The Fanatic.

Review #1719: The Fanatic.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Moose), Devon Sawa (Hunter Dunbar), Ana Golja (Leah), Jacob Grodnik (Todd), James Paxton (Slim), and Denny Méndez (Amanda) Directed by Fred Durst.

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with the director in Fred Durst in that this is his third feature film since he decided to venture a path beyond just singing nu metal for Limp Bizkit, which he helped form in 1994 as the front-man and lyricist. Sure, The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) and The Longshots (2008) weren't wildly seen by audiences, but they-Nah, never mind. You aren't here to hear a description about Durst, a guy that I hadn't heard of before this film. It is probably a dubious achievement that the first time I heard of his band was in this film, since he includes a portion of his own band's song in the movie, describing it as something "good" - no comment. Anyway, you aren't here to wonder why Redbox has decided to get involved in being one of the seemingly endless amounts of companies behind the film. No, no, no, you are here to see just where John Travolta goes with the material. At least, that is what I hope you are here for. Perhaps nobody has had as many highs and lows as Travolta, particularly since he has seemingly managed to be the best thing about each and every single one of those two types of film qualities, whether that means hits like Saturday Night Fever (1977) or stuff such as Battlefield Earth (2000). Of course, I am saying this as more of a blanket statement for when I eventually encounter some of Travolta's other works within this decade, which includes Gotti (2018) and a handful of forgettable stuff you might find on the video-on-demand circuit (or while rummaging through DVDs). 

It seems strange to think that it has been two years since the release of this film, one that certainly inspired more derision than actual sales, as if the aura of seeming like a bad cult movie was just too much to handle in terms of actual appeal. Think about it: an actor with plenty of experience in going the full mile in presence (whether over-the-top or not) paired with a singer for a director and a premise that seems ripped right out of a generic Lifetime movie? How could this not be an "extra primo" bad movie for the (laughing) family?  The problem with bad movies is that it will remind you of better movies that cover similar material. Of course, the truly bad movies will basically slam you over the head and make you truly cringe in what you should be watching. This is one of those times, and it is particularly curious because of the lead performance that comes for such a ridiculously dull waste of time. Imagine spending 89 minutes watching John Travolta wearing a silly hairpiece and perform in a certain manner (possibly) on the autism spectrum that has more energy than the rest of the small cast combined. How many movies could be linked by this film in being better than this one? The easiest one could be The King of Comedy (1982), one that involved a lead character that has obsessive fantasies about being friends with a celebrity and going for a big break by kidnapping a talk show host. With that in mind, that movie was done by the same director behind Taxi Driver, which has inspired quite a few arguments about their similarities (incidentally, the star for both movies in Robert De Niro ended up starring in another movie about obsessions with The Fan (1996), albeit about baseball). Sure, one could reference Rain Man (1988) when it comes to the acting challenge, but One Hour Photo (2002) is the true other movie to look at - that involved a lonely man obsessed with his work and with a perfect family. All of these movies have something that The Fanatic lacks - a three-dimensional character, complete with a supporting cast that also are meant to be full-fledged people. Sure, each movie has an interesting idea when it comes to celebrity worship or idealization of folks (along with performances by respectable actors), but The Fanatic manages to take the most generic routes possible while managing to say absolutely nothing at all, unless one thinks unintentional comedy is a statement. The very first line of the film pretty much sets it up, what with a character "needing to go poo." It just spirals down from there, really. It might as well rival The Vulture (1967) in terms of its absurd leaps of logic with character decisions or motivations, and I am saying this about a movie that saves its one surprise for the climax in an ending that is as limp as the rest of the movie. 

Again, one must re-iterate that Travolta is pretty effective here. Sure, the movie is incredibly cringe-worthy to actually sit through, but he never seems to ham it up for detriment. He sinks right into a fanatical role and makes it seem like something that could be interesting to view when it comes to the mind of someone who lets his curiosity go too far. The movie doesn't have a likable character, but the devoted desperation seen here by Travolta almost works in exceeding the lack of dimensions shown by the script (for which Durst wrote the story while co-writing the screenplay with Dave Bekerman) in the parts that don't involve him as much. Sawa is almost as interesting, in the sense that one can be just as irritated at the ongoing events as he would - of course, the movie has no inclination of actually doing anything interesting with him besides the bare minimum of "well, he's the one being stalked, so let's have him give out threats and that is it". For such a small cast, the others might as well be transparent in the ways they come and go (the shop owner that we see in the opening disappears halfway through, and the randomly placed security guard used to motivate the lead to "stand up for himself" also does the same). Golja plays a paparazzi that I suppose is meant to represent the third leg of a triangle about celebrity obsession or something...while also serving as the narrator (maybe she was the only one who could stomach such generic lines). She is mismatched here, easy to say. Besides, the actions the script has the character take serve as the first (or second, if one thinks about it) domino of lunacy to fall that just inspires numerous derisive questions. 

To spare one the details, the whole movie hinges on someone not getting an autograph. Scratch that, it hinges on the characters lacking logic; imagine seeing your friend (obsessed with certain things like horror and stars) get kicked out of a party that you helped him break into, and you decide to tell him about an app that tells him about where celebrities live. Gee, what could go wrong? The fact that the celebrity responds to this dude going to his house multiples times by threats and not just...calling the cops, is more baffling. Somehow, the accidental death of a housekeeper (by falling on their head in a scuffle) is only noticed after at least a day of being in the yard dead (Moose thinks its a nosebleed while deciding to go in the house, so I don't think he went so far as to move the body. Nah, he has time to go in the house and play with antlers). Of course, the climax is both the best and dumbest thing about the whole film: imagine the irony that the best part is a character deciding to respond to being tied up and breaking away by shooting the attacker's hand off, shooting near his ears, and then stabbing him in the eye. Again, since there are no characters to really emphasize with, it makes for great amusement in all the wrong ways, a vapid and illogical experience that doesn't say anything new about obsession nor does anything interesting as a thriller beyond a plethora of clichés. If you find yourself compelled to see every Travolta movie or perhaps want to see a dull cringe time, this might be for you. Others will either be bored by what they see because of its bland execution or will just roll their eyes and find something better to do. In that sense, The Fanatic might live on as a grand curiosity for people who like to see abject failure with dignity. It doesn't come close to being one of the worst, but a 3 seems aptly appropriate.

Well, we have done it. Anniversary in August has reached its 16th and last review for this month. Oh sure, we had a busy time in August last year, but August is a month that generally follows busier times, as evidenced by the fact that the busiest months in Movie Night history are July, June, and December. Hmm. I hope you folks enjoyed these reviews, which ranged from interesting curiosities to...other stuff. Consistency is a goal I hope for with Movie Night, which has had ten reviews in each month since April 2019. Onward we go. Technically, other months should get their own months with how quiet it usually is, such as September or February. Well, there is one idea...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

The Stupids.

Review #1718: The Stupids.

Cast: 

Tom Arnold (Stanley Stupid), Jessica Lundy (Joan Stupid), Alex McKenna (Petunia Stupid), Bug Hall (Buster Stupid), Mark Metcalf (Colonel Neidermeyer), Bob Keeshan (Charles Sender), Christopher Lee (Evil Mr. Sender), Matt Keeslar (Lieutenant Neal), and Frankie Faison (Lloyd) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, and #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000)

Review: 

"I'm happy to say it's very successful on television, and extremely successful on video because people buy it for their kids. It's meant for ten-year-olds. That really went under the radar. But I really like that picture."

Honestly, I have been looking to the best time to finally cover this movie. I first heard of it last year when it came time to cover the month of August with films of the 1990s. Of course, my reasoning for not picking it was because I would have to have countered it with Dumb and Dumber (1994) because I thought they sounded similar. Of course, the other reason is that one can only pick so many movies from John Landis at a time. I don't think anybody had such a curious third decade in directing like he did, with this being the fourth of six works in that decade, and each one did not fare well with audiences (or critics, but that's another story). It isn't the best of his movies, but Landis certainly made an interesting effort. The movie was made for a company called Savoy Pictures, but the company decided to cut back on their interest in the movie business (going instead to being a TV station holding company), which occurred during post-production. This was one of the fourteen films in the Savoy roster that was shipped out to potential buyers, and New Line Cinema ended up buying six - this was one of them; somehow, the studio thought it was some sort of raunchy product as opposed to a children's movie (as evident by the surprise noted by the studio chief at a screening with Landis there). A budget of $25 million resulted in a $2.5 million return. Look, we are talking about a movie that starts with two characters that wake up from bed having slept on the foot-end of the bed. Actually, it perhaps should be noted that The Stupids is an adaptation of a series of children's books of the same name, which were written by Harry Allard and James Marshall, who wrote four books from 1974 to 1989. I imagine the books also happened to depict a family that looks like All-American apple pie with dull wit to spare (apparently, in one of the books, they think they died...instead they had experienced a blackout), so is it surprising that this is a movie that segues from missing garbage stumbles into a plot with military weapon-dealing, aliens, and a plethora of cameos? I don't think there are that many oblivious family movies out there, particularly ones that seem to hone to winners of the Darwin Award.

For me, the surprise is the fact that I actually didn't hate the movie. It might run at a predictable pace of 94 minutes, but it grew on me quite quickly. It has a fun quality of obliviousness that I appreciate, one that rolls in stride with dim-witted sensibility without smugness. I admire its incoherency that is headlined by Arnold, who certainly tried to dabble in being the star of silly comedies rather than just a supporting piece (this was the same year as Big Bully and Carpool, after all). I'm sure plenty of folks can find reason to resist its "kid at heart" charm, but I thought it was silly enough to work without wasting my time (in other words, this is the kind of dumb movie to enjoy rather than stuff like Kung Pow! Enter the Fist (2002), for example). Picking at the flaws of plot is like trying to fix your cat's bad habits - sometimes you just have to let it go. I imagine that Arnold must have had a weird time trying to play funny angles for a movie that requires a great deal of earnest honesty without playing to all of the obvious bits that could be done with a different kind of dopey stiffs. Lundy doesn't have as many little moments of neat honesty, but she fares well with keeping things at a fair pace alongside McKenna & Hall in moving forward with what needs to happen without looking confused (the kids play right to the audience, of course). Undeniably, the supporting presences prove just as curious. Metcalf and Keeslar are dry enough to contrast with the main quartet handily enough that usefully seem plucked from a low-rent thriller. You may be interested to know that this was the first and only film appearance for Keeshan, who was most known for his work in television, such as Captain Kangaroo (1955-1984) which he created and starred in; here, he is playing a kindly warm guy mistaken by the oblivious ones as a figure of evil, which in that sense makes for a good chuckle. Of course, Faison, playing an attendant at a museum mistaken for God, is warm enough to resonate in his interaction with Arnold & McKenna. Technically, the best cameo comes from David Cronenberg, because of how low key the cameo is when compared to other faces seen (although it is amusing to name-drop the name Atom Egoyan and link it Jenny McCarthy, amusing for probably the only time ever); of course, like any true horror fan, the appearance of Lee is worth a watch and a half, as he chews on this momentary bit of evil amusement the way you would expect. Of course, not everything is consistent. One is curious who went with all of the clay-mation designs, since it has an off-putting feel when you see pets and aliens all of a sudden in a style that doesn't quite click with the usual look of the movie, which almost goes a bit too all over the place for its climax. As a whole, it might be easy to see why this wasn't appreciated 25 years ago, but there is an earnest fun quality here that manages to persist over all odds for a likable winner. It might irritate folks who don't have the patience for the one joke the movie has, but others will surely get a huge kick out of its silly enjoyment, where being a stupid campy experience is kind of the point. I don't usually go against the boat, but I can't see why this movie was treated so poorly back then. Maybe it was a bit behind the curve when it came to oblivious silly humor, but honestly, I find this to be a curious little gem of a movie, one made by a competent director that obviously is having fun with silly material and a cast that is fairly game for where it needs to go in silliness without becoming obnoxious about it. In that sense, you might be fine with checking it out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Honeymoon in Vegas.

Review #1717: Honeymoon in Vegas.

Cast: 

James Caan (Tommy Korman), Nicolas Cage (Jack Singer), Sarah Jessica Parker (Betsy Nolan Singer/Donna Korman), Peter Boyle (Chief Orman), Seymour Cassel (Tony Cataracts), Pat Morita (Mahi Mahi), Johnny Williams (Johnny Sandwich), John Capodice (Sally Molars), and Robert Costanzo (Sidney Tomashefsky) Written and Directed by Andrew Bergman.

Review: 

"It wasn't based on anything. I wanted to do a boy-girl story, and in my perverse fashion, it turned out to be this."

One should have no real expectations with a movie that looks like a screwball comedy and moves exactly the way you might think it does. Does being a movie full of silly moments ripe for a romantic comedy excuse the easy lingering flaw that comes with just trying to be a silly little experience? This was the third directorial effort for Andrew Bergman. Once called the "The Unknown King of Comedy", Bergman (who had studied American history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) was the originator of the script that became the film Blazing Saddles (1974), which went from a story outline meant to be developed by just himself into a collaboration with Mel Brooks and other writers. He continued to write while getting into directing with So Fine (1981), following it with scripts for stuff such as Fletch (1985) and Big Trouble (done in 1986 while having the dubious distinction of being replaced by John Cassavetes as director). Striptease (1996), for better or worse, is likely the most notable film of the six that he directed from 1981 to 2000.

Honestly, the quality of the movie depends on how much of its 96 minute run-time lands with a flimsy (but fairly human) premise (I mean the whole "son promises mom to not get married", not the "guy offers to pay someone to borrow their significant other for a while", which strangely was done again in a serious light with Indecent Proposal the following year). Besides, what honeymoon isn't complete with a plethora of Elvis Presley references and Elvis cover songs? Do you ever watch a movie and realize the quality in one's memory of it later on changed after you saw it? Work with me on this - sometimes a movie seems better or worse when one thinks about it after time passes from actually seeing it. Begrudgingly, I will admit this usually is more a negative sign than anything, as sometimes one thinks a movie was "not as good" as it originally seemed (hence why one should always take an opinion with a grain of salt). The funny thing is that sometimes it goes the other way around (depending, probably, if one likes to watch a movie with a triggered pause button or not). What I am trying to say is that eventually this movie won me over. Granted, I cannot in good conscience recommend it as any kind of great "hidden gem" or anything, but I can say that if one sees it they will likely be eventually convinced it is a worthy use of their time. Besides, with a dynamic trio like this, one can't go too far off the deep end of despair.

In a sense, you could argue that Cage was suited for comedy. He has a fluid presence that takes on a movie as if the role is a juicy piece of steak waiting to be devoured. Hell, how many of his action roles are just ones begging to be turned into comedies? Actually, while he does decent here in a role plagued by neurosis, one can't help but compare it to the other, more notable love triangle romcom with him in Moonstruck (1987), but that might be me just thinking out loud. At least when he starts shifting from neurotic to impatient it becomes a more interesting movie, because it also strangely times right to the point where the movie is trying to become interesting, such as venting about a long line at the airport. Caan might have picked a wide variety of movies to hit or miss with, but at least one can't see the desperation here (i.e. self-parody in annoying awareness). He makes a decent riff of the tough guy conman type with a brief amount of good humor that makes a worthy guy to contrast Cage. Sure, it eventually becomes a bit easy to see where it will really go (aside from the "look alike" thing, which seems like a gimmick ripped from something else), but at least it seems semi-interesting to sit with. Parker is exactly the warm presence required to balance these two folks out with fair chemistry between each that at least makes the momentum not stop as easily as it could. With a lesser actress (or perhaps one trying to hone on the sitcom touch), one would just see a mild one-sided romance. But she has the patience and spunk required to keep interest there without boredom, so that means there isn't a weak member of the main trio. Honestly, with all of the Elvis stuff (because if an Asian Elvis isn't enough, how about a kid Elvis?), I wish there was a bit more from the actual supporting cast, but having goofy stuff from Morita and Boyle kind of helps in passing the time for atmosphere of attempts in zany stuff (again, having a grouchy Cage helps). By the time it gets to the inevitable climax, at least one can welcome the attempts at going for a zany time while seeing a few interesting sights from Vegas or Hawaii every now and then. I kid you not, the lasting legacy of the movie is the fact that the movie was later turned into a musical, with Bergman collaborating with Jason Robert Brown (Bergman decided to try and develop it after he had open-heart surgery in 2001), with a premiere on Broadway in 2014 (which had the Caan role played by Tony Danza, no seriously). In the end, it all depends on how much one believes in the material when it comes to a useful experience at the movies, and I guess this manages to slip by with enough support in the right places to make an ordinary average movie that you could pick and not regret it too much. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Come one, come all for the doubleheader to close out Anniversary in August, which you will get to see this Monday. We started with...an interesting one-two punch of movies not regarded well by folks of the time (and not much else since)...so how about bookending it with two further films with distinct reputations? Saddle up.

A Gunfight.

Review #1716: A Gunfight. 

Cast: 

Kirk Douglas (Will Tenneray), Johnny Cash (Abe Cross), Jane Alexander (Nora Tenneray), Karen Black (Jenny Sims), Keith Carradine (Young Gunfighter), Dana Elcar (Marv), Raf Vallone (Francisco Alvarez), Eric Douglas (Bud Tenneray), Robert J. Wilke (Marshal Tom Cater), and Paul Lambert (Ed Fleury) Directed by Lamont Johnson. 

Review: 

Sure, there are two interesting things to note about this movie. For one, this was funded by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, of which most live in the state of New Mexico that have a significant portion of their income come from oil and gas wells. It was documented at the time as one of the first movies entirely funded by Native Americans, and it is perhaps ironic since it is a Western without any Native Americans. Of course, the other thing is that it features legendary singer Johnny Cash in an acting role. It was actually his third appearance in a motion picture, having starred in Five Minutes to Live (1961) and being featured as himself in The Road to Nashville (1967); of course, there was also the The Johnny Cash Show (1969-71), which had an episode featuring him with Douglas (who at the time of filming was approaching 55). This movie was released 50 years ago today, one that was made for $2 million while distributed to limited audiences by Paramount Pictures (at least, that is what one assumes, since there aren't that many contemporary reviews for it and you likely had never heard of it until today).

So yes, here we are with a movie that certainly tries to be offbeat and interesting in the differences from the usual expectations of a Western...in that the gunfighters seek the opportunity to make money to fight, as opposed to some sort of simmering difference between them, and they even arrange to duke it out in an arena fit for bull-fighting (get it?). 88 minutes take up time for what is meant to be an interesting look upon the dark side of folks with a lust to see people kill for sport. Of course, it also thinks it is clever by having more than just a swift finish at the arena with an imagined sequence at the end, so here we are. Boy, what a mediocre movie. The movie was written by Harold Jack Bloom (also a co-producer), best known for his work in television alongside his work on The Naked Spur (1953) and You Only Live Twice (1967). For his part, Johnson was also pretty familiar with Westerns from his TV work on stuff such as Have Gun - Will Travel along with a plethora of TV movie work that was fairly noted by audiences. Honestly, if you want a movie that shows the price of a killer trying to live with himself after a killing, you might as well just stick with Shane (1953). A Gunfight manages to be as generic as the title, one that is even bereft of the quality of oddness that could be possible with a Western meant to draw on weirdos wanting to see people kill each other. I have seen and heard more interesting moments come from people trying to justify a bizarre sports opinion than anything that comes from this movie, really. Ideally, one could do with just Cash and Douglas. A character study movie with just them might have worked if it was a more limited cast, since each are decent here. Cash never seems to be outmatched, collected in his weary pauses that looks for a different time than the one he is set upon - i.e. this isn't a star vehicle or a gimmick. Douglas simmers just as well like an opportunist ready for the big moment with confidence (granted, it is hard to top stuff with Douglas when Lonely Are the Brave (1962) exists). It takes quite a bit of time to see them meet, and it is probably an odd sign that there is nothing more interesting at any point before or after than when they meet and talk to each other (this includes the gunfight), since they play off each other with neat banter that at the very least makes this look like something more than just "uh huh, next." Well, that's not quite true, because Carradine is technically a curious and brash presence to see for like five minutes. Everyone else though is pretty much exactly what you might see coming, from the doting presences of the people close to the lead performers to the side folks, et cetera, et cetera. You might get more insight into the curiosity of folks wanting to see blood drawn at a horror convention. Honestly, by the time it lumbers to the fight, the interest is fairly mild as to just which choice the movie goes with...and yes, the fight is swiftly accomplished before being followed by imagination. I suppose it is meant to show the perspective of how neither gunfighter really wins despite being alive - uh huh, sure. You might as well just have them shoot to kill simultaneously if you want to pull a cheap message, particularly since I really care more about the idea of bringing interesting presences together rather than the usual Western stuff (i.e. a movie with presences doesn't mean one wants something with ego). Sure, the genre was still going okay in the 1970s, but this was the year of different types of Westerns like Billy Jack and McCabe & Mrs. Miller to grab the attention of audiences, and A Gunfight just doesn't have the confidence required to really make a meaningful statement that counts. Despite having Cash and Douglas, it proves to be just too average everywhere else and thus flops out in the overall end game - it might be a curiosity, but folks will find a movie with the bare minimum of filling rather than a show to look for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Cell.

Review #1715: The Cell.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Dr. Catherine Deane), Vincent D'Onofrio (Carl Rudolph Stargher), Vince Vaughn (Special Agent Peter Novak), Jake Weber (Special Agent Gordon Ramsey), Dylan Baker (Henry West), Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Dr. Miriam Kent), Tara Subkoff (Julia Hickson), Catherine Sutherland (Anne Marie Vicksey), Colton James (Edward Baines), Musetta Vander (Ella Baines), Patrick Bauchau (Lucien Baines), James Gammon (Teddy Lee), Jake Thomas (Young Carl Rudolph Stargher), and Dean Norris (Cole) Directed by Tarsem Singh.

Review: 

"The thing about this film is it’s an opera, and there is no such thing as a subtle opera.”

Sure, there are no easy solutions to making a 21st century movie that exceeds the clichés expected from horror or science fiction. At least one knows that there won't be a hampering when it comes to trying to include certain kinds of imagery or attempts at imagination when it comes to trying to show the mind of a killer. Of course, one has to borrow from the traditions of the past by casting singers-turned-actors and trying to crib from better movies while trying to ride hard on imagery and a few decent side performances, complete with costume design from the person who brought you Bram Stoker's Dracula (complete with that same red suit from eight years prior, which looks just as silly as it did back then). Now, that isn't too fair to a director in their debut feature (released 21 years ago). Tarsem Singh actually started as a music video director, doing so for a handful of bands and commercial brands before he got his chance to direct; in two decades, he has directed four further films, although this is obviously the one that stands out for most folks, one where he reportedly aimed for a film like "opera" rather than just a movie about a serial killer. This was the first feature script of Mark Protosevich, who utilized his fascination with serial killers to go with an interest into seeing into one's dreams (while noting stuff like Dreamscape (1984) in that familiarity discussion); while he noted that it could have had more classic suspense, he still appreciated the final result as one that provokes a strong response of both praise and disdain.

Does one desire style over substance? Well, you will get plenty of that here, since one is basically watching a brazen take of The Silence of the Lambs (1991) but with less subtlety (a guy who likes to torture the victim while with a dog that partakes in perverted things? Gee, I wonder...) and horror that is basically a step behind stuff like Seven (1995). Honestly, if you take out most of the attempts at style, this might have been a step away from being something to really make fun of. One probably wonders where the horror and sci-fi merge, well, someone just happens to learn about some new cool secret technology involving virtual reality. Given that a child psychologist can use the technology and fail in the art of navigating a lost child beyond the (music video) dreamscape, one wonders just how they are going to do with a serial killer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because she can't even do it on her own, which is where one needs more of Vaughn (because I guess anyone can just put on the suit and have the cloth put over the head or whatever). The strange thing is that the imagery doesn't really seem to sway me one way or the other when it comes to the side of praise or disdain, since it tries to go hand in hand with generating sympathy for the person having their mind probed...but as the saying goes, all one is doing is putting lipstick on a pig. The makeup looks nice, but watching one long music video with the bare minimum of story only works if I really care about what is going on here, and I've seen movies like that (Tommy (1975)), and they had more tricks up their sleeve.  Simply put, Lopez is not the one to hold a movie like this, one that desires a more interesting presence (again, not to bring up Lambs again, but a Jodie Foster equivalent wouldn't be a bad start) that can goes beyond seeming quizzically confused, complete with elaborate costuming. The dynamic between her and the kid version of the killer is flimsy and ultimately lacking in moral weight, mostly because she mishandles her part of the climax to where one might as well watch dinner theater instead. Incidentally, D'Onofrio is quite interesting here. Really the killer always seems to be more interesting than the hunter in these films, and he seems to draw out the most curious moments that work for the film, one with an aura of creeping presence without seeming like a cliche. Vaughn probably touches upon the usual expectations of the type of role seen in these films, but I respect his commitment to taking a serious role. He certainly seems more right at home with an off kilter agent than Lopez does, that is for sure, mostly because he actually treats the scifi stuff with the reserved charm that comes from not caring about exposition/music video imagery (the rest are fairly disposable, and wasting Gammon for just two scenes has to be a crime). For a movie that fiddles around near two hours with an eye for imagery, I found it very middling in terms of actual interest generated when it came to staying power in what it showed (i.e. one is thinking of better movies when watching a mediocre one). One might as well shove jagged keys in the face with how off kilter everything is, since the narrative doesnt hold too much water beyond a few contrivances that go down the river when it comes to the climax that has a share of predictability (gee, will the victim in a box of water really drown?) even with the whole sequence of Lopez bringing the killer into her world. If I dont really buy into what the movie is selling me, than the imagery isnt going to sway me all that much. As a whole, it has a look that surely will please those in the mood for what it has to show, but the rest of its foundation is a shaky, unwieldy, and overall disappointing mess that could have certainly been worse. Sometimes you can get by with effects and a few (but not all) good support from the cast, but this is not one of those times. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Rat Race.

Review #1714: Rat Race.

Cast: 

John Cleese (Donald P. Sinclair), Breckin Meyer (Nicholas "Nick" Schaffer), Amy Smart (Tracy Faucet), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Owen Templeton), Seth Green (Duane Cody), Vince Vieluf (Blaine Cody), Lanei Chapman (Merrill Jennings), Whoopi Goldberg (Vera Baker), Jon Lovitz (Randy Pear), Kathy Najimy (Beverly "Bev" Pear), Brody Smith (Jason Pear), Jillian Marie Hubert (Kimberly Pear), Rowan Atkinson (Enrico Pollini), Dave Thomas (Harold Grisham), and Wayne Knight (Zack Mallozzi) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost)

Review: 

Do you remember It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)? Stanley Kramer wanted to make a epic comedy movie, and he certainly did so with a frantic and diverting movie that stuffed its audience with plenty to try and laugh with, having plenty of comedic talent of the time and folks from yesteryear. Naturally, it inspired a few films that wanted to cash in on making an ensemble comedy involving folks trying to cash on greed and luck. These films included Scavenger Hunt (1979) and Million Dollar Mystery (1987), with the latter even having a sweepstakes to locate money (and yes, a teen won the $1 million contest). Of course, really one film that comes to this film when it comes to star-studded madcap mess movies, the easiest film to correlate with this movie is The Cannonball Run (1981). Neither movie earned much respect from folks who think they know better than audiences, but each has certainly had their own legacy in the decades that have followed each release. I say this for a movie that has turned 20 years old in Rat Race, and I would like to note that I have finally closed the circle with Zucker, in that this is the last feature film to be directed by Jerry Zucker (of course, I have forgotten about Ruthless People (1986), but that was a collaborative effort, so...), and I suppose it makes sense that the last one is a comedy after directing two films meant to be taken seriously (one with chuckles, one with unintentional chuckles, mind you). Of course, he hasn't stopped making things entirely, as he has added producing to his foray, but it is odd to see the last effort of a director best known for his work with his brother David with making spoofs that were, you know, pretty funny.

To make it short, Rat Race is not any of the films I have mentioned. Rat Race is quite disappointing, mostly because it manages to waste one's time in mediocrity, a movie that surely looked better on paper. Sure, one can always make the excuse that a comedy involving greedy folks that behave like cartoon characters doesn't have to have its head 100% straight, but there is really one requirement when it comes to making a silly movie: having consistent gags that land. Of course, it would also have helped to simply not pack so many cast members in there for one to try and follow. For a film that has six distinct groups of folks among 10 adults (and two children, but does that really count?), I find that less than half of them are effective in actually generating laughs. It is the 112 minute equivalent of stepping on a rake, where one brief moment of relief can then be followed by stepping into something that could have been avoided for no pain. The film was written by Andy Breckman. He wrote for a variety of projects such as radio, Saturday Night Live, and a handful of feature films (such as Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)), although the most notable creation by Breckman came the year after the release of this film with Monk. So yes, I suppose there is a lesson to be learned here or something. I think the best lesson is that sometimes, you too can cast a whole bunch of famous people who seem like they can be funny and pair them into an experience that never goes above "bare minimum" at any point for more than five minutes at a time, managing to accomplish a movie of dummy characters that do dummy things. 

There are basically two highlights: Cleese, who seems to revel in a role full of momentary eccentricity (i.e. rich people being weird) that lets him have fun without trouble. Lovitz is the second best thing, if only because he revels in the smarmy circumstances that bring everyone together for money the best - he gets stuck in the weirdest scenarios but actually lands them for chuckles, such as stealing a Nazi car or inadvertently doing a salute to WWII veterans. He seems craven enough to make it work for actual interest, while Najimy does okay when paired with Lovitz. Honestly, the others can be ranked like this in terms of mediocrity-to-less fun: Green/Vieluf, Meyer, Goldberg/Chapman, Smart, Atkinson, and Gooding Jr. Trust me, having Meyer as your attempt at a straight man is a wobbly sign already (Smart might have been a better choice, but hey, I guess flying a helicopter dangerously is meant to play for c-r-a-z-y laughs). Green and Vieluf aren't consistent, but at least one can see where things were meant to be funny. You would think an actor who won an Academy Award for essentially comic relief would be just fine here, but Gooding seems quite lost here, as if he is being befuddled by lame scenario-making that goes from something typical (i.e. losing clothing) to painful (suffering the indignity of a group of Lucille Ball impersonators). Goldberg (oh hey, that previous sentence applies here too) and Chapman don't get that much to do besides an interminable cameo involving Kathy Bates and a stupid squirrel, while Atkinson might as well just sleepwalk through his role with how bland it is. Watching a bunch of folks you probably aren't meant to like plunder depths for money is a boring idea, point blank. The ending is especially insulting, because if you are making a comedy about folks willing to go the extra mile in racing for $2 million by any greedy means necessary, you better have a conclusion that seems amusing enough to make it all fit together. Having all of them crash into a Smash Mouth concert for food donations is not that. It is a lazy ending, a bare minimum ending that might as well be equivalent to having the characters all go to a soup kitchen after a heist on Christmas. Again, not to steal from the well of citing better movies, but Mad World managed to see all the characters get their just desserts in a hospital bed that made a good punchline without seeming like a cheat. Playing "All Star" helps no one. Going around and giving money to a concert to the horror of a rich guy isn't really as funny as it could be, and it is probably because the movie has plodded around for too long with being as bare minimum as possible to where it doesn't matter. Two decades later, the only thing one learns from this film is that some movies should just stay on paper. Or perhaps one should just stick with the classics, really.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Manhunter.

Review #1713: Manhunter.

Cast: 

William Petersen (Will Graham), Kim Greist (Molly Graham), Joan Allen (Reba McClane), Brian Cox (Dr. Hannibal Lecktor), Dennis Farina (Jack Crawford), Tom Noonan (Francis Dollarhyde), Stephen Lang (Freddy Lounds), David Seaman (Kevin Graham), Benjamin Hendrickson (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Michael Talbott (Geehan), and Dan Butler (Jimmy Price) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali and #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans)

Review: 

It is odd to think that this film has only just reached its 35th anniversary today. The movie is an adaptation of Red Dragon, which was written by Thomas Harris in 1981 as his second novel (Black Sunday (1975) was his first, and that book was turned into a film two years later). He took a good deal of research into the novel that meant classes with the FBI Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Stephen King, when asked about the book, gave notice to Harris for his "clean eye for prose and his impeccable choice of detail" alongside the great deal of suspense packed into the narrative. Of course, when one thinks of a producer to bring something big into theaters, you probably think of Dino De Laurentiis (and his wife Martha, who both would own the rights to the character of Lecter on film). Since he had experienced failure with Year of the Dragon (1985), this somehow meant that the title of this movie had to be Manhunter (no points as to who came up with adding a K to Lector's name). Of course, we all know what came to follow after the release of the book and the film adaptation. Harris wrote a second book involving Hannibal Lecter with The Silence of the Lambs in 1988 that was turned into a film three years later to near unanimous praise (featuring Anthony Hopkins as Lector over Cox); amusingly enough, the De Laurentiis couple allowed Orion Pictures to produce the film without their involvement, and obviously they were eager to find a way to see a new novel by Harris to adapt. One sequel book/film adaptation later, a second adaptation of Red Dragon followed in 2002 (with the De Laurentiis couple back as producers again, in probably one of the most befuddling distinctions ever in being behind two adaptations of the same book), which was directed by Brett Ratner with Edward Norton as Graham and Hopkins as Lector one more time.

Oddly enough, I am reminded of Mann's other most noted work in the decade with the television show Miami Vice, which he served as executive producer (mostly with the color palate, which had distinct touches in the early years) Granted, Manhunter is generally more consistent, but that detail of style seems apparent when talking about the film when it is paired with the intensity of the grim pursuit for a solid thriller. Undeniably, there is a good amount of folks that will encounter this after seeing the more famous Lector movie, and the differences between the two might surprise folks. It eschews attempts at going for levels of squeamishness that keep the manhunt at the forefront that makes one at least have some sort of shiver at what it takes to try and come back into getting into the the mindset of thinking like a killer with a distinct sense of voyeurism that keeps one on their toes. It makes sense to have Petersen there as your lead if only because one knows he already excelled with stuff like To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), which Mann saw footage of and liked enough to cast Petersen (he also had a small role in Mann's debut film Thief in 1981); as a whole, he proves quite curious, whether that means he is shown talking to home movies in pursuit of the mind or when trying to justify why he does the things he does.  It should be noted that Farina was a police officer for the Chicago Police Department for eighteen years before a chance role as a police consultant for Thief (1981) helped get him into moonlighting for Chicago-based movies and shows; incidentally, he would star in Crime Story (1986-88, which Mann served as executive producer and occasional writer/director) a month after this film premiered in theaters. Farina seems exactly at home here with solid procedural material, wrapped with tough energy that makes one at least wonder why they didn't keep him over Scott Glenn when it came time for the aforementioned next film. Greist has a few moments here and there with Petersen that go over okay, while Allen eventually gets to be paired with Noonan that ends up quite cursory. This was actually one of Lang's earliest roles, and while he may not have much to do besides play a pest, he does alright with generating a smarmy chuckle to what needs to happen. Cox is quite restrained here, but it makes sense for what happens here for a movie adaptation focused on the hunt of a different killer anyway. Hopkins would have more "meat" to chew on a few years later, but Cox sets his own stage nicely enough with a calm ooze. One doesn't need to really see him out of those bars to know that there is something dark lurking within a supposedly pathetic state. Besides, one knows the power that comes in making a fearful beast. He proves the highlight of the film, and he doesn't ever show up until nearly an hour in for a two-hour movie. Honestly, while it may be a bit too glossy for its own good at certain times, one can't say that it is a forgettable experience. It manages to keep you roped in to what is going to happen next with its pursuit with a fairly game cast and workable tension that still proves useful even after 35 years as a solid work from Mann.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Fly (1986).

Review #1712: The Fly.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Seth Brundle), Geena Davis (Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife), John Getz (Stathis Borans), Joy Boushel (Tawny), Leslie Carlson (Dr. Brent Cheevers), George Chuvalo (Marky), and David Cronenberg (Gynecologist) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, and #1624 - Shivers)

Review: 

If you remember correctly, The Fly originally came from a short story, which had been written by George Langelaan in 1957. A film followed a year later that starred David Hedison, Patricia Owens, Vincent Price, and Herbert Marshall. The idea for what became this film started with producer Kip Ohman, who thought of the idea to make a remake and have Charles Edward Pogue write it - Stuart Cornfield (who had served as a producer on The Elephant Man) liked the idea; Pogue elected to take a different path from making a straight remake, going for evolution rather than an instant transformation. 20th Century Fox (the company behind the production and distribution of the original along with distributer of the two subsequent sequels) did not show great favor to the script that came out, but Pogue made an agreement that they would distribute the film if another source of financing was found - enter Mel Brooks and his company Brooksfilms, who if you remember correctly had produced films such as The Elephant Man (of course Brooks would also not have his name credited in this film either, aiming to not lead audiences into thinking it was a comedy). Pogue would go from being removed from the project to brought back when Walon Green's rewrites failed to impress. Robert Bierman was the choice to direct, but a family tragedy put a damper on that plan. Cronenberg (the original director in mind) was brought in to direct after his attempts at making Total Recall came and went. The differences between the scripts by Pogue and Cronenburg are considerable without being completely different: in the original script, it featured a married scientist working on a project with two employers that is on the verge of losing its funding before he uses the teleportation device on himself (the climax involves him killing the greedy employer by vomiting and feeding on him before he destroys the teleporter along with himself). Cronenberg would modify the dialogue alongside morphing the two entrepreneurs into the one ultimately played by Getz while keeping aspects of the transformation intact (with an intent on making the film as an analogy for disease such as cancer or the aging process); both Cronenberg and Pogue would receive credit for the script, as per the insistence of Cronenberg.

It is a grand thing to say that a film is better than the original. And yet, here we are with a movie that readily improves on what was already a fairly watchable sci-fi movie with the 1958 original with something quite spectacular in its great tragedy of romance and folly. It serves as a great achievement for all parties in surpassing what had been done before without becoming a shell of corporate dealing, succeeding from Cronenberg to Goldblum all the way down. It is disturbing yet emotional in a way that reaches beyond the usual expectation from horror. In other words, it is a grand body horror film that has plenty of depth from a director who knows where to go to make it more than just a movie for gross-out ghoulishness. Perhaps it was a coincidence to cast Goldblum, who was already part of a remake that  is perceived to be better than the original with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). There were a plethora of actors considered for the role that ranged from Richard Dreyfuss to John Lithgow (who thought it was too grotesque), but Goldblum ended up being the one cast (having slowly become cast as the lead after a bunch of supporting roles). He is exactly the man required for the role, filled with confidence and curiosity that never seems to waver when the makeup starts to show; even when he starts to go around the bar and chase folks around, he still manages to evoke interest that never seems like blatant pity-play. Davis matches well with him in sensibility, having useful chemistry with Goldblum that inspires curiosity for someone who has to act within romance and horror that at one point involves reacting to an ear falling off - she has to match his eccentricity without just coasting along, and that works out well. For a film that really has just three main characters, Getz does well with not falling behind the main group, a welcome coarse contrast that isn't utilized merely as some sort of evil establishment yuppie (especially with the climax, which is masterful). 

Goldblum is the talent needed for the film, but one knows that when the effects come into play, they shine just as well as they should without burying the actor. Chris Walas (and his crew, which is why the credit lists "Chris Walas, Inc") was behind the design while the makeup art was done by Stephan Dupuis. The designs and constructions all had to be done in the span of three months to execute for its various stages. It is a delight for effects, grotesque but perfectly fitting for what is needed in depicting the troubles of aging and disease. Of course, not every effect got into the movie, with one scene involving a baboon and cat being fused together that ended up being on the cutting floor because...yeah, I think you know how that can alter one's perspective (incidentally, that scene was also in Pogue's script, but it didn't have the lead beating it to death). The swift climax does exactly what is needed to make it a worthy horror tragedy without any easy outs, which really could have happened with the discussions about how to end it, since speculation is more interesting than what you need to see sometimes. The film turned out to be a hit, one that Cronenberg could certainly hang his hat on (one doesn't necessarily go for commercial hits, but this ranks as one of Cronenberg's most successful), with Walas and Dupuis winning an Academy Award for their work on the film, the first and only Cronenberg movie have won an award by the Academy; a sequel was constructed in 1989, but it would be Walas that served as director while Getz was the lone actor to return. The popularity of this film even reached into the world of opera, which was done by composer Howard Shore (with libretto by David Henry Hwang) in 2008. As a whole, the film clicks well for 96 minutes on how much it can pull you into with these characters despite what you already know is going to happen, and it does so with resourceful depth that makes for wonderful horror and resounding tragedy from a director who knows where to go with it. As a whole, this is one of the best remakes ever made, and it certainly is one of the more interesting body horror tragedies ever made, one that has certainly lasted for all time in the 35 years that have passed since its release.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Yongary, Monster from the Deep.

Review #1711: Yongary, Monster from the Deep.

Cast: 

Oh Yeong-il (Il-Woo [Illo]), Kwang Ho Lee (Yoo Young [Icho]), Nam Jeong-im (Yoo Soon-a), Lee Sun-jae (Yoo Kwang-nam), Moon Kang (Kim Yu-ri), and Cho Kyoung-min (Yongary) Directed by Kim Ki-duk.

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with kaiju movies before, so how about a movie that sure seems to be one of a kind? Released as Great Monster Yongary, this was a South Korean-Japanese production between Keukdong Entertainment and Toei, with the title character suit designed in South Korea and the suit being built in Japan. Equis Productions was also brought in to help with the effects. Masao Yagi, builder of the Gamera suit for Daiei, was supervisor for the suit in this film. Of course, there is a caveat when it comes to watching this film that does not happen with other films of world cinema. Two years after the release of the film in Seoul, Keukdong came up with a deal to release the film in North America with (who else?) American International Pictures, which they did under the title you see here, which was done for their television division (which meant the film would be shown quite regularly in the following decade), with Titra Studios behind the dubbing and Toei acting as the sales agent. This version lasts 80 minutes. Unfortunately, when Keukdong sent all of the negatives (and sound effects), they soon became lost...which means the only way to watch the film is the English dub (there is considerable irony that the film wasn't shown on Korean television until 2011, and that utilized the dub but with Korean subtitles from the script included). Well, technically there is footage of the original negative, since a 48 minute version was acquired by the Korean Film Archive early in the 21st century, albeit with considerable damage to the print. In 1999, a "reimagining" film was made by Shim Hyung-rae called Yonggary (incidentally, an expanded version of the film would be done in 2001, which was released in America as Reptilian).

This was the third monster movie released by the country, following the heels of Space Monster Wangmagwi (1967), released a few months earlier along with Bulgasari (1962, a film so unpopular it is now lost). At the time, one must understand the differences between what one sees of South Korea between 1967 and now. Not even two decades prior, the North had invaded them and sparked war between the two countries (comprised of separate governments administered by the U.S. for the South and the Soviet Union in the North, which was meant to be temporary before they were meant to be unified). This comes around when you think of the idea of manned space programs involving Korea, which you might be surprised to know did not send an astronaut to space until 2008. Well, I suppose the best way to start a kaiju movie is start with a wedding...and a kid who makes the newlywed itch with some sort of light ray. Honestly, with how the film plays out, I should have just reminded myself of the connection between Gamera and Yongary a bit earlier, although at least the kid here is alright. Well, at least for a kid that thinks itching rays are funny and plays a part in figuring out monster weaknesses. Oh, and when the kid uses that device on the monster, it dances around for a bit. So yes, the monster (named as a combination of the words Yong [dragon] and Gari [after Bulgasari]) likes to consume oil, breathes fire, and can't stand ammonia. This becomes ridiculous when puddles of red are seen around him when the monster slowly dies after getting more ammonia. Monster movies seem to really be judged more on what you see than what you hear, honestly, and this is a test case to prove that theory for a film that seems like a Gamera imitator more than anything. Sure, you can hear all the stuff about ammonia and sci-fi talk, but one really has to look at the strangeness that comes from a odd duck of a monster (one the director didn't even care for that much in its design) that dances. It's a movie full of hokum and odd duck maneuvering in plot, but it is rife to share a chuckle with or sleep on, one that can't rile you up too much if you know what to watch, rife in predictability that might as well resemble junk food. The effects are not quite up to the level seen by the plethora of Godzilla movies released in the same era, but they are passable for a consortium of filmmakers trying their hand at giving Korea a monster movie (besides, they could be like the North and kidnap a director to make a monster movie...). The actors seem pretty stiff, but they play to what you expect from a monster movie that plays the usual hand for an audience that is comprised of either people who didn't have many monster movies (South Korea) or folks already familiar with rubber suit action, which just means you get a middling curiosity. I can't say it is a hidden gem by any means, it is at least curious enough to inspire a watch for anyone interested in monster movies with a slight change in perspective. 54 years later, it may not be a great cult classic, but it has managed to endure fairly well for what can be seen and heard that keeps it from languishing in film purgatory.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Patsy (1964).

Review #1710: The Patsy.

Cast: 

Jerry Lewis (Stanley Belt), Everett Sloane (Caryl Fergusson), Phil Harris (Chic Wymore), Keenan Wynn (Harry Silver), Peter Lorre (Morgan Heywood), John Carradine (Bruce Alden), Ina Balin (Ellen Betz), and The Four Step Brothers. Directed by Jerry Lewis (#1404 - The Bellboy)

Review: 

The working title of the film was Son of Bellboy, and I suppose it makes sense to do a loose connection with The Bellboy (1960), since each featured Lewis playing a bellboy named Stanley that got into hijinks. Of course, the previous film was in black & white while having Lewis speak minimally while this feature has quite an interesting main set filled with color (green carpeting, for example). At any rate, what we have here is a movie that dares to aim for amusement with a character that will occasionally bubble into that light of painful awkwardness without becoming fodder to grouse about. It just so happens to involve a patsy surrounded by yes men that might as well be still prevalent today with regards to carefully packaged entertainers fit for the masses (whether through television or video screen). Sure, times have changed in the past five decades when it comes how they come out onto our attention…think about it: in a time of influencers and products made for folks eager to consume product before next product, there is something interesting about seeing a movie where all the steps don't necessarily have to come together to make something people want to watch in public. I think in that regard it makes for a fairly decent movie, albeit one with a slightly less smooth hit-and-miss ratio of gags to time when compared to some of other films with Lewis, who also co-wrote the film with Bill Richmond (a frequent co-writer for films with Lewis as director, as Richmond, a musician-turned gagman, would work on seven of the twelve completed films); this was the fifth film that Lewis directed. But hey, if 101 minutes seem useful enough to go with a mix of guests with notable character presences, this will be right up your alley.

The toadies certainly make it count in pulling strings handily enough without over-reaching, although I am skewed positively because of my familiarity with Wynn, Lorre, and Carradine (even though the latter two basically are there to play yes-man and watcher, respectively). At any rate, this was the last film appearance for Lorre, who died five months before the release of the film along with the penultimate film appearance of Sloane. Of course, a film with a bit to say about show business has a few cameos (much as a star vehicle about Vegas just happens to have George Raft). They mostly come and go without seeming too ragged, at least when your list goes from Scatman Crothers to Hedda Hopper to Ed Sullivan - the middle cameo probably gets the most mileage, probably because of a silly hat that ties with artifice. I respect Lewis and his commitment to the bit when it comes to a character that isn't necessarily meant to be funny all the time but can still generate worthy curiosity without artifice (and no, it isnt just "being himself", it just means he plays his hand without standing to cliches). Balin plays okay as the straight toady that has some sensibility and makes a fair match for Lewis. The bit involving a makeshift tie, done without dialogue, is a fairly neat little sequence to help round the film down, clicking. The last gag is probably my favorite, since it takes down the last bit of artifice when it comes to making entertainment with awareness, and apparently it came about because Lewis couldn't think of a good ending. The film has touched of biting humor in poking at the star system within promoters and the very artifice of Hollywood without becoming a spiteful piece to shudder at. Folks familiar with the timing of Lewis in his execution of directing and acting will find it worthy for a look, and this also extends to those not as familiar with Lewis. Life goes on with or without a star or patsy to kick around, so enjoy as many pieces of entertainment with them, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ocean's 11 (1960).

Review #1709: Ocean's 11.

Cast: 

Frank Sinatra (Danny Ocean), Dean Martin (Sam Harmon), Sammy Davis Jr (Josh Howard), Peter Lawford (Jimmy Foster), Angie Dickinson (Beatrice Ocean), Richard Conte (Anthony Bergdorf), Cesar Romero (Duke Santos), Patrice Wymore (Adele Ekstrom), Joey Bishop ('Mushy' O'Connors), Akim Tamiroff (Spyros Acebos), Henry Silva (Roger Corneal), Ilka Chase (Mrs. Restes), Buddy Lester (Vince Massler), Richard Benedict ('Curly' Steffans), Jean Willes (Mrs. Bergdorf), Norman Fell (Peter Rheimer), and Clem Harvey (Louis Jackson) Directed and Produced by Lewis Milestone (#901 - The Racket and #1336 - The Front Page)

Review: 

See, the thing about heist movies is you have to make sure one really manages to collect either an interesting premise or a useful cast to generate excitement and the potential for a worthy payoff. This is a nice way of trying to dance around a movie that is probably the most star-studded mediocrity of its era. One cannot be too harsh to this film, if only because it was the penultimate work of Milestone as a film director, and his output had decreased in the 1950s (he directed seven features while shifting to television). This was the first film to feature a majority of what is dubbed the "Rat Pack", which was used to refer to a group of entertainers that made a bunch of films together along with appearing with each other in casino venues in Las Vegas (to be pedantic, it actually is the second "Rat Pack", since the first involved Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall) - in this case, the group (who once referred to themselves as "The Summit", no kidding) referred to Sinatra, Davis, Martin, Lawford, and Bishop, although there were also "mascots", which involved folks such as Angie Dickinson and Shirley MacLaine. Again, it's a silly name to refer to folks that already worked with each other quite a few times before this film (such as It Happened in Brooklyn, which had Sinatra and Lawford). Over the next 24 years, there would be a handful of movies featuring at least two members of the group, which resulted in features such as Sergeants 3 (1962) along with Robin and the 7 Hoods (1964); perhaps fittingly, the last time they appeared with each other was Cannonball Run II, a vehicle movie designed to feature as many name stars as possible. The idea for the film was told to Lawford in 1955, and he later bought the outline for $10,000 (of course, a different account involves him hearing from a director that had heard it from a gas station attendant before buying the rights in 1958) - tasked to write the story was George Clayton Johnson and Jack Golden Russell.

The only heist that this movie manages to pull is tricking you into believing it really needs to be 127 minutes. You could probably grab the script and tear a bunch of scenes out and probably come out of it with no real loss. This is a movie made to stoke the egos of folks who never seem to take this film seriously at any bit of time, and Milestone seems thoroughly outmatched to do anything other than make a plodding affair with a little bit of glitz and vignettes that creak and moans before eventually moving on to an actual heist that can't even land the payoff. Perhaps the best way to describe Sinatra's performance is to use the account stated in a book about him, in which he "would show up at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, do 20 minutes of work and then start drinking." Look, if you had to do a bunch of shows in the night and then do a bunch of filming in the morning for a film, who really wins out in the end? The "bare minimum" is a hard phrase to say about an actor who already has an Academy Award to his mantle, but there really isn't anything interesting to note about his performance beyond just saying that the charisma is lacking beyond corny phrases. The planning parts are okay, but it begs for something more than ad-libbing. Of course, the well might be a bit soiled by seeing a handful of movies with folks who seemed to be having a good time that had varied results. At least you get to hear Martin and Davis sing? Sure, Martin seems a bit too comfy at playing second banana, but at least "Ain't That a Kick in the Head" is somewhat fun to listen to. Davis suffers the most among the main group despite having the most interesting part to play in the heist, mostly because his time on screen doesn't register as much as it should (besides, the racial crack at the end is too lame to even mention). You might as well take Dickinson out of the story, because her presence is lacking to the point of comatose, packing zilch with Sinatra in attempts at playful combative chemistry that prove nothing to the actual film. Lawford might as well be replaced by a broom stick, if you think about it. The rest are here and there, essentially serving as dominos on a table with hastily-made legs that have no time for quirks. Honestly, the only interesting folks in the film are in small roles - Romero and Tamiroff (one used for leverage and the other used for comic relief). Taking nearly an hour to get to planning the heist and then getting near the 90 minute mark before actually executing it is a bit too much to ask for, no matter how much fun the folks seem to be having ad-libbing their way through. To me, you have two options with the heist: either it goes well, and they get away it...or it goes wrong. Honestly, by the time the last trick gets pulled, one just shakes their head at its mind-numbing futility. Well, I guess if one really needs a time capsule of easygoing folks in Vegas in the time before it became....well, Vegas, this might be the one to watch. If one is curious to see a bit of glitz to go with intimacy in a time long past and don't want to just look at a bunch of old photos of the city, this might be for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Into the Storm.

Review #1708: Into the Storm.

Cast: 

Richard Armitage (Gary Fuller), Sarah Wayne Callies (Allison Stone), Matt Walsh (Peter "Pete" Moore), Max Deacon (Donnie Fuller), Alycia Debnam-Carey (Kaitlyn Johnston), Nathan Kress (Trey Fuller), Arlen Escarpeta (Daryl Karley), Jeremy Sumpter (Jacob Hodges), Lee Whittaker (Lucas Guerrette), Kyle Davis (Donk), and Jon Reep (Reevis) Directed by Steven Quale.

Review: 

Seven years since its release, there is one question that persists since the release of the film: Hey, remember Twister? Now, maybe that isn't a fair question, because that film (released eighteen years prior) was a dumb movie. Granted, it was a wonderfully dumb spectacle movie, but one will generally remember what they saw out of that film with its "offbeat" characters when paired with the destruction created on screen. Honestly, with the found footage angle, it kind of reminds me of a demo reel for VFX, complete with the bare minimum of personality in the characters. Heck, going around shaking the camera a bit while a disaster happens sounds like something you could do with a bit of liquid courage. Now hey, this isn't exactly a first outing for Quale. A former second unit director, he made his first Hollywood film with Final Destination 5 (2011). 

Look, you know it isn't great, and I know it isn't great. Giving whole paragraphs about why it is such a generic movie would probably waste your time as well as the time that could be spent watching better films. So yes, one could go with the easy out that it is a bland disaster movie that rides all of its chips on the spectacle and nothing else - ah, but could you just watch the movie just for the effects and ignore the rest for 89 minutes? Eh...not really. It tries to balance its two subplots with the bare minimum, and the only thing it succeeds on is with two supporting characters that are played for comic relief. The storm chasing angle isn't even familiar enough to make me go out and compare to Twister, because you won't remember much about it to argue the point, and the family angle is here and there.in all of the slim trimmings; the narrative just can't handle the first-person perspective of the camera, because that stuff only really worked with disaster fare like Cloverfield. This is basically a lesser version of The Blair Witch Project (1999), filled with character you can't care about enough to do anything other than a mild turn on one's face for an expression (i.e., a "hmm" look).  So yeah, the characters are blah and it would be hard for a great actor to make great meat out of it. At least they try, more so for Armitage and Walsh, really. Everyone can basically be summed with a phrase anyway, such as "the one obsessed with work", or "the horny kid", or "the family person needing to go home", "the scrub", and so on. Davis and Reep play the "daredevil" comic relief, and really that seems more interesting to see when it comes to them making dumb videos about it than anything else, if only because it reminds me of when I thought about doing dumb videos for the Internet. Predictability is almost like a protein for this film, one that basically projects what is going to happen before it happens, and it isn't worth the frustrations or too many sentences. The effects are good, but that should always be the case when it comes to the art of creating tornadoes on computers without spending as much as the aforementioned twister film. I guess it depends how much one wants to spend time seeing movie houses and schools get rocked by the wind as opposed to hearing about it on television or from folks in the areas for it (of course, a fire whirl is certainly something I wouldn't want to see...ever). As a whole, if you need an effects show to gaze a bit or something to go to sleep and you don't have Twister, maybe, maybe, maybe this could work; I can't give it a recommendation at all, but I can't despise it very much either.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Other Guys.

Review #1707: The Other Guys.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Detective Allen "Gator" Gamble), Mark Wahlberg (Detective Terry Hoitz), Eva Mendes (Dr. Sheila Ramos Gamble), Michael Keaton (Captain Gene Mauch), Steve Coogan (Sir David Ershon), Ray Stevenson (Roger Wesley), Samuel L. Jackson (Detective P.K. Highsmith), Dwayne Johnson (Detective Christopher Danson), Lindsay Sloane (Francine), Natalie Zea (Christinith), Rob Riggle (Detective Evan Martin), Damon Wayans Jr. (Detective Fosse), and Viola Harris (Mama Ramos) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short, and #1706 - Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Review: 

Well, if you can make a movie that has fun with the conventions of the sports movie in stock car racing and make it intriguing for the whole family (at least the teenager kind), why not do a buddy cop movie? The idea for the film sprung from a dinner that McKay had with Ferrell and Wahlberg, as McKay noticed the chemistry present between the two that seemed ripe for a project. Of course, with the handful of buddy cop movies present, having it involve white-collar crime probably seems to prove an interesting way to mark it away from other examples (like 48 Hours or even stuff I haven't seen like Hot Fuzz) or seem too much like a copy of something like Law & Order (I joke, but listen carefully to who narrates the film anyway). This is the fourth of fifth collaborations between Ferrell and McKay, and it is the only one with Ferrell not serving as a co-writer (in this case, McKay wrote it with Chris Henchy), although he did provide input on ideas.

As a whole, it certainly has its hits and misses when it comes to landing its gags and moments, but it manages to land enough times for 107 minutes to make a somewhat worthy story about the ordinary (at least, for the police); it rides the clichés out for enough humor to make worthy entertainment, one that doesn't suffer when compared to McKay or Ferrell's other works. McKay certainly has an eye for trying to make each of his films have their own distinct little features that don't keep him pegged as just an improvisational director, and this works to his advantage when it comes to keeping interest on the level for the story at hand without being derailed by distractions. The film rides hard on how one views the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. It takes a bit of time for that dynamic to really hit it off, but it eventually gets its footing down with how they click within their differences (namely in their neuroses of manners and temper). While I might be more curious as how it would have been if they had reversed the roles (Ferrell playing a tough guy probably isn't a bigger stretch than Wahlberg playing an accountant), at least it seems like a game collaboration that doesn't seem constrained or forced, and Ferrell rides it out for a quite a few chuckles. Wahlberg adjusts fine to what has to happen with a film that could make either the straight man (depending on the scenario), and it does mean that he draws some laughs that eventually give way to a few action beats that work more to his advantage. Coogan plays things well when it comes to offbeat brashness that serves him well with the climax with Wahlberg & Ferrell, while Stevenson proves just as engaging as the snappy heavy. Mendes does fine, placed with Ferrell for a few little moments that hit okay as the one couple to show that a bunch of cop movies usually dance around. One can't tire of seeing Keaton on the screen, because even him playing a beleaguered captain (with a baseball reference I can appreciate) doesn't mean he can't make it charming to see from bit to bit. I do appreciate the brief moments between Johnson and Jackson, who get to chew on action clichés for a bit that makes for a worthy zinger (namely in trying to jump off more than one can chew). On the action side, the movie certainly does well enough with spacing out its sequences that doesn't delude the senses, and the story generally holds enough water to keep it mostly as a dutiful procedural. The chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg combined with a few supporting presences as a whole make for an engaging experience, one firmly in the middle as a buddy film that doesn't have too many hitches while hitting its overall targets with useful enterprise from folks who certainly know best.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.