Nobody (2021).

Review #1673: Nobody.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch "Nobody" Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Rebecca Mansell), Aleksei Serebryakov (Yulian Kuznetsov), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Michael Ironside (Eddie Williams), Billy MacLellan (Charlie Williams), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Araya Mengesha (Pavel), and Aleksandr Pal (Teddy Kuznetsov) Directed by Ilya Naishuller.

Review: 

To me, this film really did come out of nowhere. True, in a normal-ish year, this might have been somewhere carefully placed on the radar, but one can only have so many interests when priorities shift. But research comes in handy when one wonders if they have seen something like this before. The film was written by Derek Kolstad, who you may remember as the writer behind the scripts for the John Wick series, and the director behind the first film in David Leitch is one of the producers for this film. This is the second film by Naishuller (released six years after Hardcore Henry), a Russian-born director known for his work within music with his rock band Biting Elbows (his influences perhaps fit in ranging wildly, citing the James Bond series alongside Wes Anderson). To put it in perspective, this is the first action role for Odenkirk, who has dabbled in comedy and drama with Mr. Show and Better Call Saul, and the latter show relates that argument since Odenkirk felt that on that show he was basically playing an action character but without fighting. Odenkirk came up with the initial idea, inspired by a home invasion that he had experienced and had to deal with personally (complete with a police officer talking about what he would have done if it was his family), and he underwent two years of learning with the choreography in action. The idea of someone deciding to re-inject some adventure in their life isn't particularly a new one, but it is the way that Naishuller maneuvers the film in its action and warmth that makes for a charmer, particularly one that at its heart is a family tale (of course he describes it as an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence", which is also apt). 

One can approach the film from two perspectives, one of them being the idea of awakening oneself into action after dormancy that can hone for any folks struggling in retirement, where finding a new outlet can be a tough one...and then of course there is the perspective of someone who was powerless in a situation with home, where the "should have done X" question definitely can play tricks on your mind (this works also for sports, if you consider how many people believe they could do a certain sport like the folks they see on TV). Consider the bus sequence in the film, because it serves as a hallmark for what comes before and after: it balances its levels of violence within an injection of levity that helps to deliver a riveting time that doesn't end up jamming the senses (i.e. one can appreciate the action without experience a jarring sensation). All of these sentences can be distilled into one: I really enjoyed this movie. It all starts with Odenkirk, because one needs a good presence within calm family man and tense action timing. He excels in that regard, because there is never a moment that one seems to think of him as out of his range, taking the material with relative patience that is engaging without seeming like a pastiche of other action stars - motivation and composure go a long way towards a fun movie that never borders on parody or cartoon of things one has seen before. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with calm patience, fitting alongside Odenkirk with calm care that keeps the family angle in relative focus (sure, there are two kids to go alongside that, but one isn't thinking too much about that). Serebryakov makes for a quality adversary, wrapped with some menacing quality without seeming generic, managing to make a curious presence count with terror (whether involving weary greed or a bout of live performances). Ah, but the real surprise is to see RZA and Lloyd come together to share time with Odenkirk, which likely makes for one of the more interesting family action films to come around in time (admittedly the bar can be low if you've seen something like A Good Day to Die Hard (2013), for example). I was curious to see how much they would show up in this film, but their presence proves quite necessary in enjoyment, gunning their way through in a manner that inspires curiosity for further adventure (which is easier to say if one is more familiar with either actor, I suppose). As a whole, it runs efficiently at 92 minutes that makes an interesting action flick that has its share of laughs that has fun within a degree of absurdity that Odenkirk uses for great effect in becoming a capable action lead through and through. It might not be the most original work to come through the action genre, but it surely delivers enough to make it all worthwhile with no sense of gimmickry or monotony detected here. However many movies Odenkirk makes in the action genre, one will not forget his first, a winner for both director and star and a well-suited curiosity for the spring.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla vs. Kong.

Review #1672: Godzilla vs. Kong.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Dr. Nathan Lind), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Shun Oguri (Ren Serizawa), Eiza González (Maia Simmons), Julian Dennison (Josh Valentine), Lance Reddick (Guillerman), Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Demián Bichir (Walter Simmons), and Kaylee Hottle (Jia) Directed by Adam Wingard.

Review: 

"It’s a massive monster brawl movie. There’s lots of monsters going crazy on each other, but at the end of the day I want there to be an emotional drive to it. I want you to be emotionally invested in them. I think that’s what’s going to make it really cool."

I want to go on record by saying one "fan" statement in that I figured Godzilla was going to win this time around. I mean, we are talking about a radioactive giant lizard that breathes atomic breath at provokers, while Kong (who I guess just isn't a king yet) is an ape that is really tall (this isn't judging the quality of the films, remember). However, I can also go on record for the fact that I did not in my wildest dreams envision a "MonsterVerse" when Godzilla (2014) came out in theaters. Honestly, I am still a bit skeptical at the idea of a shared universe of monsters, mostly because the thought that comes to my head when it comes to these movies is "entertainment", not "narrative cohesion". Seven years has resulted in four features, each with different directors and combinations of writers. This film has five writers with the story done by Terry Rossio, Michael Dougherty, Zach Shields while Eric Pearson and Max Borenstein did the screenplay (all except Rossio and Pearson had written Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), and Borenstein has written for each of the MonsterVerse films). They also have distinct casts, since only five actors have even appeared in more than one of these features. In a strange sort of way, it must make sense when it comes to monster movies, but they certainly have attempted to evolve in their balance of monster and human drama...or whatever you want to call it. The film, as you likely know, is the first film to feature both Godzilla and Kong since King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), although it isn't a remake. Aside from injecting satire in the form of the TV industry of Japan, the one defining trait of that feature is that the feature didn't exactly have a clear-cut winner - sure, King Kong comes out of the duel from the water, but one could think of it as ambiguous (particularly if one is thinking of box office dollars like Toho...). With this one...oh hey, do you really expect a clear winner? Do you really think it is going to go the way you think, pedantic-in-me be damned? While it certainly may pack a surprise or two when it comes to a certain idea and presence, it only seems to keep the door for further looks into the world of titans of nature open ever so slightly. Would it have been better if it was definitive? Probably, but it was evidently the intent all along by the writers to go in that direction. Wingard has stated that the series is at a "crossroads", where it relies on the audience being vocal about wanting more (currently, the movie is an audience hit with theaters and streaming; incidentally, the deal between Legendary Pictures and Toho for Godzilla ended with this film, in which Toho couldn't do a live-action Godzilla movie but instead did an anime trilogy...and apparently Toho wants to get in on the shared universe thing). This is the tenth feature film from Wingard, who directed his first film with Home Sick (2007; paradoxically, the fourth director of a series spanning seven years has is the more experienced director of the bunch), with the Tennessee native specializing in the horror and action genres.

As I recall, the first film of this series dealt with the slow burn of a great terror in Godzilla within the human element of folks that I honestly can't remember that much about (except for Bryan Cranston, but I'm sure you know that), complete with adversaries that were called "MUTOs"...and its sequel decided to roll with just using the term "Titans" instead, paced with a story that somewhat followed up that movie. In between those movies was the movie about Kong on Skull Island as the last of his species that has those elements of Moby Dick with creepy crawly creatures. Now, we have a movie that is the sequel to two movies with two plotlines that hinges more on Kong alongside its first main trick: a hollow Earth. I suppose if anything is possible, one could use an idea prevalent in folklore for centuries (alongside scientific theory for a time). I guess it really would be hard to hide monsters for very long, wouldn't it? The movie wants to move along with technobabble without choking too much before it gets back into setting the monster fights. In that sense, the movie continues the trend of action sequences that override the rest of the venture that work to the varying degree of folks who want one or both in an effects adventure. The effects do seem to look a bit clearer this time around, likely because there is at least a little bit more day-time shots when it comes to Godzilla, and the effect for Kong has evolved for the better - if you didn't think so, consider the fact that he gets to hold a big ax. At 113 minutes, it is the shortest of the four films, although there can be two lines of thought when it comes to it being a bit longer/trimmed down.

Consider the human element in other movies...if the 1954 film was most memorable for its terror shown on screen as a metaphor for nuclear weapons, Akihiko Hirata managed to shine through with his memorably troubled performance in the struggle for doing the right thing. The aforementioned King Kong vs. Godzilla didn't have great acting, but its idea of a satire of the TV industry within the monster mash is at least different. Invasion of Astro-Monster went to space and saw aliens trick us into loaning Godzilla to them. Ebirah, Horror of the Deep tried to do a pseudo James Bond film with a squid for a villain. While I have only seen the first few films in the original series, I know the storylines go to a variety of interesting places, revolving from smog monsters to the horrors of bureaucratic red tape while Godzilla attacks, so one can only imagine exactly what seems so different in enjoyment when it comes to this film. For a movie that has two storylines, they only really converge on exactly one point through the whole movie (and as far as I know, they don't even meet), which makes for a really strange structure for a film that wants to have two stories but only really works within the pursuit of a giant ape to home (who I suppose has evolved to the level of Koko the gorilla with the use of sign language). Tell me if this seems like a minor gripe: How does one have six total main characters and find time to not lend one iota of a chance for one of them to be sacrificed at the end? It seems like the movie really needs someone to take a chance on the dustbin for this to really need stakes to be raised, particularly since the main presence in each storyline have that instinct of "for the greater good" to begin with. Skarsgård actually does fine with this lead role, mainly because even a generic monster hero is better than one with too much snark or seriousness. It is a shaky confidence, but it isn't a real step down from what one has seen from MonsterVerse leads. Henry has the strangest role, in that it is either meant to be taken seriously as the voice of reason in a sea of doubt (and monsters)...or taken as seriously as Dale Gribble. It is a weak role that leads to a middling performance, because who really needed a conspiracy lead? Who goes into a film talking about monsters and Monarch and whatever and thinks, gee, I need a skeptic. Leave the skeptics to have to run away from the monster. At least Hall does fine with her role in matching up as the other adult in the room, level-headed without becoming overwhelmed by what is going on. If there truly is a market for designating screen time to younger adults, one could do better than having Brown and Dennison, because you could nearly trim one out completely and lose exactly nothing, and the former is only spared heated skepticism because at least we've seen her before. Actually, it might be a compliment to say that Hottle is the most interesting presence of the leads, one who has a link with Kong that actually could've been the real focus of the film entirely, since it is mostly devoid of yammering and babble (instead, it is told through the face and language). Bichir and Oguri are the adversaries for a movie that needs to be weirder without having villains beyond a hint of hubris (the latter character is the son of a character that reminds me that normal movies actually use continuity to make for more interesting villain turns).

I do enjoy the fights, particularly since there is a nice mix of having at least one fight take place within the day, since the last of these films could be thought of as a bit murky. The fight near the end within a neon-lighted city is pretty interesting, and I will admit that the build to the climatic ending is at least somewhat clever (at least more so when it comes to shoehorning something from the past, which was done a bit haphazardly in that last one). For basic enjoyment, I will give it credit. The ending is a bit more difficult to go with, however. You could call it "cheap", you could call it "resourceful", but I will just settle with ridiculous. You can't say a titan will fall and then say "unless..."; regardless of how much the film slants itself for one titan. I still can't believe that Wingard actually thinks one could cry at the end of this film (it may or may not be literal, but having it on record does matter). I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that this next statement could apply to a bunch of you folks: I am not 12 years old, and even then it is doubtful that one would even cry for a monster mash at that age (on the other hand, if I had a premonition about one of my sports teams winning a championship before I die, I might actually shed a tear). A monster mash can be fun, but don't stiff out on a real ending, man. I'm not saying I want them to basically just fall into the deep earth and end abruptly, but your mileage will vary depending on tastes (namely in how much one takes this aspect of the film seriously from the others). The real demand that fans should be doing is not for more of these films in the MonsterVerse but instead to have a plot that actually works out to the monster fights with consistency (which start with cast continuity). It is perhaps fitting that the series managed to get to this point, one where its monster fights have shone over all other aspects that have made decent experiences that will either want folks curious for more or desire the original source material (as I would hope for), although one could understand the burnout. While the movie has visible faults that hinder what could have been a quite entertaining culmination to a modern monster mash series, I certainly found enough here to enjoy, so I suppose that makes it enough in the end.

411 days later, the Theater Saga returns for #103. This was the longest time between trips to the theater in my adult years, and we all know the reason for that. However, I felt it was finally time to make a trip and do so while staying safe (namely by wearing a mask the whole time) and support a local place - HBO Max may be the right thing for certain folks who like streaming, but as you might already know, I personally would rather eat lead than do that. At any rate, I am looking to plan a few more trips to the theater over the next few months while adhering to caution and such (getting the vaccine will be done when the right time comes). I hope you folks enjoyed this review, and I hope you stay safe.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Review #1671: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Cast:

Robin Shou (Liu Kang), Talisa Soto (Kitana), James Remar (Raiden), Sandra Hess (Sonya Blade), Lynn Red Williams (Jax), Brian Thompson (Shao Kahn), Reiner Schöne (Shinnok), Musetta Vander (Sindel), Irina Pantaeva (Jade), Deron McBee (Motaro), Marjean Holden (Sheeva), Litefoot (Nightwolf), Chris Conrad (Johnny Cage), John Medlen (Ermac), J.J. Perry (Cyrax / Scorpion / Noob Saibot, with Ed Boon as voice of Scorpion) Directed by John R. Leonetti.

Review:

The best way to describe this film is with food. The first film is basically the equivalent of a fairly well-cooked dessert for one to eat (for those who want detail, use an éclair). It tastes nice, and one generally will look back on the moment with a bit of relish, even if they know they shouldn't have too much of it. The second film is essentially what would happen if the one of the ingredients was lost in the writing and so the cook decided to replace it and put a bunch of sparklers and streamers on it in order to make sure you don't notice why it tastes like mud. Actually, if you go by what producer Lawrence Kasanoff said, there is apparently one modification to that: imagine if the chef pulled the dish out five minutes before it was fully cooked, since the initial cut that was screened to test audiences and New Line Cinema was meant to have a second run of effects and editing but the studio was so confident that it would make money and be liked that they released the feature as it was. It might be a strange thing to note that Kasanoff has the dubious honor of being behind two odd sequels to movies as executive producer between this and C.H.U.D. II: Bud the C.H.U.D. (1989, which you should hope is the first and only mention of C.H.U.D. II in recorded Movie Night history). At the helm for writing is five writers, with Brent V. Friedman and Bryce Zabel for the screenplay and Kasanoff, Joshua Wexler and John Tobias for the story (you might recognize Tobias as one of the creators of the video game series). You might be interested to note that the director for this film at least had experience with the series...in that the cinematographer for the 1995 film is now the director for the sequel (incidentally, he would not direct again for nine years...with The Butterfly Effect 2, although he would continue on with cinematography work).

To point out all the odd moments in this film would be quite a paragraph, but let's make it a fairly snappy one. The effects have actually degraded from the first film, and it is apt that we see that in the first few minutes of the film (at least after it recounts the first feature's cliffhanger) that leads to the most quotable lines from the feature that goes like this: "Mother...you're alive"/"Too bad YOU...will DIE!" If the dialogue felt a bit silly the first time around, it will feel like a lead weight this time around, made worse by the fact that re-casting most of the actors has only made it felt like one is stuck in a travelling theater show. Characters will be introduced and leave just as quickly, which is stranger with Scorpion and Sub-Zero, who not only come out of the blue from the dead (well, apparently the latter character is the...brother of the one from before and the other is a zombie, but...yeah) but also have a fight scene together (complete with an ice bridge that totally looks like ice if you have never seen it before) and then both disappear from the film entirely. I will give credit though, because they lend to one another amusing scene, where a kidnapping happens and then you hear the voice of Boon saying with no irony the word of "Suckers!" as he leaves stage right. The fact that one of them takes off their mask and talks to Shou about how he isn't ready (because he...didn't participate in the Scorpion/Sub-Zero fight?) and then disappears is the icing on the cake. How about the character of Nightwolf? He talks about three tests that Shou has to go through in order to do the thing that he has to do or whatever...somehow passing the first two tests is all Shou needs, because Nightwolf literally doesn't show up again after that one scene about tests. Raiden revealing his family heritage seems like it should be more impactful, but it manages to hit like a puddle. Characters like Sheeva have the presence of five minutes before she is crushed by a cage (...an action scene was meant to be filmed, but oops). Cables are apparently evident on multiple occasions during fight scenes, since I suppose New Line really believed in the art...of making money. Probably the one bright spot is the music, which continues the electronic trend from the last film (which featured folks such as Buckethead and a music score by George S. Clinton), and it is hard to resist saying that title song from the Immortals one more time.

Shou hasn't exactly improved from the first film, but since the movie doesn't really seem to give him any favors, it would seem forgivable if it was a better project. The silly quest, combined with moments that inspire quizzical responses rather than highlights, combined with a climatic fight scene that has him turn into a terrible CG creation only seals the deal. In that regard, Thompson is a hilariously terrible villain, one that might as well have been tossed out of an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys for being too hammy. I still can't find a reach on Soto when it comes to her acting, because she is basically swept up in a different quality of film this time around, one that is actually too hammy for her to stand out for better or worse. Hess gets to play in the mud and kick a bit, which pairs with Williams for a duo of folks good enough for dinner theater. Christopher Lambert apparently decided that starring in Beowulf (1999, which was also produced by Kasanoff) would be a better prospect than reprising the role of Raiden, so instead one gets James Remar. But at least one can't say Remar is a bad actor, since he has experience in a wide array of features that ranged from The Warriors (1979) to 48 Hrs (1982); of course those movies were villainous roles, but I'm sure that with a better script he might have done better. Here, it seems like half of a performance, one where you are thinking about shambles of a story and the effects around him (take a close look at the opening scene, for example) than the actual character...even the sacrifice is a waste of time. Having a script that was bad enough to chase three of your five primary actors is bad enough, but the fact that the only thing that comes out of it is an endless barrage of fights and effects that aren't as good as before is the true nail in the coffin for the movie. How could New Line see the fight scene at the end between two shambling ugly creations and think that this was even finished? Beyond the need for a polishing, the complete turnover that results from its actors and having too many writers in the room creates an incoherent mess that somehow feels abrupt for 95 minutes. At least there is one reason to watch it: it would make a great movie to laugh at over and over again.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Mortal Kombat.

Review #1670: Mortal Kombat.

Cast: 

Christopher Lambert (Lord Raiden), Robin Shou (Liu Kang), Linden Ashby (Johnny Cage), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Shang Tsung), Bridgette Wilson (Sonya Blade), Talisa Soto (Kitana), Trevor Goddard (Kano), Chris Casamassa (Scorpion, with Ed Boon as voice), François Petit (Sub-Zero), Keith Cooke (Reptile), Tom Woodruff, Jr (Goro, with Kevin Michael Richardson as voice), Gregory McKinney (Jax), Kenneth Edwards (Art Lean), Stephen Ho (Chan), and Frank Welker (Shao Kahn; vocal efforts of Goro and Reptile) Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson.

Review: 

There is a certain inevitability to how certain movies come out, if you think about it, particularly if it fits the time and place. Mortal Kombat, released in 1995, certainly fits the bill in all the weird places when it comes to gloriously ridiculous entertainment. But before we get into all of that, why don't we have a little bit of details to the methods of madness. The video game was created by Ed Boon and John Tobias in 1992, which started as an idea with ninjas that at one point wanted to included Jean-Claude Van Damme (there were numerous influences, such as wuxia cinema and the video game Karate Champ); its use of digitized actors made it stand out among fighting games, which at the time was rocked by the success of Street Fighter II (Boon apparently described his intent to make a "MTV version" of that game, i.e. one that would be distinctly different from that game). Near release, Lawrence Kasanoff was on the trail as someone who had done merchandise promotion for Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) that included its arcade game, and when shown of the impending Mortal Kombat arcade, he was amazed by what he saw. Kasanoff saw the potential for a phenomenon, reportedly eyeing television shows and stage shows to go with movies, and he described it as "Star Wars meets Enter the Dragon" in the pitch to Midway, who were skeptical at first before agreeing after three months of negotiation for the rights. The doubts of its appeal were not completely unfounded: Super Mario Bros (1993), Double Dragon (1994) and Street Fighter (1994) made folks wary of that sort of intention in terms of audience appeal for video game movies. New Line Cinema, despite not liking the script (done by Kevin Droney), decided to let it go forward as a film. Paul Anderson (who added the W. S. later) had exactly one film credit to his name (along with writing for El C.I.D., a television comedy-drama), but Shopping (1994) certainly found someone to impress, since a screening at the agency office gave a chance for Anderson to enter the running. A native of Wallsend, Northumberland in England, this would be the first of a string of effects-driven films by the director (which includes the Resident Evil series), who had to learn about visual effects (which he did by reading any book he could on the subject) and fight scenes (which were choreographed by Pat E. Johnson). With a budget of $18 million, the amount of effects and choice of actors would be selective at times to adhere to what they could do, with Christopher Lambert being the most well-known of the cast (and he would've had less time on screen with their original plan of doing close-up shots in one place and then do wide shots of a double in Thailand, but Lambert decided to go with them to the chagrin of his agents). Believe it or not, the filmmakers actually had to add action scenes after they had finished enough to show for focus screenings, because they wanted more fight scenes (such as the Scorpion and Reptile fights). 

I do remember the games, mostly because my first experience with the series was Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, which I found pretty enjoyable in my college years (ah the joys of shopping for old games on GameStop) with its level of violence to go with fighting. Look, if you can't buy into a movie that yells its title out in the first ten seconds, I don't know how I can really convince you that this is one of the most curious average movies to ever come out of its era. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its flaws, most notably in its varying levels of cheese in the acting, but it surely will please those who thought Bloodsport (1988) was an inspiration, falling just a notch above that film with an inviting atmosphere that doesn't fall prey to all of the schlock qualities or overt self-seriousness that could have come from a less enthusiastic director and crew; remember, this is involving a tournament of fighters that have to beat a guy who needs to win just one more title (to make ten, which is done every generation that implies one has to win for at least three centuries) to take over the Earth in a movie that was aimed for a PG-13 crowd. It is an ensemble piece that is driven by the trio of Shou, Ashby, and Wilson while Lambert and Tagawa grease up the wheels as mentor and villain, respectively. Shou had a few films in Hong Kong action films in experience (alongside time spent as a stuntman), and it is the action sequences that he does quite well with helping to shape a journey without hiccups. Ashby takes some time, but his wisecracks do help make the film a bit funny (at least intentionally). Lambert is generally best known for his star role in Highlander (1986), and it is perhaps ironic that he was the second actor offered the role after Sean Connery didn't want a physical role to mess with his golf game. He invites a bit of mystery with that gravel voice and careful stare that certainly could have lended to further action moments (ah the pitfalls of a cliffhanger closing scene). Wilson does okay with giving the lines some emphasis, but real credit goes more to doing all of their stunts (complete with dislocating her shoulder at one point); she actually was the second choice, since Cameron Diaz broke her wrist in training. Who would have thought that the highlight would be Tagawa? The Tokyo native (raised in Calfornia) got his start with The Last Emperor (1987), and he was the first and only choice in mind for the role. Keep in mind, the dialogue may cliché (a combination of the script and improvisation by actors like Ashby that was encouraged by Anderson), but there is a way that he conveys this cheese that makes him enjoyable in inflection that never seems outmatched. The others are okay, in that no one makes a ham-fisted effort to get in the way (Richardson is probably the more notable voice to hear for a time). So yes, there is a certain quality to this film that works out, although its effects are certainly more for the time as opposed to now; the character of Goro was a massive animatronic that needed over a dozen people to operate, and it is a fairly decent achievement for something that couldn't be done on location. The CG is a bit less there, having a glob effect that counteracts the attempts at balancing violence that isn't too sanitized (for some reason, one could show creatures being killed on screen but not humans in order to keep it under a R rating by the ratings board - go figure), and the spear effect on the character of Scorpion doesn't help either. The wire fu has been argued by Anderson to be cutting edge, and we are talking about a film released four years before The Matrix (1999), and there is a kinetic feel to it that keeps you on the edge without too much trouble that fits the film without seeming like an over-indulgence, one that would fit right at home for those who dig the wuxia genre.

The film received attention from audiences that would help to spur a made-for-video release with Mortal Kombat: The Journey Begins (which digitized the sets for its animation) and a sequel in Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997), which would only have Shou and Soto return in probably the most confusing degradation of cast/director turnover for any movie sequel (Anderson expressed slight regret at not returning, citing his desire for something different for his next venture...which was Event Horizon). 25 years later, Mortal Kombat has a following that manages to endure even with the impending release of a new feature film for all the right reasons. Over the top, intense and entertaining, it might not be the most sound film to ever grace the screen in action and effect-laden features, but it sure has its fun for those who find it to their liking in enjoyment for what it accomplishes. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Kal-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Antje Traue (Faora-Ul), Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathan Hardy), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), and Harry Lennix (General Swanwick) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and #1011 - Justice League)

Review:

"Am I a provocateur? A little bit. Is my job to make some pop-culture piece of candy that you eat and forget about the next day? Nah. I would rather fuck you up in a movie than make it nice and pretty for everybody."

What does one desire from a Superman story? Or more specifically, what does visualize when they hear the word? It can depend on what exactly sticks out the most in the world of storytelling, that much is for sure. Superman (1978) is undeniably the one film that stands out, this much is for sure. It still stands tall today as an influence that looms over the superhero genre. Superman, as we all remember, was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, having tried to sell the idea to comic strip folks for five years that evolved from a vagrant-turned-telepath into the sensational hero that touched the hearts and minds of numerous readers for several decades. Over the next few decades, imitators and media adaptations of Superman would follow, which ranged from radio to television to film, all with their own perspective of what made Superman the great hero that all look up to as the ideal, one that could be described as more powerful than a locomotive or a fighter for truth, justice, and the American way, and so on and so forth. Every adaptation has their perspective of Superman, acting as a reflection of the time and standards. Consider the Superman shorts that were created by the Fleischers in 1941 - not only were the shorts fairly popular, they also proved an influence in moving Superman from merely a hero who could leap from place to place to having him just fly (the reason? It looked better in animation). Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) aspired to look like those short films in its animation while downplaying the character's power to an extent, which resulted in an underrated classic. The radio series The Adventures of Superman (1940-1951) featured the use of kryptonite as a weakness for the title hero before it was absorbed into the comic canon in 1949. The 1978 film adaptation was the first to introduce the 'S' on the costume as a Kryptonian crest (Superman: Birthright (2003-04), written by Mark Waid as the second origin story for the hero in the modern era, would take that and have Superman's crest represent a symbol of hope).

That film seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since that film is undeniably still the best adaptation of the character ever put to film, as Richard Donner achieved the verisimilitude that he felt was needed to capture the reality of the comic realm without falling prey to parody. Don't get me wrong, this film is fine, but it is somehow nowhere near what the first film managed to do with its spectacle and mythic draw of strength. Man of Steel will likely reflects its era just as much as the original film managed to do with in terms of sensibility and effects, which for better or worse does what it needs to do in the job job at bringing the character back onto the screen after far too many years away. The easiest question is to wonder just how far the ends will justify the means when it comes to infusing a darker sensibility to the most famous superhero in the realm of comic books into a film. For some, it will serve as a necessary evolution for Superman in the realm of film, setting itself apart from previous iterations as a setting stone to further usage from an auteur in Snyder. For others, it will serve as a ham-handed, self-righteous puddle, one that thinks that Superman merely needs a bit of edge and a peculiar usage of the snap zoom to get their kicks and say to the world, "Look! Superman isn't an overgrown boy scout!" (a producer, leading the development of trying to make the fifth Superman film, actually described him like that) with no irony detected. Snyder, has his own perspective within comic book adaptations, since he was previously at the helm for 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009), which each are certainly distinctive in the perspective of adaptation in style for better or worse (the latter adaptation is probably more polarizing as an adaptation). Snyder felt that the thesis of the character was one where superheroes can't knock things around without consequences, and he would follow up with two further films with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016, which also includes an Ultimate Edition that added 30 minutes of footage to make a three-hour cut) and Justice League (2017/2021; Snyder would do a director's cut to restore the film to what he had intended prior to leaving production), although his plan of a five-film arc that would lead to the full potential of the character would not come into full fruition.

There is exactly one statement that can help sum up this film: It's a weird achievement to have made half of a good Superman movie in one whole movie (while running at the exact runtime as the 1978 film - 143 minutes). It has an interesting picked cast, and it certainly likes to hone its references to the canon of Superman, this much is for sure. David S. Goyer wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Christopher Nolan. It is likely the boldest average superhero movie to ever come through this decade, but it sure is a useful one to serve as a contrast to what one might see from other films of its ilk in that time. Cavill had a few film roles under his belt, although his best known role was a lead role with the television program The Tudors (2007–2010), although it should be noted that he actually was one of numerous actors that had been considered for the earlier attempt at reviving the Superman film series a decade earlier (the same can be said for Adams, incidentally). He certainly does a fine job, mostly because it actually seems distinct from what one has seen before while inviting curiosity that had been sorely missing from the anticlimax seven years prior. Granted, it is a bit shaky at first, because all folks need to find their gravitas with confidence - there eventually seems to be something there in earthy promise, although it seems more prevalent with the hero aspects more so than with Clark Kent. Adams has some of the tenacity needed to play the character, although the spark of wit seems more prevalent in the first half of the film more so than the second, which seems more a reflection of the film seeming to stick itself a bit in technobabble, although at least it invites the idea of seeing the grounded elements of Cavill and Adams. Shannon is the final key piece of the trio with the hardest tasks, one where you have to believe in some way has a point even in madness. In that sense, with a warrior-by-blood attitude that is handled by Shannon quite well, fierce but never completely off the deep end that serves as a great overall threat. Lane and Costner make up the Kent family with okay results; one wonders how that perception differs with someone who had seen Smallville (2001-2011), but I honestly I usually forget about the Kents (minus of course one scene, of course). It is Crowe who seems more memorable at any rate, standing in the shadows of Brando (at least without cue-cards this time) with that smooth edge that gets a bit more mileage than one expects (Zurer on the other hand is a bit more murky). Others do okay in support, such as the hint of Fishburne in dogged persistence or Meloni and his tough-guy charm (this may or may not hinge on how much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hinges on one's favoritism list).

I will admit that there are quite a few gripes, ranging from playful to ones that make me roll my eyes. Zod make his first appearance in a film since Superman II (1980), and it will play right into a great trivia question of which Superman films don't feature one or both of either General Zod or Lex Luthor. They might be the most memorable villains in the Superman lexicon, but it still seems odd to not tap into further compelling adversaries (as evidenced by television adaptations of Superman such as the animated series and Smallville). Sure, they may not be as familiar in the lexicon, but it certainly strikes irritation with its choice of villain just like Superman Returns (2006) had done earlier (for the record, Brainiac would be the definite choice). At least you can say the film is a definitive vision of one director's idea of what the ideal of Superman represents. And then of course there are those two scenes that spark debate over exactly what should or shouldn't be done in a Superman story. I'm sure this isn't spoiling an eight year old film to say that the last scene with Cavill and Costner is the one that makes me roll my eyes more so than the death of Zod. There is a sense of hokeyness that somehow comes out in a show of trying to hide one's strength until they are truly ready that seems off-kilter. Heck, he saved a bus full of kids as a child, and the Kents seemed to have made that seem ordinary, so I doubt there will be that many shockwaves for a blur deciding to whip their father out of the way of a tornado (in any case, the death of one of the Kents is nearly inevitable in these origin stories). The occasional segues into non-linear storytelling will either help or hinder the idea of a layered hero story different from usual, so your mileage may vary. The savior narrative is the only other thing that seems more on the nose, and one can only get away with so much before it collapses in self-seriousness; it isn't the first time that this has been presented in Superman, since "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz stated how he fostered analogies between the story of Jesus with Superman and his father - you can roll your eyes at its attempt or just let it pass by with reverence/deference. By the time one gets to the climax, the thing that really draws on my mind is trying to make sure one has not succumbed to cut-scene syndrome within its stroke of action. The use of the snap zoom (i.e. a zoomed in shot during an action sequence) only will serve to demonstrate the duality of a director that can appreciated for kinetic action and style or ridiculed to the point that one can make a drinking game based on how many times it is used again and again. As a whole, it works enough in the basic department of taking certain risks with making a fair start to reigniting the flames of the pinnacle of all superheroes into film without bursting into a fiery failure or becoming a flamed-out mess of mediocrity, showcasing Snyder's interest for hard-lined realism in tandem with style and action to make a movie that will drive the curiosity of its admirers and detractors in the ways that matter most for as long as they make superhero movies that dare to be bold.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ebirah, Horror of the Deep.

Review #1668: Ebirah, Horror of the Deep.

Cast: 

Akira Takarada (Yoshimura), Toru Watanabe (Ryota Kane), Toru Ibuki (Yata Kane), Chotaro Togin (Ichino), Hideo Sunazuka (Nita), Kumi Mizuno (Daiyo), Pair Bambi (the Shobijin), Jun Tazaki (Red Bamboo Commander), Akihiko Hirata (Red Bamboo Captain Ryuui), Hideyo Amamoto (Red Bamboo Captain Naval Officer), with Haruo Nakajima (Godzilla) and Hiroshi Sekita (Ebirah) Directed by Jun Fukuda.

Review: 

"All I can remember is that making GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER was like pouring two cups of water into one. I had to cut one sequence after another."

The funny thing to remember about Godzilla is that most of the movies end up with him fighting a big monster for perilous enjoyment, and they all build up to it in their own respective ways (i.e. cliché) that can lend for distinct movies. So far, Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster and Invasion of Astro-Monster have proven better in the first few of the Godzilla sequels, although obviously Godzilla vs. Mothra is also up there. Most of those films took place within military settings or within a city to build the set-up, which got considerably lighter after the first film. All is not quite what it seems with the island setting for this film. For one thing, the original working title was "Operation Robinson Crusoe: King Kong vs. Ebirah"; Rankin-Bass Productions, who was working on The King Kong Show (1966-1969) with Toei, rejected the idea, but Toho liked what they saw while replacing Kong with Godzilla. At any rate, Toho and Rankin-Bass would team up for King Kong Escapes (1967), which combined elements from the show alongside the spy genre as the second and last film that Toho made with the license on the character. Unlike other movies of the series, this movie was distributed in the States only on television, for which it was known as "Godzilla versus the Sea Monster". At helm for director is Jun Fukuda. Born in Japanese-occupied China, Fukuda studied in Japan with Japan Art University before serving in World War II. He was hired to work with Toho in 1951, where he would start as an assistant director. For the next ten years, he worked under directors on films such as So Young, So Bright (1955, directed by Toshio Sugie) and Rodan (1956, directed by Ishirō Honda) before getting his chance to direct in 1959 with Osorubeki hiasobi. He would do a variety of genres until his retirement in 1977 that ranged from action to comedy to science fiction. He was the third person to direct a Godzilla film and the first one to replace Ishiro Honda since Motoyoshi Oda helmed Godzilla Raids Again (1955). Over the next eight years, he would be tasked to direct four more Godzilla features from Son of Godzilla (1967) to Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974). Over the course of his career with Godzilla, he would approach the films as action dramas, albeit ones that would be tightly filmed in budget and shooting. A modest man, Fukuda enjoyed working with the cast of this film (singling out Hirata and Mizuno), but he did not find any of the Godzilla be his favorites in his career. In one interview, he even was asked if there should have been any sequels to Godzilla in the first place, and he actually answered no (he also noted that he enjoyed making his comedy films more so than the monster movies), where even being sent a copy of the film he made by Toho was "like opening up an old wound."

For the first time in the series, Eiji Tsuburaya was not the director of special effects, since he shifted to supervisor; instead, it was Sadamasa Arikawa that served as special effects director, although he did not take kindly to the cheap demands by Toho, which Arikawa felt was because he could pushed around by them more so than with Tsuburaya (who had his own company and reputation by then). This was the fifth writing effort out of ten Godzilla features done by Shinichi Sekizawa. So instead of Godzilla rampaging the countryside of Japan, he is instead dormant for most of the movie on an island that also has Mothra in the distance in slumber while the focus is on a quartet of humans that are there after being shipwrecked by the title character (Ebirah; ebi incidentally is a shrimp prominent in Japanese cuisine) after looking for a missing brother...after losing a dance marathon contest that would've won a sailboat. Oh, and the island has a group of militants exploiting the land for a formula that keeps the crabby monster at bay. So...yeah, we are talking about a movie where Godzilla eventually fights a shrimp/crab that only seems to fight in the water and can be repelled by militants with a special island powder. I guess Mothra (making her fifth of six appearances in the original series, albeit with a somewhat deteriorating costume) fights Godzilla, in that it involves dust. Godzilla isn't exactly at the "Earth's defender" stage yet, merely placed in the "Well, I destroyed cities, but now I have shifted my interests to being my monster self, so muck off Mothra/Ebirah". Of the cast, Takarada, Hirata, Mizuno, Tazaki, and Nakajima are the most seasoned actors present in this film, and they are fine here, with Takarada and Hirata generally being the most interesting (although Mizuno makes impressions here and there, although the scene spent with Godzilla looking at her like Kong is a bit...weird). The others aren't boring, but the light pace mixed with its tone doesn't exactly make them quite interesting. I admire the scene where they think about their escape and about Godzilla "helping" them before they yell at him to jump off the soon-to-be exploding island; one could find it cynically amusing and ponder the fact that Godzilla lives on again to potentially "visit" another place in time only because someone told him to ump.

So yeah, one is really here to see what stuff will happen with Godzilla, for better or worse. Did I mention there is a condor fight? It actually is the worst fight scene of these films so far, mostly because one can't even see the fight clearly, and it seems appropriate that Godzilla fires it out of existence. Godzilla awakens in a sequence clearly meant to evoke other monsters: a lightning strike. I suppose it goes along with all the non-Godzilla aspects that make for a really cheesy pastiche of clichés, all of which start with comic bumbling and lead right into playing rock volleyball with Ebirah (the icing on the cake is a tribute shot to another movie with a character rubbing their nose...Godzilla, having just done a dance in the film before that). The pace is lighter, but it doesn't mean the movie moves any faster for enjoyment, particularly if one desires to see some interesting Godzilla action, and I suppose it could only set the stage for weirder entries in the series that will range from the offspring of Godzilla to a monster mash to children getting involved with the monsters - there were eight of these films made in the 1960s, and this was the fifth of those released.  If the music by Masaru Sato (a favorite of the director) is memorable for any reason, it is probably because the electric guitar manages to reverb like the James Bond theme, which can either be thought of as distinctive or distracting. In general, the movie acts as yet another cut into the burrowing decisions by Toho and others to shift Godzilla for children with a goal of doing it as fast and cheaply as possible. That isn't to say that Fukuda failed in brining in a new perspective with the film, because he does do a fine job here, but as a Godzilla movie it certainly does fall a bit flat in the lasting enjoyment department. If one can get through some filler to get to parts involving rubber suit monsters, you might have a time here, although the 87 minutes will either feel really short or tolerable enough to finish yet another Godzilla adventure. I can't give it a positive notice, because it doesn't exactly prove a triumph, but I can acknowledge it as a curiosity that may suit others in mind, five decades after the fact. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blade: Trinity.

Review #1667: Blade: Trinity.

Cast:

Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), Jessica Biel (Abigail Whistler), Ryan Reynolds (Hannibal King), Dominic Purcell (Dracula / Drake), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Parker Posey (Danica Talos), Callum Keith Rennie (Asher Talos), Paul "Triple H" Levesque (Jarko Grimwood), Natasha Lyonne (Sommerfield), Haili Page (Zoe), Mark Berry (Chief Martin Vreede), John Michael Higgins (Dr. Edgar Vance), Patton Oswalt (Hedges), and James Remar (FBI Agent Ray Cumberland) Written and Directed by David S. Goyer.

Review:

“That was the most personally and professionally difficult and painful thing I've ever been through,. Having said that, I have incredibly fond memories of working with Ryan and Jessica and a lot of people on the movie. Ryan and I remain really good friends today. It was a challenged shoot, as has been reported. What can I say?”

You don't need any fancy sentences to tell you that this is the worst of the Blade trilogy. However, I will make one easy crack at it: Blade: Trinity is probably the dumbest third action installment of a film series since RoboCop 3 (1993), and it is appropriate given the link between main performances that might as well be played by robots. Each film effectively turned their title hero character into a joke while killing their franchise - it should only make sense that there are talks for a remake of Blade, considering that RoboCop got a remake as well (albeit a very mediocre one). Of course, there are a few differences that make this argument amusing: RoboCop 3 is actually quite amusing to watch, one that is a cheap thrill of hammy lines and effects from folks that did what they had to do with a PG-13 script. Blade: Trinity is a movie to laugh at, mindboggling in its attempts at finishing a trilogy that can't even be definitive in its actual conclusions while being plagued by an indifferent actor and a director/writer that also were producers. Oh, but one could be fair to David S. Goyer, because he actually had been a director one previous time before this film - Zig Zag was released two years prior. However, Snipes did not find favor with Goyer being selected to direct the third movie (after a previous director was selected), and production only rolled down the hill from there in terms of interference and breakdowns - if you listen to the grapevine of reports, Snipes at one point would only respond to the name of his character and communicate by post-it notes, although he has refuted these reports (made by cast members alongside a report from someone who spent time on set that claimed of extensive use of stand-ins for Snipes for anything that wasn't a close-up shot), since he was a producer on this film (among the other two). How about we just sum up the troubles like this: it is a movie so miserable that its main star sued the production for its choice in director, writer, and cast (a settlement was apparently reached, although it certainly left no one with a good taste of memory).

Of course, you have to remember what the Blade series was about in the first place: an adaptation of the comic book character of the same name (as created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan) that first got his start in the comic series The Tomb of Dracula - Snipes really seemed in his element with a coolly collected hunter of vampires that had plenty of action to go with some dazzling over-the-top action with plots that hold up just enough to work out well as the first triumphant example of turning Marvel characters into movies. Blade: Trinity is none of that. Vampires have now progressed to running themselves in a big skyscraper with an interest in art that makes them want to bring Dracula into the fold (or more specifically, Dracula leading the vampires around). They have also decided to bring Pomeranians into the fold, which is probably worse than having those dogs as pets. Is this a movie that is supposed to be taken seriously? Perhaps the best argument against that is a scene involving Blade meeting the villain (Dracula, who for some reason is also referred to as Drake) after a long foot chase that ends with a confrontation with a baby being thrown; one gets to see the perspective of Dracula towards humans and vampires...and then he throws a baby at Blade that ends up with him going "coochie coo" after the catch. Actually, you could start as early as the first action sequence with Blade, since (are you ready for this?) he is fooled into taking down humans that were disguised as vampires. Blade has become so efficient at killing vampires that he can't even tell the difference between human and vampire anymore. Questions start to arise quickly? How about Whistler getting shortchanged and dying (again) 20 minutes into the movie? How about a character that engages in action with earbuds that blares music into her ear - who just happens to be the secret daughter of Whistler (a character who saw his two kids and wife get taken down by vampires)? How about a scene where Dracula goes into a goth store that is selling merchandise of Dracula from lunch boxes to cereal (before drinking a worker's blood)? The answer to everything is simple: There is none.

One could almost forget that actors are present in this film, really. Snipes probably didn't say that many lines in the first two films to begin with but consider one thing: him and Kristofferson are the only ones to star in each movie, let along star in two of them. Each movie is a different group to experience that just happens to have him paired with Kristofferson in diminishing ways, and the only way Snipes reacts to it is to persist on with trying to seem cool. This time around, it is a good thing I found out about the "stand-in" rumors after I saw the movie, because one could really be distracted by what counts as acting by Snipes and what isn't acting and never come out with a straight answer. Simply put, there is a balance of times where the lines will land as amusing that are either meant to be that way or are not intended to be but come off as unintentionally hilarious, as if the sunglasses are only there to hide displeasure at what is going on in the script. Before we get to the other main focuses, I have to note Kristofferson, because it seems almost any movie with him being featured should get a modest description of him - man, do I wish he wasn't short-changed in this feature. Perhaps it was always the intent to have his time with Snipes come to a natural conclusion...of course, he also was "shot" in the first film, and that last exchange was actually more meaningful than anything that came afterwards. Simply put, Kristofferson deserved better than to be cut down to a few sentences. Oh but Purcell deserves mention too when it comes to deserving better, because he has to play a role that has been done to death for over a century in Dracula, who this time around gets to walk in the sun and shape-shift on occasion before turning into a beast. That aforementioned scene in the goth shop is the easiest scene to highlight in embarrassment, not so much because it is meant to show Dracula's disdain for the modern world (uh huh), but because of the fact that you could trim it down to five seconds and probably miss nothing of importance. By the time he is fighting Blade with a blade, one isn't so much wondering how the fight will end but rather how silly it can get with beast-man Dracula in this duel of honor. Biel and Reynolds each were best known for roles on television series (7th Heaven and Two Guys and a Girl, respectively), although film roles were sprinkled between that. One can see where the idea for a spin-off could happen here, not so much because they are good, but because they might actually have more stage presence than the main star itself with their attempts at action hero dress-up. Reynolds is better in that the ad-libs are the easiest thing to remember in terms of lines (whether to groan at or not), even if they can't help be anything other than generic. Posey, who most might know for work within independent cinema, is certainly an interesting pick for a secondary villainous role - she seems fine with the role, treating it as something fun to do as one could see in a big dumb action movie without falling into the trap of scene-chewing (at least not too much, considering the film). Triple H, however, seems aptly appropriate for a movie this ridiculous, towering over all the folks with a goon presence that only a (WWE) wrestler could do with flourish. Everyone else is pretty much disposable, which seems appropriate given the propensity of the series to keep introducing people to Blade for help/hinderance only to see them not be seen again.

Folks who remember the first film well enough will note that the third film has decided to use the "blood farm" idea that had been deleted from the first film's intended climax, in which the vampires had a solution to that whole problem of turning everyone into a vampire - just store some humans in a fridge and feast on the leftovers. Honestly, it still seems pretty silly to think about, but what is amusing is the fact that each side ends up having the exact same plan: wanting to wipe out the other side like the plague. It is bad enough to have resorted to Dracula as your final villain, but sure, let's just throw a plague out there in the open...and the movie can't even be definitive about anything, since the movie ends with Blade still going around trying to take down more vampires in a never-ending war. The action shots don't seem that much more interesting, as if to add insult to injury. Somehow, there are three different endings to this mess: the original ending involves Dracula being nice in honor of his death by making it look like Blade is dead for the authorities while Blade goes on to fight his never-ending war against vampires; the unrated ending ends with Blade attacking the authorities that makes one wonder if the thirst has returned, while a different ending involves a new enemy for everyone but Blade: werewolves (yes, you heard that right). There were ideas of doing a spin-off film with the Nightstalkers, because if you couldn't do anything else with Blade (aside from a subsequent television series that lasted one season), why not spin further away from things? In the end, 113 minutes cannot end fast enough for a movie that is an absolute headstone for a series that ran its course with failures in action and characterization that make for a laughable affair for all involved, going from Snipes all the way down to its director. But hey, at least a new Blade feature might come into your future to make things seem better.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Enforcer.

Review #1666: The Enforcer.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Tyne Daly (Inspector Kate Moore), Harry Guardino (Lt. Al J. Bressler), Bradford Dillman (Captain Jerome McKay), John Mitchum (Inspector Frank DiGiorgio), Bill Ackridge (Andy), DeVeren Bookwalter (Bobby Maxwell), Albert Popwell (Big Ed Mustapha), John Crawford (The Mayor), and Robert Hoy (Buchinski) Directed by James Fargo.

Review: 

Did you know that this was supposed to be the last Dirty Harry film? I thought the most surprising thing about the series of Dirty Harry films would be the fact that Clint Eastwood ended up directing only one of them, although he certainly had his level of control (at least in terms of re-takes) with how they ended up with his production company in Malpaso. Why don't we just recap how we got to a third film, shall we: Harry Julian Fink and Rita Fink were the folks that came up with the original script for what would become Dirty Harry (1971), one that showed the blurred lines between criminal and cop with the hunt for a serial killer (in this case inspired by the Zodiac killer) that showed a lesson on the ends justifying the means. Further contributions came through Dean Riesner (a writer who had contributed scripts to a number of Eastwood films starting with Coogan's Bluff in 1968) alongside un-credited writers such as John Milius and Terence Malick. Don Siegel's efforts in wrangling the script to something Eastwood liked made for one of the most memorable cop films of the era, albeit one that certainly proved a shock to certain audiences. Magnum Force (1973) was done as a reaction against complete vigilantism, complete with Milius as story writer and Michael Cimino as co-writer. It was an okay film, one that might have run a bit too long to wander in all the directions it wanted. Originally, Eastwood was slated to direct this film (after having disputes with Ted Post with the last one), but troubles with The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) meant that he had to focus his attention elsewhere (he took over directing for that film and had to supervise the editing). James Fargo was a familiar presence for Eastwood, since he served as his assistant director on numerous movies, and the Washington native would be brought in by Eastwood to direct his first feature film. The script came out of a hodgepodge of four writers in Stirling Silliphant and Dean Riesner (screenplay) to go with Gail Morgan Hickman and S.W. Schurr (story). Hickman and Schurr made a script that had Eastwood's character going up against a violent group that harkened to real-lie events of the day (such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Black Panther Party - the former was a domestic terrorist group comprised of left-wing thugs that committed two murders alongside robbery and kidnapping (most notably Patty Hearst), and as for the latter group...search and interpret for yourself). Meanwhile, Silliphant had come up with a script that paired the lead character with a female partner, but Eastwood wanted more action from it (rather than the emphasis on character); at any rate, Riesner would be brought in to re-write the script after Silliphant had done re-writes to both his original script and Hickman/Schurr's script. 

So how is the overall movie? For something that proved such a popular hit with audiences (at least in terms of being the biggest hit of the series until the next film seven years later), it certainly is a weird one to think about. On the one hand, having a shorter run-time (96 minutes) helps, but really one can't help but wonder what exactly has changed from the previous features. It almost delves into ham-fisted amusement with its attempts at balancing action with light moments that can range from crashing a car to foil a robbery/hostage situation after giving a remark about giving a car to a quite long foot-chase that is equivalent to a jog around your house to a final encounter at Alcatraz Island that I suppose made sense somewhere on the line. On a cheesy level, it is firmly in the middle of what you would consider in that department, wracked with a bleak tone that may or may not be overkill in action (one count in the body-count suggests one of nineteen, for example) that contrasts with moments of disjointed narrative movement. In other words: it is a decent movie in terms of not wasting my time, but it sure is an average way to do so with a cast that could have done better. I feel like if someone really wanted to make fun of the ham-fisted nature of these films, all one would need to do is to just trim a little bit from here and just add in a few more points of furor over hippie-I mean criminals doing actions against Callahan; he already loses more partners than pairs of keys, to begin with. Eastwood grits through a role that he certainly supervised to not speak as much as he didn't want to, complete with meeting the need for action to keep up with the fans. It isn't a bad performance, but it is exactly the kind of thing you have seen before that makes one see the logic in this being thought of as the last intended one - where else could he go with this character of smart remarks and vigilance? Daly had rejected the role a few times before being convinced to do it on one key change: omitting a relationship beyond professional between her and Eastwood's character. The interesting thing about Daly is that she would wind up playing a police officer again a few years later with the noted hit Cagney & Lacey in 1982. She does pretty well here in terms of wedging in clear-cut professional chemistry with Eastwood that never feels phoned in - she stands her ground in respect that seems a bit more memorable than the usual partner with Eastwood. Guardino is here and there when it comes to having the shoulder presence of authority, serving more for exposition more than anything; Dillman however is used as a foil to the usual beat against the main character that feels quite hollow. I had forgotten that Mitchum was making his third and last appearance in the series, but I'm sure he had a decent time with what is there for shock in setting up the obvious. Bookwalter makes for a fair stock performance in deranged nature that honestly needed more from the script (again, it's hard to top the first film and its choirboy faced killer). If the sequels to Dirty Harry are this distinctive in oddness, one almost wonders how sequels to other movies involving vigilance or cop action end up being, particularly for a feature like The Enforcer that is diverting if not just an excuse to rack up a few thrills with a somewhat game script and cast that result in a cheesy but likely serviceable effort. It kept the attention for what was needed as a continued reflection of 1970s action that has its moments for an overall mixed bag of curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

A Boy and His Dog.

Review #1665: A Boy and His Dog.

Cast: 

Don Johnson (Vic), Tim McIntire (voice of Blood), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Alvy Moore (Doctor Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), and Ron Feinberg (Fellini) Directed by L. Q. Jones.

Review: 

I will admit that this film has piqued my curiosity for quite some time, mainly because of its interesting place within science fiction - namely the fact that it is a black comedy in the middle of a decade with plenty of distinct features that has a collection of useful presences for a cult favorite. How many weirdo dystopia movies are there? There may be several of these films, but one cannot deny the irresistible amusement that comes from its depiction of a wasteland - both in material and in its ethics. As one might expect, it is an adaptation of previous material, in this case it is an adaptation of the novella of the same name that was written by Harlan Ellison in 1969. It would soon evolve into a narrative cycle, as Ellison would write further stories in the timeline over several years; for example, Ellison would also write stories that took place before and after the original novella, such as with his graphic novel collection Vic and Blood, but Ellison had apparently written another section that would be collected for a book (called Blood's a Rover), which was in his words in "screenplay form". Jones had ideas to do a follow-up film, one that would take place through the eyes of a woman (named Spike, which incidentally was the same name of the character Ellison used in his follow-up story), but funding issues and the death of the dog hindered any serious thoughts. In 2018, Blood's a Rover was published by Ellison, which collected the stories from before alongside a teleplay that he had written for a failed-to-launch television series. Oh, right, who is Harlan Ellison? To describe Ellison is something I'm sure those who have read his works or heard of his exploits can do better, so the best way to say it is that he was a prolific writer that described his work as "foursquare for chaos." The Cleveland native wrote the gamut when it came to speculative/science fiction that ranged from short stories (over a thousand) to screenplays (for which just one was filmed in The Oscar...no joke) to teleplays (such as "The City on the Edge of Forever", which true to form had Ellison griping upon the changes made for what ended up being one of the best Star Trek episodes of the original series) before his death in 2018. Ellison was favorable to the film, although it was the final line that caused him considerable consternation; the film ends the same way the novella did in its shocking (but darkly humorous) conclusion, with the novella ending on a title reference and the film ending on a spry pun - he called it a "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise", although he mellowed slightly over it in later years. Given that Ellison had his share of causing/being involved in contentious disputes that ranged from Texas A&M University to James Cameron, it certainly seems quite amusing to note. 

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that this proved an inspiration to a subsequent dystopian work with Mad Max (1979). This was the second and last film that was directed by L. Q. Jones (who had changed his name from Justus McQueen to the name of the character he played in his first film - Battle Cry), who had directed The Devil's Bedroom (1964). Ellison had started work on the screenplay for the film before having writer's block that resulted him turning it over to Jones (who Ellison described as "fiery" in independence) to write the screenplay, which he would do for over a year. Jones was a character actor in film and television for five decades until his retirement in 2006. He certainly has an interesting foresight when it comes to the future of depraved weirdos, even if it didn't exactly come out with an apocalypse; instead, one will settle with a weird R-rated version of a buddy movie that is certainly not for the faint of heart, where the only thing worse than glowing people in the dark is not having enough to eat or women to have sex with. And that is a good thing, because who needs their dystopian movies to be routine and quiet? I adore irreverent movies that engage for 93 minutes with no easy out answers or effects plays. Our star is Johnson, appearing in his fifth film role. The Missouri native had first done his share of acting within high school in the theater program before doing a spell of study at the University of Kansas and the American Conservatory Theater before getting into work within the theater and film/television. I'm sure most of you folks know that this features Johnson years before he became a household name with Miami Vice (and I would too, since it is on my schedule), but one can't forget the fact that he is quite effective here. He drives the film with dog in tow with good timing, doing so with a craven energy that resonates with the offbeat energy of the movie in a way that would have felt off-kilter with perhaps any other actor. When one needs an actor to play a strange savage that is nevertheless quite watchable, Johnson delivers. McIntire makes up the other part of the duo, and he was cast after hundreds of auditions (with one reported voice in name being James Cagney, but the filmmakers felt he was too recognizable a voice). He was a character actor that had a handful of roles within television and film, although others might recognize his contribution in the music department to films such as this one and Jeremiah Johnson (1972). He and Johnson make for some quality timing when it comes to their time spent together, an unlikely pair in terms of cynicism meeting amorality that make for a different kind of road movie. In other words, he chills the surface in misanthropy that we gravitate to (besides playing a dog, obviously) that makes a diverting time in the not-too distant future of 2024. Benton manipulates her way through with enough flourish to make a worthwhile contrast to the main duo - in a different movie she might have been the scheming focus of a cold underground, but we are talking about a movie that focuses on survival of the nuttiest rather than just survival of the smartest. In that sense, she does well for what is needed in the balance between the duo and the overall underground. Robards makes his extended appearance midway through the movie (in a place where everyone is caked in white makeup), and he handles the proceedings of rural caricature with what you would see from a key presence in cinema as Robards was, where he does not need big speeches or action shots but instead just needs to drive odd moments forward. By the time it gets to the underworld, one is curious to where else can it go in the varying perspectives of folks "surviving" the apocalypse and the craven ways to maintain it. At the end of the day, it proves charming enough in its shock value or those who like movies with irreverence and the guts to follow through all the way in its details to make for a grisly and capable good time, if one has the time, taste, and stomach for its trek into the wasteland.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Glory Road.

Review #1664: Glory Road.

Cast: 

Josh Lucas (Don Haskins), Derek Luke (Bobby Joe Hill), Mehcad Brooks (Harry Flournoy), Austin Nichols (Jerry Armstrong), Jon Voight (Adolph Rupp), Evan Jones (Moe Iba), Red West (Ross Moore), Schin A.S. Kerr (David Lattin), Alphonso McAuley (Orsten Artis), Sam Jones III (Willie Worsley), Damaine Radcliff (Willie Cager), Emily Deschanel (Mary Haskins), and Al Shearer (Nevil Shed) Directed by James Gartner.

Review: 

"I certainly did not expect to be some racial pioneer or to change the world." - Don Haskins

Sometimes, it is necessary to do a bit of a history lesson with a film, particularly one near and dear to my interest: sports...Texas Western was the first team from my home state to have won a NCAA Tournament (and the only one until Baylor in 2021), and they did so with a historical distinction as the first all-African American lineup to play in the Championship, which they did 72–65 over Kentucky on March 19, 1966. As one should say for any movie based on a true story...send in the fact checks. After all, we are talking about a movie with the same producer behind Remember the Titans (2000) in Jerry Bruckheimer, which has its own shares of dubious playing with the facts (particularly if you had asked one particular player).  Yes, one can say "it's just a movie", but one will always want to find the truth anyway...saying that you are a movie, not a documentary is hogwash - at that point, you might as well just say you aren't a slide-show too (trust me, there are other sports movies that merit this kind of skepticism...like Rudy). Consider the first point, in that Haskins actually arrived at Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in 1961, not 1965. Those four years are important to note, because in that time there was a trend-setter in field of college basketball in Loyola University Chicago (as coached by George Ireland) - the 1963 team was the pinnacle of a program that was the first to start an all-black lineup in the NCAA (doing so in 1962), and the title game for that year would feature lineups with a majority of African American players as starters (four for Loyola, three for Cincinnati, who went to three straight title games in five straight appearances in the Final Four); if one wants to relate this to the Southeastern Conference, one of their programs in Mississippi State didn't even play in the NCAA Tournament until playing Loyola in the Sweet Sixteen because of said prejudices against lineups like Loyola (interestingly, 25 programs played in the '63 tournament but only 22 played in the '66 tournament) - the conference did not integrate until the following year. Why stop there? The University of San Francisco won titles in 1955 and 1956 with famed players like Bill Russell, K.C. Jones and Hal Perry. Nolan Richardson, a pioneering coach in his own right for Arkansas, got his start in college basketball as a player for...Texas Western, in the same year that Haskins was hired. Consider the stage and time: the NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game (as it was called) wasn't even broadcast on national television, instead being shown by a company called Sports Network Incorporated (thankfully, the tape of the game is intact). The slam dunk would be banned by the NCAA for a period of years starting in 1967, and there was no three-point shot (take a guess which was which with these stat-lines: 22-for-49, 28/34 free throws, 27-of-70, 11/13 free throws). Checking the score-card reveals an easy slip: Texas Western never trailed after they went up 16-11. Heck, the first game of the year for the Miners isn't even correct, as it depicts a tough four point win over Eastern New Mexico...they won that game by 49 points. Interestingly, it covers the East Texas State game as being a road game...it was actually the second game of the year (in El Paso, not two weeks before the Tournament; the university, now known as Texas A&M–Commerce took umbrage with the filmmakers for what they felt was liberties taken with them in that game/after the game)…the five point struggle was actually 22. At least it reflects the last game of the year okay, in that they lost the same day that Kentucky had lost...but it was a two point loss, instead of the runaway loss portrayed here. Honestly, if you are going to make a sports movie, perhaps don't show the scoreboard with blatantly wrong scores - I don't care if it was done to add drama or not, it just seems ridiculous to make such bizarre moves. The nail in the coffin is the game versus Kansas (the third of five games played by Texas Western), for which it depicts the blunder by Jo Jo White as ending the game...nope. Besides, Haskins and his team wasn't exactly a Cinderella story. By the time Haskins had started his fifth season as head coach, he had led them to appearances in the postseason three times while going 78-25 (Haskins, in over three decades of coaching, would go 719–353 as coach; incidentally, if you are curious about Rupp and his own legacy, he went 876–190 in four decades as coach for Kentucky, who after years of trying to recruit to integrate with a great talent and not simply one for the bench, managed to do so in 1970, the season before his retirement).

Amidst all of this is the fact that we have a rookie director in James Gartner at the helm. It is the only credit that he has in feature films, as he is generally more known for work within commercials. The film takes material from the 2005 novel of the same name that was written by Don Haskins and journalist Dan Wetzel, with the screenplay adaptation being done by Chris Cleveland, Bettina Gilois, and Gregory Allen Howard - you may recognize the latter name as one of the key writers behind Remember the Titans (2000) and Ali (2001), for which we have mentioned before has its own little quibbles in facts.  One thing that I can personally say is this: It is irresistible, at least for me anyways, to see a team take a blue-blood program to the cleaners and win as Texas Western did, because one has to have their little moments, albeit with a very formulaic movie. It tries to find a balance with its cast and the significance of the moment in the struggle against prejudice over something as simple as just playing the game of basketball on their terms. In that sense, some players will stand out better than others, such as Luke or Kerr, who each prove quite entertaining in charm and in awareness when it comes to showing the degrees of college life, which makes one take perspective. Probably the one interesting scene that involves the team comes before it gets rolling, which involves a game of playing trash cans for fun - curious, yet far more interesting than something like the scene of the night before the title game with Lucas telling his team who he will start and why (I included that quote in the beginning of this review for a reason, and that is because Haskins picked his five on who was best to play and that was it). Lucas seems to follow the lines of Disney sports movies with tough-minded coaches (such as Remember the Titans and Miracle (2004), for example), one that feeds upon discipline that proves quite laconic at times. It is a decent performance, one that reflects Haskins that just seems to also reflect other sports movies of its ilk for better or worse (Deschanel, his on-screen wife, might be confused for a shadow with how the film shows Haskins at home with his family in those small moments, but that is neither here or there). Voight (remember him from his turn in Ali? Here's another makeup show) certainly has an interesting task at hand. He isn't exactly an adversary to the main task at hand but rather is like the dragon waiting at the end with a fire to win that can be seen from the drawl and expressions. I think he does fine with the role, one that provides a contrast and similarity with Lucas in the pursuit of victory with bare tinges of anything other than desire for victory. Look, at the end of the day, we have a movie that is 106 minutes that is okay with what it does. One gets a feeling for the feeling of the time without being smothered in patronization for it, and the basketball action is engaging enough for those who care about that sort of thing. If it makes folks want to check further into basketball history within the context of its times and pioneers to go with it, I think that will prove more than enough in generating solid entertainment.

Congratulations go out to Baylor University for having won the NCAA championship tonight. It took a bit longer to get this review out in order to accommodate a bit of research, but I am sure you folks will understand.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.