinema film (also known as Hausu) came from Toho, who wanted to get in on the popularity of Jaws, with Obayashi only directing because no other director wanted to do it. And yes, the story of the movie was done by Chigumi Obayashi, his daughter. Production notes aside, the movie itself is an experience to behold. This is not a horror movie in the conventional sense, nor is it a horror-comedy in that way either. Yes, people do killed in the movie. I never thought I'd be laughing after seeing a head fly out a well, laugh, and then bite someone before fluttering away. In terms of the acting, it resonates well with the manic pace, especially regarding Jinbo and her action scenes. There is no comparison because House is in a league of its own, especially with the effects, which fit the tone of the movie, being as intentionally weird and unrealistic. Here you get to see seven girls deal with a haunted horror house, all while enjoying yourself and trying to find the jigsaw pieces that make this puzzle. But the real fun is watching the jigsaw puzzle become more and more jumbled, eventually ending weirder than when the movie first began. This is the kind of movie you watch late at night, not so much for the horror, but just to enjoy the ride and embrace the weirdness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Page of Madness.

Review #735: A Page of Madness.

Cast
Masao Inoue (Servent), Ayako Iijima (Servent's daughter), Yoshie Nakagawa (Servent's wife), Hiroshi Nemoto (Young man), Misao Seki (Doctor), Minoru Takase (Crazy man A), Eiko Minami (Dancer), Kyosuke Takamatsu (Crazy man B), Tetsu Tsuboi (Crazy man C), and Shintarô Takiguchi (Boy) Directed by Teinosuke Kinugasa.

Review
World cinema films are interesting to review because they can provide a look into the culture and movie techniques of the time, along with being something different as opposed to the regular state of affairs here. And hey, this is also a silent movie from Japan. But let's go one further: This movie has no inter-titles, making it a rare kind of silent film, one in which its all up to the viewer to try to tell what's going on. The movie (also known as Kurutta Ippēji) had a low budget, comprised of silver painted walls and opening credits that were turned page by page (with a hand sticking out in some shots), but the movie's experimental avant-garde style fits perfectly, particularly with the opening scene, with shots of dim lighting and use of shadows. You can try to figure the movie out, or just step back and watch the images put on screen. The movie is interesting to watch because it doesn't quite follow conventions while also displaying a variety of images, ending with masks. The actors certainly emote well in the offbeat world the movie establishes for itself. One notable fact is that the movie's story had four writers, including the director and Yasunari Kawabata, who later won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1968. This film was lost for 45 years until Kinugasa found it in his storehouse. For the re-release, Aono Jikken Ensemble did the music to accompany it, which I saw in this version. Speaking of which, the music certainly fits with the haunting quality of the movie, not being distracting and fitting with the eccentric quality of a film such as this, which manages to be a one-of-a-kind movie that can be appreciated for all of its quirks. The run time is just barely under an hour, which is a plus for anyone looking to enjoy some cinema from almost 80 years ago that manages to resonate today.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 4.

Review #734: Lethal Weapon 4.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Jet Li (Wah Sing Ku), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Chris Rock (Detective Lee Butters), Kim Chan (Uncle Benny Chan), Steve Kahan (Captain Ed Murphy), Calvin Jung (Detective Ng), Jack Kehler (U.S. State Department Official), and Eddy Ko (Hong) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, and #731 - Lethal Weapon 3)

Review
It's hard to say how I feel about finally finishing this series of films. On the one hand, the first two movies are really, really excellent buddy cop movies. On the other hand, the last two don't exactly cut it. It really is hard to stay fresh when you've already done three films. Remember how I said the last movie had a lack of punch? This film essentially is a sucker punch when it comes to action, though the effectiveness of it all depends on the audience. It does have a good deal of night-time action, and even Riggs and Murtaugh get bloodied up, which I guess is some sort of variety (seriously, they have more than just bruises - one's on crutches!), and shows that...yeah, they really too old for this-you get the idea. But was this film really necessary? I suppose if you like fours, sure. The cast is fine, and Gibson-Glover is about enjoyable as they have been earlier. Russo is given barely any time, but she does fine. Li doesn't speak too much, though at least he knows how to beat the snot out of people. Is he a good villain? Not really, but at least he puts up a fight. Pesci and Rock are (mostly) endearing, being relevant to the plot just enough. The underlying problem with the movie is that it isn't as funny (or fun) to watch. Remember the toiler bomb scene in the 2nd movie? It was funny, in a movie that really set the bar for action-comedy. In this? Murtaugh's house gets burned down, and unless being saved by a kid is funny, that whole sequence to me just sums the relative lack of fun emitted in this one. Sure, there is a scene with laughing gas that is fun (unless you've already seen people laughing and laughing over and over *cough* Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), but the action and tone pretty much suffocate the movie. The opening sequence is entertaining, and even the ending is poignant enough, but the movie isn't so lucky. Don't get me wrong: This is not a bad movie. It is entertaining, though not so much as before. At least it is a good way to end the series, no matter any attempts Hollywood will try in remaking the magic.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.