Us (2019).

Review #1203: Us.

Cast: 
Lupita Nyong'o (Adelaide Wilson / Red), Winston Duke (Gabriel "Gabe" Wilson / Abraham), Shahadi Wright Joseph (Zora Wilson / Umbrae), Evan Alex (Jason Wilson / Pluto), Elisabeth Moss (Kitty Tyler / Dahlia), Tim Heidecker (Josh Tyler / Tex), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Russel Thomas / Weyland), Anna Diop (Rayne Thomas / Eartha), and Cali and Noelle Sheldon (Becca and Lindsey Tyler / Io and Nix) Directed by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out)

Review: 
When Jordan Peele made his directorial debut with Get Out two years ago, I certainly did not know what I was expecting exactly, but I figured that it would prove just fine in delivering some kind of horror. It certainly proved to be a success - how many other horror films win (much less get nominated for) an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay? Undeniably, his next venture into horror can prove enticing, with him once again serving as director, writer, and producer, with an increased budget and some inspiration from The Twilight Zone (more specifically, "Mirror Image") this time around. The idea of being stalked by someone that looks like you certainly can prove creepy, particularly if you and your whole family meet them up close. In the long run, the film presents an assortment of interesting concepts encompassed in a horror film that works itself out just fine. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as much as it really should with its plot, but it is at least handy to deliver some scares and a few laughs without being distracted too much with tonal disconnect. It will please people wanting something that don't want too much blood but are fine with some creepy imagery and atmosphere, that much is certain. The film takes its time to get the ball rolling in suspense, but you never feel too particularly bored with the main group during its 116 minute run-time. It is the chemistry that the main four have with each other - whether dealing with family stuff or suspenseful moments that make the film work as well as it does, with no weak point in the cast as a whole. Nyong'o proves up to the task of dual roles when needed, showing resolve in the face of danger while dealing with past demons and conversely showing anguish and terror - albeit with aid through a pained croak that takes some time to get used to. Duke shines finely enough, with Joseph and Alex proving effective for the course in playing off the main menace with resilience (and vice versa in a sense for the doubles). Moss and Heidecker provide a bit of levity for their moments on screen. Describing the film and its plot in much detail would spoil the fun (at least for me, anyway) in actually experiencing its frights and tricks without real warnings - although I can at least say it isn't the kind of film that trips over its own hype and story (for the most part). The climax is fairly clever in its own machinations (with some help from Michael Abels and his music), but I feel that its method of exposition dump (or whatever you describe it as) does tend to be a bit silly. It isn't so much that I don't care for things in a film to be explained or not (as is the case sometimes with horror films or their sequels, anyway) - it just seems a bit forced in view of its placement within the film and it messes with its illusions in some way; it certainly will provoke a bit of thinking with what it says about what it means to be oneself, which is fine by me. Regardless of how one may feel with how the film deals with its motivations, the movie itself is an interesting and well-made horror film, having a solid cast and capable guiding hands from Peele. He certainly knows how to make his film stand out on their own as interesting pieces to get thrills from through the tropes of horror without so far succumbing to being bogged down in overextending himself too much. I imagine whatever his next venture into horror (or whatever it might be) will certainly provide curiosity to follow into its web of interest.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Star Creatures.

Review #1202: Invasion of the Star Creatures.

Cast: 
Robert Ball (Pvt. Philbrick), Frank Ray Perilli (Pvt. Penn), Gloria Victor (Dr. Puna), Dolores Reed (Prof. Tanga), Trustin Howard (Sergeant), and Mark Ferris (Colonel Thomas Awol) Directed by Bruno VeSota.

Review: 
Sometimes you just know a film is going to be trouble with the credits. What should I really expect from "R.I. Diculous Presents"? Believe it or not, the script (known under titles such as "Monsters from Nicholson Mesa") was written by Jonathan Haze, star of The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) who was originally intended to also star in the film - although this did not come to pass. Perhaps Haze (and b-movie director VeSota, who also starred in Roger Corman productions such as Attack of the Giant Leeches) should have thought hard about what they were getting into before deciding to go for comedy, since the only achievement that they have done is that they made a comedy that garners less laughs than films not going for laughs on purpose. If A Bucket of Blood is entertaining for its balance of horror and black comedy, perhaps this film is that one's dopey cousin that likes to daydream about silly gags and alien women that you can get to love you by kissing them. After all, one of the producers is Samuel Arkoff, whose company American International Pictures helped distribute both features. This was actually released on a double-bill with The Brain That Wouldn't Die - it is actually hard to tell which is worse. Having either fact only makes it easier to recommend literally any other AIP film than this one. Ball and Perilli are our main duo for 70 minutes (80 for the television version), and it occurs fairly quickly that they will prove tiresome, since they are tedious to follow along with not being too particularly funny to boot. This is a film that thinks that a sergeant talking in beatnik slang will surely get the laughs going. By the time the alien women appear on screen, it seems like a sigh of relief - having different faces to watch that aren't torturing the masses with lame gags. Victor and Reed aren't exactly given much to do besides tower over the bumbling duo and occasionally talk about their (supposedly) devious plot; perhaps a campy action sci-fi film would've made for a better use of their time, although they wouldn't be helped by their alien accomplices, involving guys in carrot costumes. Perhaps they thought they were being funny with the costume use, but the movie is such a dud that it doesn't really matter how they really look - they might as well have been dressed as killer clowns or sunflowers. It is a bland movie packed with jokes best suited for the grand art of making strangers on the street groan while trying to make them be your friend. This film has no friend except for late night showings by people who like to loathe themselves for an hour or need something to be on when checking their phones or reading a book. In other words, the film sucks.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Review #1201: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Joel Barish), Kate Winslet (Clementine Kruczynski), Kirsten Dunst (Mary), Mark Ruffalo (Stan), Elijah Wood (Patrick), Tom Wilkinson (Dr. Mierzwiak), Jane Adams (Carrie), David Cross (Rob), and Deirdre O'Connell (Hollis Mierzwiak) Directed by Michel Gondry (#451 - The Green Hornet)

Review: 
Memories are a funny thing. Whether they are ones that we prefer to reminisce about or ones that we look back on with a tinge of regret, this is a film that likes to play with memory while dealing what it means to live with emotions that can come from a relationship - whether it involves pain or pleasure. Imagine a person in your life that you loved or cared for at one point in time and having them disappear from your memory just like that; the film certainly creates a world where it feels pretty routine (with one line involving someone trying to have the procedure for a third time in a month), where people map out memories of someone, go to sleep and then awaken to the disappearance of the heartache and faded memories left behind. With different hands, one could probably have made a horror film with the concept of erasing someone from your mind (or perhaps a straight-forward romcom), but it is the handiwork of Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth that make such a clever and original story worth spending time with. It plays itself into numerous genres, such as romance, science-fiction, and comedy-drama. It is a fascinating film to watch play out, particularly with its main performances from Carrey and Winslet. It plays with the audience and their expectations without feeling like a cynical (or sappy) cheat, having plenty of emotion alongside a few interesting effects and a bit of improvisation. Carrey, playing against type, does a wonderful job, being quite entertaining to watch in a shy yet capable role that never seems too sullen or annoying to be around. Winslet is quirky, unpredictable, unfiltered, and quite right for her role, having plenty of range and intensity to her performance, whether when interacting with Carrey in memories or beyond; their chemistry is what makes the film work as well as it does, being snappy and interesting without falling prey to cliches or being undeserving of its moments, particularly with its final scene. The rest of the cast is also quite good, with Dunst and Ruffalo being charming in their scenes together (such as when they jump on the bed in the middle of the memory procedure; Wood and Wilkinson are fine to watch, both handling their parts in memory erasure with varying results that make them handy to see. What makes the film stick out is its willingness to play with its structure and unfold the way it wants and have the audience make sure to pay attention and not simply let things pass by. It doesn't present high stakes, but that is because it wants to aim for something engaging in actuality - to paraphrase from a quote from the film, it is looking for its own peace of mind. Films can often inspire debate and discussion over its meaning or intent, and this is an easy one to inspire exploration for. Fifteen years after its release (which resulted as a mild success with audiences and an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a wildly entertaining ride that proves just right for numerous types of curiosities and tastes, tugging with emotion without going overboard in all the right places to make a winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Captain Marvel.

Review #1200: Captain Marvel.

Cast: 
Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Vers / Captain Marvel), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Ben Mendelsohn (Talos / Keller), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Lashana Lynch (Maria Rambeau), Gemma Chan (Minn-Erva), Annette Bening (Supreme Intelligence / Mar-Vell / Dr. Wendy Lawson), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), and Jude Law (Yon-Rogg) Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck.

Review: 
There have now been 21 films produced by Marvel Studios that is part of their cinematic universe, for which they have managed to set stages for the rise of numerous heroes for the past decade. Just as the era seems to possibly reach its peak with the final Avengers film comes another hero to join the fray, barely a month before said release. The film has certainly taken its time to get to the finish line, moving from an initial script done in 2013 to eventually enlisting a director/writer duo in Fleck and Boden in 2017, who had previously done films such as Mississippi Grind (2015) along with work on television programs. How many times can one make a superhero origin movie full of effects and action held together through a formula that seems as familiar as ever? I find myself liking these type of films just fine, but there is likely a point where the product doesn't resonate as entertainment, and it will likely be when the story and themes can't be held up from its main hero, when one just doesn't care about the stakes. I don't usually re-watch films often, and I can't particularly say that I really go back to these comic book films too much either (regardless of what brand is behind it). Perhaps it would be best to say that while I did find the film to be just fine, I would hope that a future installment manages to give its lead character a bit more conflict, particularly with its main threat.

Granted, there is plenty of galactic action to go around, but it doesn't have as many compelling levels as it probably should. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch, with Larson, Jackson, and Mendelsohn being keys to giving the film a steady balance. Larson does seem at first to be like a blank slate to fill details in gradually, which goes okay. As is the case with most heroes, it is nice to see her put a suit on and beat some enemies, even if the story that surrounds her is just alright for the course. It is nice to see Jackson (albeit with some digitally de-ageing that takes some time to get used to) deliver some enjoyment and a few laughs in a part that feels just fine for a buddy cop movie. Mendelsohn is also fairly amusing to stick around with, particularly when in his human disguise. The other members of the cast are okay, although they don't feel too particularly developed with much to do, such as Law or Bening. At least the 90s references are amusing without being obnoxiously self-aware. Comparing the film to more recent films of its ilk (such as Wonder Woman or Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, for example) does tend to make the film seem a bit average. It is surprising to see how many films can persist on in showing people with their newly found heroic powers and the responsibility that comes with it - some do better with showing conflict and adventure than others. The film takes its 124 minute run-time and runs just fine with showing spectacle while trying to make sure its story has a few connections for its audiences without gasping for relevance, which delivers decent results. It may not be unique with its motivations (or its character types), but it sure pushes itself amiably. This one will check the boxes for people already in line for these kind of movies, and while it may not be as interesting as it could have been (in terms of its story and pace), it is at least something you can take without many regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Poltergeist III.

Review #1199: Poltergeist III.

Cast:
Tom Skerritt (Bruce Gardner), Nancy Allen (Pat Gardner), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Lara Flynn Boyle (Donna Gardner), Richard Fire (Dr. Seaton), Nathan Davis (Reverend Henry Kane), and Kipley Wentz (Scott) Directed by Gary Sherman.

Review:
Was there really a big desire to make another Poltergeist film? The previous films were successes with audiences (with the first making ten times its budget and the second making double), so why not make a cheap sequel - complete with O'Rourke and Rubinstein being the only ones returning, with a reduced budget of $9.5 million, roughly less than half of the sequel's budget. Sherman (who directed and co-wrote the film with Brian Taggert) thought that the setting of the film being a building was a scary one, stating that "there are people on the other side of the wall, and no one cares that you are in trouble". Perhaps that could have proven true, but the final result is a movie that proves to be just another disappointing Poltergeist sequel. The film sure tries to make sure you won't forget who Carol Anne is, since characters in the film keep saying her name. I lost count after about the tenth time Kane (or someone else) said it, and it sure seems more like something to ridicule than be terrified of.

I do appreciate the in-camera effects, which were done live on the stage, with some highlights including a corpse being clawed out of at one point, and some of the mirror effects are a bit spooky. They can't save a movie that seems to meander in cheese. Nobody in the film does a terrible job, but they can't really give this film any sense of suspense or sell this as something worth using much effort over. Skerritt and Allen are okay at least, although the tonal shift for Allen's character near the climax feels abrupt and tacked on in order to deliver tension. O'Rourke does a fine job with her role once again, just as captivating and watchable as before in her final film. Rubenstein is just as offbeat as ever with giving exposition and occasional amusement, such as when she interrupts her session of tea and drops everything to fly on a plane after sensing danger for Carol Anne. Boyle and Wentz are okay, but their characters don't really have much to do other than just play the teenagers in a horror film (with the latter being forgotten about when it came to the ending). The angle involving the family and O'Rourke doesn't really hit as well when compared to the family angle from the previous two films. Fire is pretty annoying, but it is a bit hard to really make a skeptic in a horror film (particularly a sequel) seem anything other than just one to make for conflict, and he isn't really too interesting to follow with in any case. Davis (or more specifically, Corey Burton in a recording booth smoking a bunch of cigarettes to get that proper raspy voice) doesn't make for much of a villainous presence, perhaps in part because it is strange to even see Kane again in the first place. They might as well had just made up a new villain anyway, since his return is just as strange, seeing as Carol Anne was doing a bunch of hypnosis sessions while attending some sort of school for the gifted - complete with a skeptic doctor who believes it is all a product of mass hypnosis (which is pretty stupefying, actually). I guess getting stabbed with a spear just isn't enough closure. In any case, the film just doesn't have a real big scare up its sleeve besides occasional tricks for its 98 minute run-time.

The ending of the film is a letdown, particularly with its stinger that actually tries to sequel-bait. The film had its ending changed in post-production, which was actually more optimistic than what eventually made it onto the screen. Both endings keep the sacrifice made by Tangina, but while the original ending simply had the family return to the real world, the revised ending includes the John Hancock Center having two lightning bolts strike it (the only visual effect added in post-production) while Kane's laughter is heard; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer wanted to punch-up the ending, which I suppose they valued more than a real ending. It should be noted that the re-shoot (done months after production ended) occurred without O'Rourke, who tragically died on February 1, 1988 from misdiagnosed intestinal stenosis. Four months later, the film was released, with the movie not being as successful with audiences - in part due to reduced marketing by MGM, who wanted to avoid being thought as exploitative, to the point where Skerritt and Allen did not do interviews for the film, lest they get asked questions about O'Rourke. In any case, the film is just not that scary, feeling just as pale of an imitation as the original, with only occasional bits of interest sprinkled in. If you were into the sequel and want to see a further supernatural tale involving some of the characters from before, this may work for you. Anybody looking for a quality follow-up to just the original or one wanting a proper close to the series will probably be disappointed.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Poltergeist II: The Other Side.

Review #1198: Poltergeist II: The Other Side.

Cast: 
Craig T. Nelson (Steven Freeling), JoBeth Williams (Diane Freeling), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne Freeling), Oliver Robins (Robbie Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Will Sampson (Taylor), Julian Beck (Rev. Henry Kane), and Geraldine Fitzgerald (Jessica Wilson) Directed by Brian Gibson.

Review: 
The original Poltergeist (1982) was an entertaining supernatural horror film that had plenty of chills and atmosphere within direction from Tobe Hooper with a story from Steven Spielberg. Four years later, a sequel followed, albeit with some differences. Hooper and Spielberg did not return, although the two writers that helped co-write the screenplay with Spielberg (Michael Grais and Mark Victor) did return, and they also served to produce the feature. Most of the family cast (except Domnique Dunne, who was murdered months after the original film's release) return this time around along with Rubenstein. Admittedly they do try to make the material seem passable and not too hokey, but the film as a whole isn't quite up to par with generating scares. Nelson and Williams seem to just go with the flow, for better or worse. O'Rourke and Robins are fine to watch as well. Rubenstein doesn't have too much to do, with Sampson (in his second-to-last role before his death in 1987) taking the role of "spiritual advice", which he does fine with. The film is best at showing how hard it is to make a horror sequel, particularly one that tries to build on the plot from the previous film, particularly with its main terror of The Beast. It was described in the first film as a "terrible presence...So much rage, so much betrayal." 

Now the Beast is explained to be a cultist preacher. Beck, a co-founder of The Living Theatre in his final role before his death from stomach cancer in 1985, is an okay villain, but I feel that the ominous presence from the original delivered more effective chills than having to rely on one singular figure, although at least the porch scene is a bit creepy. I do find it amusing that they turned the old house location into a paranormal digging excavation, alongside the fact that traveling to the other side apparently made the mom and the daughter clairvoyant. In trying to build and follow the original, this sequel feels flat and not too particularly interesting, not having as many dark elements that resonate while feeling a bit silly with some of its motivations. The only real memorable sequence involves a worm, brought on by drinking of a certain substance that the Beast somehow possesses, which makes for a slightly disturbing (if not also slightly ham-handed) sequence with a big ugly worm.  It may have less of a run-time than the original, but it somehow still feels a bit sluggish. The film had an original running time of 131 minutes before being edited down to 91 minutes. It isn't too hard to see elements of a rushed production from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, particularly with the final battle, which last all of two minutes that serves to bring the whole film to a letdown. On the whole, there just isn't much of a spark to drive this film towards suspenseful entertainment, serving as the kind of horror sequel that in attempting to build on previous foundation manages to flounder too many times to really work out. It isn't the kind of film you would regret ever watching, but it also isn't one that really merits too much curiosity unless you are really big on supernatural stories with occasional scares.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Deep.

Review #1197: The Deep.

Cast: 
Robert Shaw (Romer Treece), Jacqueline Bisset (Gail Berke), Nick Nolte (David Sanders), Louis Gossett Jr. (Henri 'Cloche' Bondurant), Eli Wallach (Adam Coffin), Dick Anthony Williams (Slake), Earl Maynard (Ronald), and Bob Minor (Wiley) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt and #927 - Krull)

Review: 
Perhaps The Deep was destined to lurk in the depths of mediocrity due to riding on the coattails of Jaws, since both films were adaptations of novels by Peter Benchley, who also happened to co-write the screenplay for both features, doing this film with Tracy Keenan Wynn, although it was Tom Mankiewicz who provided a major re-write (while going un-credited for his help), with Shaw (in his third-to-last role before his death in 1978) having a main role for both movies. The best thing that can be said for this film is that while it isn't too particularly thrilling, it is at least a decent yarn that can be fine to look at and follow along with for a while if one has the patience to go through its 124 minute run-time. It isn't a classic by any means,in part because it doesn't really have much depth, but it probably works best as something to digest much in the same way one eats food from the fridge late at night, no matter how fresh or stale it seems.

The trio of Shaw-Bisset-Nolte is a decent one, carrying the film just fine at times, not being a particularly strong group by any means but being useful enough to serve the film and its shaky bumps. Shaw is fairly entertaining with his gruff mannerisms that serve to give exposition or to loosely interact with the others. Bissett does fine with her role, even if she only occasionally is given something interesting to say for the plot, which moves somewhat sluggishly. Nolte, starring in only his second theatrical role, is alright, but he doesn't really have much to do to give off more than a bare presence for a role that could've been played by near anyone. Wallach is okay in a brief role that doesn't prove to go too far within the plot. The weakest part of the film is the lack of a big presence of a villain. Sure, it is nice to see Gossett Jr on screen for a bit, but he doesn't really get much of a chance to bring menace to a kingpin role that probably could've done with a bit of re-tooling, with a bit of voodoo thrown in that doesn't really go anywhere. At least the little bits of exposition involving history prove intriguing. The characters feel drawn out from other adventure ideas, as if cut out from very thin paper that probably would've been made on the cheap in a previous decade. The stakes never feel too high, and at times the best thing going for it is the music from John Barry, with occasional success in water action, with an okay climax in the deep. This is not really a movie I can recommend, since it never really takes off into something truly spectacular on a consistent level, but it can serve as a bit of a curious sink of time, whether for some watery action or something deeper.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Billy Jack.

Review #1196: Billy Jack.

Cast: 
Tom Laughlin (Billy Jack), Delores Taylor (Jean Roberts), Clark Howat (Sheriff Cole), Victor Izay (Doctor), Julie Webb (Barbara), Debbie Schock (Kit), Teresa Kelly (Carol), Lynn Baker (Sarah), Stan Rice (Martin), David Roya (Bernard Posner), John McClure (Dinosaur), Susan Foster (Cindy), Susan Sosa (Sunshine), and Bert Freed (Mr. Stuart Posner) Directed by Tom Laughlin.

Review: 
You may perhaps wonder what exactly is Billy Jack? Well, it sure seems to think it is an action/drama, and its main character is a half-Native American (just go with it) Vietnam veteran that happens to be a Green Beret along with an expert in hapkido who decides to help defend a hippie-themed Freedom School from the other people in town. It sounded a bit ridiculous when I first heard of the premise, and the final product proves to be a strange curiosity, even if it is wildly uneven. Laughlin utilized three different pseudonyms in place of credit for his work as director, producer, and writer (for which he co-wrote with his wife Delores Taylor). Laughlin wrote the screenplay for the film in 1954, inspired by the treatment of Native Americans in Taylor's hometown of Winner, South Dakota. He served as an actor on numerous television programs sprinkled with starring roles such as The Delinquents (1957) before his first directing job with The Young Sinner (1965). He spent years on running a Montessori preschool in Santa Monica, California before it went bankrupt before finally getting a chance to bring the character of Billy Jack to the screen in 1967. The Born Losers was a motorcycle gang movie that took advantage of the popularity of outlaw biker films of the time that was distributed by American International Pictures; the film proved to be a hit, earning millions in rentals. It tries to tell the story of a pacifist loner who tries to hold in his violent urges but can't resist when dealing with prejudice - responding with violence and beating tons of guys with his feet. The film had distribution problems, with AIP and 20th Century Fox both dropping out of distributing the feature before Warner Bros. stepped in. Despite that, Laughlin felt the marketing of the film was not satisfactory, so he decided to re-release it himself in 1973. Made on a budget of $800,000, the movie ultimately turned out to be a success, making millions and being popular with portions of the youth, which led to two sequels (The Trial of Billy Jack and Billy Jack Goes to Washington) released in the decade, although the latter did not have a wide release.

If one is expecting an action flick, they may find themselves a bit disappointed. It is more of a heavy handed piece on numerous issues of the time that seems more designed for the PBS crowd (for which I occasionally call myself part of). It is a film that basks itself in a mix of cynicism and optimism that makes for an uneven experience, as if the passion to make a big statement issue piece outweighed the ultimate result on an entertainment level. I can't say that it actually is a film I can really recommend as something good, but it could serve as a curiosity piece for people wanting something different. It's hard to bash the acting, since some of the actors were amateurs (one of whom being a babysitter for the family prior to being hired for the film); Laughlin is nice to see with his loner character, although he isn't really in the film too much, with the school having more of an emphasis, for better or worse. At least the hapkido sequence is fun. Sure, the shot of him smacking a guy's face with his foot is actually Master Bong Soo Han doing the kick, but it is a pretty amusing sequence nonetheless. Taylor is fairly interesting, being quietly effective while playing the other side of the coin of the pacifism the film shows (or at least tries to show). Roya is alright as the only real main adversary shown through the film, and even then the film doesn't really have much of a hero-villain conflict. For a movie that sure likes to have focus on the kids of the school, it doesn't really have a character worth spending much attention on. I do wonder how the first film is in comparison to this. It is a free-spirit kind of movie that goes all over the place, from having sequences involving a town hall meeting moving into them going to the school and doing some improv to Billy Jack compelling someone to drive their car into a lake by fear to the ultimate climax, which feels very soft with its resolution by the time of the last minute of the 114 minute run-time. This is a strange film, having a message splintered throughout numerous soapboxes that try to grab the attention of its audience that surely had its captivating allure back in the 1970s for certain groups. For me, I just see a movie that is okay, doing fine with some of its intentions while also sometimes feeling like a chore, with its action parts (although perhaps a bit cliche) sticking out just as well as the parts where it tries to espouse about non-violence - for better or worse. If you're big on having a different time with movies by people outside the usual fare of dramas with sprinkles of action, you might have something worth going on. I can find an appreciation for someone who persists on to make a film in their vision (whether with a budget to spare or not), even if I find the film to be a bit unwieldy with its ambitions as is the case here

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Raise the Titanic.

Review #1195: Raise the Titanic.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Admiral James Sandecker), Richard Jordan (Dirk Pitt), David Selby (Dr. Gene Seagram), Anne Archer (Dana Archibald), Alec Guinness (John Bigalow), Bo Brundin (Captain Andre Prevlov), M. Emmet Walsh (Master Chief Vinnie Walker), J.D. Cannon (Captain Joe Burke), and Norman Bartold (Admiral Kemper) Directed by Jerry Jameson.

Review: 
What film can best be summed up by a quote from its producer other than this one: "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." With a budget of over $40 million (which would be roughly over $120 million in 2019) and an ultimate box office finish of $7 million, this was another of Lord Lew Grade's failures for the year of 1980, where production overruns and story re-writes doomed a film to fail beyond belief. The film is based off the novel Raise the Titanic! (1976) by Clive Cussler, the third book in his series of adventure books involving the character Dirk Pitt, for which he has currently written 24 of since 1973. Grade saw potential in Cussler's books to adapt to film and make a series much like with the James Bond films. The intent was to have Stanley Kramer as director, although he quit as pre-production began due to creative differences, with the brunt of the budget's spiraling being due to making models (alongside re-writes for the script); a fifty foot scale model was built for the climatic raising of the ship that required a 10 million-gallon tank to accompany its size. Larry McMurtry (writer of novels such as The Last Picture Show and Lonesome Dove) claimed to have worked on the screenplay alongside sixteen other writers, although he was the only one who did not petition for writing credit, although the final credits list Eric Hughes for story and the screenplay credit for Adam Kennedy.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the idea of making an adventure film set around raising the Titanic could have had potential, albeit one that would have to rely on charm and effects instead of tight logic to really work. Keep in mind, the Titanic was not proven to have been broken up into two pieces (as opposed to the theory that it simply sunk intact) until 1985. Unfortunately, the final product is not particularly interesting to watch, managing to squander its premise with plenty of padding surrounded by one pure highlight. Jordan doesn't spring too much interest as the main hero, perhaps in part because there really is nothing for him to go on in terms of personality. I suppose him and Selby are supposed to be an interesting pair to see interact and bicker with, too bad they don't really click well. Robards is okay. The actors besides him really seem to just say the lines very mildly. Honestly, the only one who seems interesting is Guinness, playing a survivor of the Titanic who exists just to say exposition about the mysterious person who just happened to put the "byzanium" in a vault before the ship sank. He's in the film for one scene, looking perfectly like someone waiting to cash a check, but at least it means he isn't stuck in the feature for very long. Archer has slightly more screen-time, yet her character (and her motivations for being in the plot) fade halfway through the film. There isn't even a real villain worth mentioning, and the only real menace in the entire film is boredom over the water scenes, which don't really give the film much in terms of spectacle for 114 minutes of run-time.

Comparing it to Grade's other boondoggle in Saturn 3 is amusing, since both films have such strange differences yet still manage to both be ridiculous in their own ways due to their cast, story and use of effects. In this regard, the earlier film is somehow a bit better, perhaps because it doesn't feel so long. Undeniably, the only shining part of the film is composer John Barry (known for his work on Born Free and the James Bond films) and his score, which is entertainingly majestic, fitting quite well for the film, particularly when dealing with the climatic raising. In a less flawed film (i.e. one that works better), the scene of the Titanic rising the depths would prove to make the film ultimately feel worth it, as it is a nice sequence even after over three decades since its release. Understandably, Cussler was not happy with the results of the film, saying that they had turned the plot into a hollow shell of the original along with not liking the cast. He refused to give permission for any more film adaptations of his books, with the only other film adaptation of his books in Sahara (2005) also being a tremendous failure with audiences. In any case, this is a strangely terrible flick, being occasionally watchable but also being something that doesn't quite elevate itself to serviceable entertainment, unless one likes to watch an adventure film sink itself.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.