Fateful Findings.

Review #1767: Fateful Findings.

Cast: 

Neil Breen (Dylan), Jennifer Autry (Leah), Klara Landrat (Emily), Danielle Andrade (Aly), Victoria Viveiros (Amy), and David Silva (Jim) Directed, Written, and Produced by Neil Breen.

Review: 

There was a small idea in my mind that this was an elaborate joke set up to fool folks on the Internet, honestly. I had seen clips of this film the past few months, but I really did have to give myself time before I could exhume this "curiosity". And yet, here we are with a movie made by a guy who does his own sound editing, casting, set design, effects, and craft services to go along with the usual stuff. Breen grew up on the East Coast with an interest in filmmaking from a young age. He studied architecture in college and soon became a licensed architect. He saved money in order to self-finance his own films, which started with Double Down (2005) and I Am Here.... Now (2009). We are talking about a director who likes to use ".biz" as part of their website, remember. 

Look, there has to be a middle ground between terming the movie as "one of the worst" or "so bad it's good". Frankly, hyperbole is pretty boring to begin with, so getting mad at a movie is just as embarassing as being some sort of irony-laced critic who tries to find quality in flailing product that is just inept. In short, the obvious statement for this film is that it is a failure in its attempt at making a coherent narrative with execution, regardless of however much money was put into it. Really if you think about it, the movie is of the same kind of reminder as The Room (2003), because both features have a lead actor doing much of the legwork in filming with their own funding that think we want to see them take their shirt off. Of course, Harold P. Warren's Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) comes to mind with a working-man director going on a crash-course with the reality of inept filmmaking, such as say...effects...or shot composition...or line delivery-hell, you get the idea. Breen obviously has the persistance to tell some sort of story, even if it might read like someone's offbeat power fantasy of themselves, complete with fantasies about taking down corruption and magic rocks. You are likely wondering just what is the movie about: A man gets hit by a car but uses the power of a stone he has had for decades to heal himself while secretly working...to hack the Internet to find secret government stuff while his wife OD's on drugs and his best friend mysteriously kills himself while various women come into his life to give him "attention". To top it all, did I mention that he can teleport through solid material? At any rate, if you want to not be spoiled by what could happen next, ignore the next sentence that deals with an expose of evil folks getting exposed and promptly killing themselves.

The level of acting here is worth exactly what you would expect from a ragtag crew (read: a handful) that apparently didn't even have the full script available to then. Repeating dialogue might work in an arthouse production, but it ultimately proves more amusing than anything, particularly since the movie doesnt exactly make a great deal of sense anyway. Characters come and go with barely any motivation besides what one guesses (such as vanishing therapists or doctors happening to be long lost friends that are clearly not the same age). Watching the movie is a unique experience of bad filmmaking, one that can attract folks looking for irony or movies to pick on the chance to enjoy such bizarre ineptness. The surprises dont stop with seeing one person without clothes in a black box (maybe it some sort of surreal message or a great joke at us), but reading a bunch of events in the plot is probably not as curious as actually seeing it for yourself. Honestly, while there is no true point earned by the movie for its technical merits, Breen shows just enough ambition (without turning to self deprecation or snobbery) that manages to make this something I could recommend for anyone looking for "outsider" moviemaking, one that doesn't exactly waste all of one's time.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Well, that is the end of Turkey Week Two. I hope you enjoyed these stinkers and the curious perspectives that came from the directors that made them, and I hope to have something just as interesting next November. 

Foodfight!

Review #1766: Foodfight!

Cast: 

Charlie Sheen (Dex Dogtective), Wayne Brady (Daredevil Dan), Hilary Duff (Sunshine Goodness), Eva Longoria (Lady X / Priscilla), Larry Miller (Vlad Chocool), Christopher Lloyd (Mr. Clipboard), Robert Costanzo (Maximillus Moose), Chris Kattan (Polar Penguin), Ed Asner (Mr. Leonard), Jerry Stiller (General X), Christine Baranski (Hedda Shopper), Lawrence Kasanoff (Cheasel T. Weasel), Harvey Fierstein (Fat Cat Burglar), Cloris Leachman (Brand X Lunch Lady), Haylie Duff (Sweetcakes), Shelley Morrison (Lola Fruitola), and Edie McClurg (Mrs. Butterworth) Directed by Lawrence Kasanoff.

Review:

“We’ve got the movie, we’ve got the property, the place, the equipment, the talent, we’re there. Do we believe our next movie, Foodfight! is going to be a huge hit? Of course we do!”

Why don't we just do a whole review of short sentences that will sum up this film's sad history? I'll start: In development for a decade. Managed to lose the hard drive of assets that resulted in a restart. Directed by a guy who produced movies like Mortal Kombat while responsible for a Live Tour edition...with no other directing projects since. Managed to be sold off by debt collectors for at least $2.5 million after being made for roughly $45-60 million. Released in a theater for exactly one week in the United Kingdom, while everyone else "received" it on DVD or video-on-demand. Meant to aim for a cartoonish animation like the Looney Tunes shorts but ended up requiring motion capture animation (you thought The Polar Express was odd? Try this for ten minutes). A hodgepodge attempt at making a studio like Pixar with a cross between Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) and Toy Story (1995). Kasanoff planned a variety of media to tie-in with the film, including an ice show. Made by a director who was described by his crew as "idiosyncratic" that thought animation is the only part of film production where quality is on the rise while costs are going down. Filled with an assortment of brand names for supporting characters. Manages to have worse (unfinished) animation than Hoodwinked! (2005). Made by Threshold Entertainment, whose next animation venture was Bobbleheads: The Movie (2020). Written by Sean Catherine Derek, Lawrence Kasanoff, Brent Friedman, Rebecca Swanson with a story by Joshua Wexler & Kasanoff (who also co-produced the movie).

Inept. Irritating. Incoherent. Inconceivable. Trainwreck. Embarrassment. Need I go on with one-word sentences? How much can one really say about this movie? The very idea of brand names as lead characters for a film is cynically embarrassing on its own, but the very fact that this is the most embarrassing animated film I have ever seen is the saddest thing about the whole experience. 91 minutes of pain, pure and simple. You can laugh at the animation, true. To an extent, you can also laugh at the inexplicable innuendo and crass attempts at humor presented here. But one just seems downright sad at recognizing the various voices present to be in such a travesty. Sheen being here isn't exactly a surprise, because I can equally believe he would stoop to something for a paycheck regardless if it was the mid 2000s or 2012, mostly because one has to breeze a middling collection of cliches and not clap their hands in anticipation. Brady is obviously better to view on television, as I think anybody who is familiar with the medium will tell you, because heaven help the next person to say that cartoon sidekicks are the best thing ever. Duff doesn't even have to try when she spends half of her time off screen, so there is that. There are no winners in the cast, but at least Longoria seems to have a go at playing sultry and adversary in the same length. The less said about Miller, the better. Lloyd obviously likes to keep busy with roles (because this was the same year as The Oogieloves movie), and since he only has a handful of lines to go with a character that is jerkily animated, it sure makes an amusing sight more than a performance. Pairing Kattan and Sheen for a gag is probably better than eating year-old brand cereal. Asner (rest in peace) has less lines than one would expect, because clearly more time needed to be on the market and not the bare attempts at whatever "Brand X" is supposed to do with "Marketopolis". Kasanoff playing a weasel is a sentence that writes itself. As a whole, you don't need 1,000 words to say that the movie has no fundamental story worth investing in, because you can also look at the movie and hear its crass jokes and puns that confirm what a colossal waste one could have here. This is one of the worst films made with a substantial budget and likely one of the all-time worst animated films ever made. Might be good if you take certain substances or if you want to know what not finishing all of your work looks like.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Once more, because everyone deserves an eighth piece of awfulness. Fateful Findings.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

On Deadly Ground.

Review #1764: On Deadly Ground.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Forrest Taft), Michael Caine (Michael Jennings), Joan Chen (Masu), John C. McGinley (MacGruder), R. Lee Ermey (Stone), Shari Shattuck (Liles), Billy Bob Thornton (Homer Carlton), Richard Hamilton (Hugh Palmer), Chief Irvin Brink (Silook), John Trudell (Johnny Redfeather), Mike Starr (Big Mike), and Sven-Ole Thorsen (Otto) Directed by Steven Seagal.

Review: 

For a long time, I wondered exactly what to think about watching a movie featuring Steven Seagal. No, really. When one has seen countless action movies that have featured folks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Bruce Willis, or even folks outside the Hollywood system in the heyday of action films, one does eventually wonder just how green the grass is on the other side when it comes to folks with reputation that could be considered "boorish" or "different". Of course, let's start at the beginning. Born in Michigan but raised in California, he actually started his adult life as a martial arts instructor in Japan before returning back to run his own dojo (of course, he had made claims that he actually had an association with certain CIA agents during that time, but this is dubious). Eventually, he broke into films, although he started out as a coordinator for stunts and martial arts. At any rate, it was the help of an agent within Hollywood that got him into his first film role with Above the Law (1988), which he also co-produced and co-wrote. This would be followed by a string of action vehicles such as Hard to Kill (1990), Out for Justice (1991), and Under Siege (1992), with the latter generally being considered his most mainstream hit. Seagal still persists on as an actor in film roles, although generally they are either "direct-to-video" or "video-on-demand" or "well, he has a supporting role, but he is top-billed like some other action stars". At any rate, 1994 Seagal had star power that he could use for something meaningful in films and he clearly wanted to make a feature film with a message. As such, On Deadly Ground is his debut feature film as a director, done in a deal with Warner Bros. that in exchange for directing that he could star in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory for them the following year.

Oh, he was trying to be serious with this film. With lines such as ”What does it take to change the essence of a man?”, you better believe that the action star wanted to create something thoughtful. Of course, he was quoted as stating he did not consider himself a martial-arts star, as if he did not in fact want to be thought of as the next incarnation of folks like Chuck Norris (another time, another time). Indeed, Seagal can state that he directed a film for a major studio that other stars did not...and he inadvertently made one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of its time, a movie that waxes on about the environment and what must be done about it while being stuffed with a body-count akin to a horror movie, complete with giving an esteemed actor like Michael Caine an unsightly hairdo in a role likely up there in amusement with Jaws: The Revenge. You could actually cut the movie to make it look like Seagal is some sort of slasher character, since he runs the gamut of creative death sequences for the folks he takes down (who are as one dimensional as he is), which revolves from setting traps to dropping people into oil. But hey, let's briefly talk about the supporting folks first, because they sure are disposable enough to make fun of. Caine looks and sounds befuddled here, as if he was wondering where the "Captain Planet" voice booth was instead, and he is given exactly the amount of depth one would expect from a cardboard cutout villain. Chen is the accompanying leading lady with Seagal, and it is amusing to see the absolute zero chemistry between the two, which is made more amusing with her being present for a variety of death scenes that involve no reaction on her part. McGinley plays the toady role with cheese that at least looks like he is having an ounce of fun (one wonders how Thornton did with his small part in amusement). Ermey is technically meant to be the adversary to Seagal, but since our hero never experiences any real threat, he is more amusing than anything.

I strongly suspect that there would have better movies to watch Seagal in before I tried this one, because no one could be this wooden. He may have the physique for an action star, but he seems far too wrapped up in...whatever his attempt at charisma is. There are lines that sound like they should be funny, but it is the stuff that is supposed to be taken seriously (such as the aforementioned line I stated in the previous paragraph...which he speaks to a guy he just beat up after doing a slap hand game) that is more amusing, as if he was playing a killer without any awareness at all. To top it all off, Seagal spends the last couple of minutes talking about the environment (as if to the audience), which apparently was actually cut down from the request of Warner Bros. (since Seagal had a much longer plan); it might be appropriate for Greenpeace but otherwise it proves hysterical when it comes from a movie where a dude just destroyed a rig and dozens of people. At any rate, the movie (known first as "Rainbow Warrior" and "Spirit Warrior" before this title) involved a guy trying to rectify the wrongs of an oil company that plans to use their latest device to drill before the native Alaskans can retrieve the land back, a vision quest, and dozens of amusing moments. Oddly enough, the most equivalent film in that regard might be Billy Jack (1971), since that movie also features a hero that is friendly with the natives that likes to kick and kick before preaching about a certain message (which was pacifism, although that movie had plodding sequences with hippies). Honestly, more folks should probably check this one out for its sheer failure in message and execution, regardless of how it easy it seems to pick on Seagal these days. This is the one chance you have to see him as both star and director, and it all comes in a flop like this.

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Fate lends a hand and delivers In the Name of the King for Black Friday.

Inchon.

Review #1763: Inchon.

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (General Douglas MacArthur), Jacqueline Bisset (Barbara Hallsworth), Ben Gazzara (Major Frank Hallsworth), Toshiro Mifune (Saito), Richard Roundtree (Sergeant Augustus Henderson), David Janssen (David Feld), Namkoong Won (Park), Karen Kahn (Lim), and Rex Reed (Longfellow) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No, #278 - From Russia with Love, and #335 - Thunderball)

Review: 

In a way, sometimes a movie gets a reputation because of production troubles or bad word-of-mouth (traditional movies, anyway, although ones outside the mainstream can get through that regardless). Inchon was a perfect storm that has never managed to live down its infamy in the four decades that have passed since it was released. The movie is based on the events that occurred during the Battle of Inchon in South Korea, which occurred from September 10-19, 1950 (the city is referred to today as Incheon, as the country changed their Romanization system for names in 2000), with the amphibious assault being led by Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief of United Nations Forces; the battle is considered a key point of the Korean War. MacArthur had been the subject of one previous feature with a biopic that was released four years prior that was directed by Joseph Sargent that had Gregory Peck as the general; the next film to detail the battle wouldn't occur for three decades in Operation Chromite (2016). Of course, the sticking point for a film like this is one that doesn't tie to its international cast or its noted director. Instead, it ties down to five words: Special advisor Sun Myung Moon. Well, since this is a movie review, we can't exactly talk about Moon beyond a few short sentences: For one, he was an anti-communist Korean that formed the Unification Church in 1954, and he later proclaimed himself as a Messiah that stoked plenty of followers and just as many critics (he also was a businessman that dealt in news media, such as with The Washington Times), particularly with his conviction for filling false federal income tax returns and conspiracy in 1984. Perhaps it was an act of God that brought all of these circumstances together to make a uniquely amusing time, since the press kit for the film actually claimed that McArthur approved of his portrayal...from the spirit world, as he had died a decade prior. Of course, the other choices that Moon thought about making a movie about involved Jesus and Elvis Presley (all of this is actually correct, I am not joking). Of course, one can't forget about Terence Young in all of this. Sure, this was the second-to-last film in his forty year career, but Young was at the very least a director who in theory could have executed a well done war film, at least since he could handle three James Bond features to worthy reputation, particularly since he was familiar with international co-productions such as Red Sun (1971). Of course, he also stated that Moon putting his name on the credits of the film would be a mistake (along with the Church's idea to actually distribute the film itself, and they settled with fronting the promotional material), and the film ended up having to be shot in both Korea and Rome. The movie was written by Robin Moore and Laird Koenig, while the story was done by Moore and Paul Savage. Moore was known for his writings such as The Green Berets and The French Connection, but he chafed at the demands for a war story that also had to have numerous narratives within a story that probably was too much to handle in a two hour feature.

Technically speaking, this might be a prescient feature in terms of church-funded mega-failures in the vein of Battlefield Earth (2000), but there is a quick distinction between those films: One can actually see that movie on home video. Inchon has never been released on DVD, and the only reason that anyone can even find footage of the film to view (in dubious quality) is because the movie was shown on the Church's former television network (GoodLife Television Network), for which people transferred it onto VHS for bootleg recordings. The original cut of the film was 140 minutes, and this is the version that was shown on television, albeit with certain swear words edited out, but it should be mentioned that the film shown in theaters was only 106 minutes long, which cut out scenes with David Janssen (best known for The Fugitive, who took the movie to work with Olivier), who had died before release.  I'm sure you don't need to know that this is a dramatization of the battle and not actually based entirely in reality, since lighthouses generally do not serve as the be-all end-all to war victories. Besides, the movie can't even have one consistent narrative, since it also has to balance out its parts with MacArthur for scenes spent with Gazzara & Bisset, which manages to mangle any attempt at perspective beyond boredom (at least when it isn't spending time with a barely hearable Janssen and a "no, I'm not joking" Reed for exposition). Somehow, having Roundtree and Mifune as supporting members doesn't help. Gazzara and Bisset seem more bored than anything when it comes to some spiel about romance or rescuing others from danger. At least one can say Olivier tried. At this point in his life, he was taking film roles for money, and this was certainly one of those roles, since he described himself as like a vintage wine that needs to be drank quickly before becoming sour (he wanted to leave enough money for his family); while he was ill for the last decade of his life, he still marched on as an actor without complaint. He did his research when it came to visiting the MacArthur Museum and even visiting a prominent member that had served under the general during the war while also trying to imitate his voice (which apparently sounded like W. C. Fields) and go through plenty of makeup, although he stated that he didn't think he looked like MacArthur or even himself. The clip at the end of the real MacArthur speaking does not exactly help matters; in the end, he moves like a pale ghost and yet manages to be the only presence worth trying to watch, and it isn't even a good performance. The movie has the attitude of trying to be a spectacle epic with dramatic weight, but it has the striking power of a B-movie, pure and simple. It plods along for way too long with narratives far too boring for anybody to care about while having the spiritual depth of a two-inch fountain. If one is going to watch a war movie that borders on propaganda, by God could they do better than this feature when it comes to actual relevance for showing a useful story. You might as well spend an hor looking for articles on the Internet about Incheon than spend two hours with this dramatization. It is an obvious turkey that is best suited for testing if hearing explosions will interrupt two hours of snoozing; it might not be the worst war film or worst of anything (since the Church aspect probably makes this an easy target), but it sure is one for the ages in terms of turkey-dom.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Sometimes, the best way to look at an action star is to look at what happens when they are put into the director's chair. So it's time for On Deadly Ground.

Myra Breckinridge.

Review #1762: Myra Breckinridge.

Cast:

Raquel Welch (Myra Breckinridge), Rex Reed (Myron Breckinridge), John Huston (Buck Loner), Mae West (Leticia Van Allen), Farrah Fawcett (Mary Ann Pringle), Roger C. Carmel (Dr. Randolph Spencer Montag), Roger Herren (Rusty Godowski), George Furth (Charlie Flager, Jr), Calvin Lockhart (Irving Amadeus), Jim Backus (Doctor), John Carradine (Surgeon), and Andy Devine (Coyote Bill) Directed by Michael Sarne.

Review: 

“When you’re young, you do things sometimes that are impossible because they are impossible. There is a delight in attempting the extraordinary, the immensely difficult merely because it is so. Myra Breckinridge for me became more and more this kind of challenge, the chance to say what I believed was ultimately anarchic and satirical.” - Michael Sarne

“There was this strange bouquet of personalities that were attached to this film, and each one of them was bigger than life in their own sphere. And you thought, Maybe this is the best idea that ever happened, and maybe it’s the worst.” - Raquel Welch

In 1968, Gore Vidal wrote and published a novel in Myra Breckinridge. I have not read the book, but it has been called one of his most famous works, one that challenged the sexual norms of American life in culture and society while also dabbling in writing for film and television from time to time, which included un-credited work on Ben-Hur (1959); incidentally, Vidal was loosely inspired by the exploits of John “Bunny” Breckinridge, a wealthy drag queen that you would recognize from his performance in Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959). Two years later, an adaptation of the novel was done by 20th Century Fox to the derision of Vidal and numerous critics, for which a half century has not quite seen a rehabilitation of what has been considered a turkey of its time. Keep in mind, Hollywood now had a rating system rather than a Production Code, and it followed a decade that had seen films like Easy Rider (1969) and Midnight Cowboy (1969)...along with stuff such as Skidoo (1968). In other words, producers wanted to get with the "hip" crowd, but without getting too much into it. It was one of two X-rated films (well, at the time it was rated X, although now it is R) to be released by Fox alongside Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which had unfavorable reviews as well, but it managed to be both a box office hit and find its own cult following (coincidentally, that movie also featured a film critic in its production). With this film, not only was the feature disowned by Vidal as a "joke" (albeit one he reportedly never saw), it effectively destroyed the career of the man who directed it as well in Michael Sarne (who occasionally dabbles in acting and painting). Vidal had the first crack at a script (of course Bud Yorkin was the first director in mind for the film), but it did not go well, because Fox (specifically producers David Brown and Richard Zanuck) apparently thought it needed to be as crazy and zany as one would think the ideas presented in the novel evoked. Sarne, who actually had a novelty hit as a singer in the 1960s, had exactly one other major studio film credit: Joanna (1968), which while not a hit at the time was at least given decent reviews. David Giler was brought in to try and deliver a script that would have apparently been a bit more straight-forward (while suggesting George Cukor to take over as director, which Sarne actually endorsed). Each would end up with a writing credit. If there ever was a more bewildering selection of cast mates for any particular movie, I'm sure this one would be one to discuss near the top. On one side, you have a star in Welch who wanted to try and escape the sex symbol status and try to aim for further legitimacy. On the other side introduces a(alleged) film critic with no prior acting experience in a key role. On another side, you have a famous director acting while the director behind the lines tells folks how much he hated his works (because he wanted Mickey Rooney, I kid you not). And, of course, Mae West, making a comeback movie while in the throes of feuding with Welch. Oh, and the debuts of Farrah Fawcett and Tom Selleck. If you think about it, any director that calls one of its stars an "old raccoon" (well, in retrospect, he stated she had a "marvelously artificial way of acting"), another a "old hack", and then spends valuable production time shooting food and "thinking"...probably got exactly what they deserved.  

What do you expect from a movie that has lines such as “the destruction of the last vestigial traces of traditional manhood”? Or how about "Myra Breckinridge is a dish, and don't you ever forget it, you motherfuckers - as the children say nowadays."?  My favorite was probably the one where she states as a Golden Age film nut that there wasn't an unimportant film made in Hollywood between 1935 and 1945 (????) Well, for one, you could expect a memorable experience, this much is true. Beyond the flurry of stock footage and name actors is a movie that drives exactly one thought through one's head: it is the equivalent of seeing someone trying to sing and walk while blindfolded...in a garden full of rakes (and judging by how miserable some of the folks were on the film, I would imagine that they would likely rather go through the rake rather than make the movie again if asked). In theory, this is an interesting cast to feature in a film, even with West in a pseudo-comeback move (Carradine, however, may end up being the most fitting person to have a one-note showing in an one-note movie). It starts with a bizarre dance sequence between two folks who can't quite match in rhythm (Reed and Welch) and never recovers from there. Oh, but don't even get started on the editing choices that come through a movie that acts like sitting still is a sin against nature. Sure, the biggest critique of the film at the time owed to how it managed to offend both folks that were already critical of the book (i.e. conservative audiences) AND folks that were curious to see a misguided attempt at making a studio movie of something that begs for an arthouse experience (or perhaps a French director, if we want to go further into esoteric mockery). The decision to use old film clips throughout the movie does not help matters either, since nothing of merit actually seems to be said with the clips, since this isn't exactly a worthwhile satire; sure, you can show a bunch of Laurel & Hardy clips all you want, but that isn't going to prove anything. Did I mention the twist ending? If this was the part that really sold the studio, they probably should have doubled the amount of alcohol they were drinking.  

If you can believe it, Welch actually wanted to play both Myra and Myron. I can believe that she really wanted to do a movie that would give her some sort of argument for being an actress beyond what you saw (and didn't hear). In a sea of bad decisions, she manages to do the best in terms of performance, probably because she gives it a great go for this artificial role. She can laugh at the movie now, and I can appreciate her attempts at comedy (or whatever is supposed to be present here) far more than anyone else here. Well, I would make a cutting remark about Rex Reed and his attempts at acting in a debut, but having to say "where are my tits?" is humiliating enough. Besides, he seethed at making the film and later talked plenty when it came time to write of the film and its troubled production (for which there was plenty of rope to hang).  Technically, Sarne has been quoted as saying he was "threatened" by Huston's presence, because, well, one would likely be quite speechless at having to direct a man would directed great movies and also acted from time to time in good ones (Sarne merely thought he couldn't act). Huston seems to doze his role with mild abandon, as if he knows that nothing he does here could possibly be the high or low point for an embarrassment like this, so being stuck in neutral is fair. Mae West had not appeared in a film since The Heat's On (1946). Of course, she had made a name for herself in the early sound-era with her raunchy presence...and she agreed to do this film provided she could write her own material. This somehow involves her having multiple music numbers. One could make a note about the dubiousness of West acting as if she is still 26, but stating that her performance seems like it is pulled out of a different movie is enough (that, and anybody who has a problem with Welch earns negative points); one could only wonder how making a flop like this did not stop her from trying to do another comeback a few years later with Sextette (1977) . It is the only film credit for Roger Herren, who either couldn't get film credits after this film or simply fell off the Earth. The infamous pegging scene probably didn't help. Of course, since it features stock footage being spliced in, it also manages to do exactly nothing with how confused it is. The supporting cast looks puzzled as to just what kind of movie they are in (yes, even Carmel), and yet the movie is always quite watchable in its dazzling failure of 94 minutes because it has dazzling style in clothing choices and in its shots that make the stuff shown on screen all the more baffling. 

Well, you have read a thousand words of talking about a turkey. Would I recommend trying to find this film? If you are a curious filmgoer who likes to watch dazzling bad taste...if you are a curious filmgoer who wants to see just how bad a movie can mangle attempts at satire or attempts at something involving gender...if you are a curious filmgoer who wants to see Raquel Welch in a role that shines above the cast in the most ironic of ways...if you can stomach all that, this is the movie for you. It is the mother of all ill-conceived ideas, one too curious to be thought of as the worst of anything but deserving of a great laugh at the expense of both filmmaker and studio.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Inchon.

Jail Bait (1954).

Review #1761: Jail Bait.

Cast: 

Lyle Talbot (Inspector Johns), Steve Reeves (Lt. Bob Lawrence), Herbert Rawlinson (Dr. Boris Gregor), Clancy Malone (Don Gregor), Dolores Fuller (Marilyn Gregor), Timothy Farrell (Vic Brady), Theodora Thurman (Loretta), Bud Osborne (Paul McKenna), and Mona McKinnon (Miss Willis) Directed by Ed Wood (#183 - Plan 9 from Outer Space, #536 - Glen or Glenda, and #537 - Bride of the Monster)

Review: 

Sure, there are a handful of films to associate with Ed Wood that can be seen by anyone that stick in the cult consciousness, even though he did not direct as many films as one would think. His first feature film as director as Glen or Glenda (1953), if you remember; it was the first of ten features, although he ventured into decidely more racy intent with the last four (with the last one coming in 1972, six years before his death), and this isn't even counting his ventures in television (aired or not) and his screenplay contributions. It probalby makes sense that the films he was best known for involved sci-fi horror, but Jail Bait (1954) is in fact the first of two crime films that he would end up doing in his line of work. As such, Wood wrote the film with Alex Gordon, who actually would work again with Wood in Bride of the Monster (1955) while being more known for producing several films for American Interational Pictures in the span of a decade (such as The Lawless Rider). It may interest you to note that this was the first feature film for bodybuilder-turned-actor Steve Reeves, who later became popular in the decade for his work within Italian-made sword-and-sandal films (as such, this is actually one of only two American movies he ever did). This was the second of three appearances for Lyle Talbot, who actually was known for never saying no to any film offer. Herbert Rawlinson is here for his final film appearance in a lengthy career (since Bela Lugosi was not avaiable), and he actually died the day after he filmed his scenes of lung cancer.

One has to remember that Ed Wood really wanted to make serious movies. At the very least, he is certainly not the worst filmmaker of all-time (not in a world where Coleman Francis exists), and he probably isn't even the worst of his era. But he surely was not quite lucky with actually developing a fully competent feature if you look at stuff like this film, which believe it or not is probably less watchable than what would come from Wood. There is a reason folks remember Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) moreso than this one. The title is obviously trying to bait you on, but it actually refers to one of the characters saying a gun is "jail bait". Of course, the true indicator comes with its attempt at a music score, a mixture of flamenco guitar and piano, which plays through the whole movie at if the whole film needed a jazzy score. Instead, it might drive one bonkers, because it doesn't exactly go with the attempt at film noir at any point in time, particularly since one will probably be making fun of the fact that all the action happens to take place at night. In short: the movie seems made of cardboard even at 71 minutes, but at least you can see the attempts at legitmacy within a stock attempt at hostage/troubled youth noir. Somehow, this seems like the kind of film that could have been cut in half and not really lose that much detail (in fact, there are prints that include a scene added in entirely to pad the length, and all it involves is a routine involving blackface minstrel); the face-swapping hostage stuff doesn't even happen until quite late in the feature (which might make one chuckle a reminder from another certain movie involving swapping faces), and a movie with little cast-mates won't exactly generate great tension. In short: it might not have as many dubious qualities to make light of like Wood's other features (trust me, if you look hard enough, you'll find them), but it doesn't exactly mean it is better than being a middling experience. Talbot and Rawlinson are probably the most professional of the attempts in acting, in that their rote nature is far more suited than one-time grocery-men or burly builders. Farrell barely even qualifies as a surly adversary, while Fuller and Thurman might as well be broomsticks. What you get here is a movie that would have been entirely forgettable without Wood as director, pure and simple. It drones and plods like a generic time, albeit one that isn't exactly as watchable as some of his other works, if you can understand that. As a whole, folks who want to look on Ed Wood and the six theatrical movies he made as director won't struggle with this film, whether they think it is a big turkey or not. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Myra Breckinridge.

Reefer Madness.

Review #1760: Reefer Madness.

Cast: 
Dorothy Short (Mary Lane), Kenneth Craig (Bill Harper), Lillian Miles (Blanche), Dave O'Brien (Ralph Wiley), Thelma White (Mae Coleman), Carleton Young (Jack Perry), Warren McCollum (Jimmy Lane), Pat Royale (Agnes), Josef Forte (Dr. Alfred Carroll), and Harry Harvey Jr. (Junior Harper) Directed by Louis J. Gasnier.

Review: 
Sure, it doesn't take much to say that a person who has or hasn't used certain substances will have nearly the same view on a film like this. But it helps to know exactly what one is getting into before dozing in on a film like this, which has been colorized and even turned into a stage musical. The film was done apparently as church effort in the mid-1930s with the help of producer George Hirliman. Of course, Dwain Esper soon took over after it had been shot and added "certain" shots to add for the exploitation circuit, which is where the various titles come from that range from "The Burning Question" to "Doped Youth" (the title card will also say it was formely known as "Tell Your Children", so there's that). At any rate, the director for the film wasn't exactly a novice - Louis J. Gasnier (a collaborator on various poverty row films with Hirliman). The Frenchman started work in the film industry at the turn of the 20th century, directing various shorts until he moved to the States in 1910. He is best known for finding the comedian Max Linder along with directing The Perils of Pauline (1914), a popular film serial of its day (along with being one of his few silent films that survive). He was near the end of his directing career (nearing the age of 65, although he did dabble in acting to keep with the bills until his death). The film was written by Arthur Hoerl, who might have been inspired by an actual mass murder spree that was construed as being done by someone under the influence of marijuana (rather than the actual cause, which involved mental illness). 

Of course, the film did not find a second wind of cult popularity until 1972 (helps when there is no copyright notice), since activists like Keith Stroup and a movie distributor (Robert Shaye) found it something worth showing on college campuses...for a laugh. The problem with looking back to the past is that sometimes you get some really boring experiences when it comes to stuff of their time. I'm sure you've seen at least one "morality tale", and I would hope that they actually told you something meaningful, unlike with this film. Hell, if you pay attention to the film, one of the folks who actually "takes the stuff" gets away with a crime. Besides, you don't need me to tell you that taking substances doesn't work the way you see it on the screen, because you can learn that by asking a friend (of course in the absence of that, figure it out). The exploitation folks wanted to make, well, exploitation, so they did it under the guise of "education". The hyperbole isn't hard to see, even if one was drunk on their own supply. Seeing "swell" folks turn into madcap nutters in paranoia, albeit with a few little scenes of stock footage (i.e. newsreel). Honestly, the only interesting presence might be from O'Brien, in the whole "going nuts" thing, although Forte and his droning sequences about the dangers of drugs with "or yours...or yours!" could probably be funnier if one pretends he in fact was on drugs himself. But hey, you'll see "education" at hand with folks running over pedestrians while high, frantic piano playing, and various mild things. As a whole, an hour is a terrible thing to waste unless you are in the mood for it, particularly for a public domain feature that should be spent with actual curiosities, not movies with bland flavor that just happens to have an absurd idea or two trying to poke around the surface. Laugh at it, sure, but taking an actual substance might actually prove more rewarding than utilizing time on a turkey like this.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week Two begins. Like I said, the old-fashioned turkeys are sometimes the best ones to start with before getting to the modern stuff...but the next one involves a familiar face. 

Next Time: Jail Bait (1954).

The Karate Kid (1984)

Review #1759: The Karate Kid.

Cast: 

Ralph Macchio (Daniel LaRusso), Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi), Elisabeth Shue (Ali Mills), Martin Kove (John Kreese), Randee Heller (Lucille LaRusso), William Zabka (Johnny Lawrence), Chad McQueen (Dutch), Ron Thomas (Bobby Brown), Rob Garrison (Tommy), and Tony O'Dell (Jimmy) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky, #895 - Rocky V, #1689 - W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings)

Review: 

Sure, you could make the connection that a director best known for a film about fighting in John G. Avildsen might have wanted to make a hit that was reminiscent of Rocky (1976) for the 1980s (the one song associated with this film coincidentally was meant for Rocky III). Of course, the actual inspiration for this film came with its writer in Robert Mark Kamen. The New York native was actually a student of karate, having studied it after he was beaten up at the 1964 New York World's Fair (note that one of the characters is actually named after a famed martial artist, for which Kamen trained under a sensei that had learned from said martial artist). Kamen eventually became a screenwriter (with his first collaboration being with Taps in 1981), but the story for this film actually came from Kamen being asked if he could make a story around an article that had been optioned by a producer that involved a kid taking up karate to deal with neighborhood bullies. The funny thing is that the main two roles had widely divergent options before settling with Macchio and Morita; Nicolas Cage was one consideration, while the other role was really meant for a perceived serious actor...Toshiro Mifune was actually considered for the role, but he wasn't chosen because he did not actually speak English (I would like to point the irony that Kamen learned karate from a master that didn't speak English). Instead, it went to the actor that Avildsen fought for: Noriyuki "Pat" Morita, who was more known as a comic than a serious actor (I suppose folks really weren't convinced that comedic actors can do useful serious performances); the best scene in the whole film with him was one that nearly got cut because of requests by Columbia, but Avildsen managed to keep it in the film (of course, martial artist Fumio Demura has also been cited as source of inspiration for Morita, complete with stunt doubling for him in parts).

Look, we're talking about a movie where someone learns to basically be a black belt in two months. If one can take that carefully enough, I'm pretty sure you can handle two hours of material that could have teetered over the saccharine line and yet manages to be a riveting experience with a game cast that proves up to the task of capable entertainment. The karate passes enough to keep one interested (unless one is really, really into accuracy) without diverting all the attention from the routines the story has to stretch to get where it needs to go without becoming the "why doesn't the main character call the cops on these weirdo karate punks?" kind of movie. Macchio proves adept with cultivating a likable lead focus with enthusiasm and sense of timing that makes the journey worth taking without seeming like a hokey TV special (i.e in the overall message involving not just learning something just to enact violence on them). The support around him always will circle to Morita first when it comes to this film - for good reason. Leave it to Avildsen to pick an unlikely name for an intriguing role that worked out exactly to what is needed to essentially serve as the counterpart for Macchio without turning the role into a diet of clichés and tired lines. In short, he makes a worthy presence of soothing interest that serves the film well in patience (although the sequences involving him training the lead seem reminiscent of the training done in Rocky (1976), it has a different touch). It was his most notable role, one that would earn him an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor: the scene that likely helped sell it involves him opening up about his past with who he loved and lost, for which the chemistry between Macchio and Morita helps a poignant bond seem only more fitting. Of course, the others in the cast keep up just fine: Shue makes a fair pairing with Macchio, while Kove absolutely makes for a worthy foil that is accompanied by Zabka and his wavering intimidation that makes a useful contrast to focus on from time to time. The film sells its moments with balance that never seeps into camp value, whether for overt seriousness or veering all the way into comedy, maneuvering its way through with pride to go along with a few quotable lines (for which I'm sure you've heard someone wax on or wax off before). Oh sure, there is quite an enduring legacy to the film, which believe it or not was actually a surprise hit to a good number of the cast and crew. Part II (1986) and Part III (1989) were both directed by Avildsen while featuring Macchio, Morita, and Kove (and Kamen as writer), while The Next Karate Kid (1994) featured only Morita. A remake of the original film was done in 2010. A web television series sequel followed with Cobra Kai (2018-present), featuring both Macchio and Zabka as star. If that is not enough, there are even plans for a musical on Broadway. At any rate, The Karate Kid (1984) has endured for so long because of how it managed to put all the right moves together at the right time with the right cast and right folks behind it to make a fun movie and a worthy piece of the capsule of good stuff from the 1980s without becoming gripped as a relic of the time. Sincere without sickening, it doesn't take long to become gripped by its charm, for which I would say is a useful accomplishment worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Turkey Week looms. With a week to Thanksgiving, it is almost time for Movie Night: Turkey Week Two, which will take place from November 21 to November 27 (i.e. the week of Thanksgiving, like last year) while focusing on films that are thought of as "turkeys", if you will; last year featured eight films from different decades that went from The Terror of Tiny Town to Freddy Got Fingered, and the approach will continue.

My Neighbor Totoro.

Review #1758: My Neighbor Totoro.

Cast: 

Noriko Hidaka (Satsuki Kusakabe), Chika Sakamoto (Mei Kusakabe), Shigesato Itoi (Tatsuo Kusakabe), Sumi Shimamoto (Yasuko Kusakabe), Hitoshi Takagi (Totoro), Toshiyuki Amagasa (Kanta Ōgaki), Tanie Kitabayashi (Granny), Naoki Tatsuta (Catbus), and Chie Kōjiro (Michiko) Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki (#1111 - Spirited Away, #1233 - Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, and #1480 - Castle in the Sky)

Review: 

"We need a new method and sense of discovery to be up to the task. Rather than be sentimental, the film must be a joyful, entertaining film. The forgotten. The ignored. Those that are considered lost. Yet I made My Neighbor Totoro with the firm belief that these things still exist."

Sometimes one just has to step back and look at the landscape, whether to touch the grass or to look upon just what lies beneath the seen elements of the things around us. Or hell, sometimes one just wants to look upon the tranquility that comes from a place where the only thing worth worrying about is in the imagination in one's heart. In other words, breathtaking animation and mood can go a long way towards an engaging experience, even when it is a movie that is built on capturing the serenity of what it means to watch a movie that doesn't have to build great conflict to make one of the most curious animated features to come out of Japan. Of course, one would not be surprised to hear that it came from Hayao Miyazaki, who set out to make a heartwarming feature film that would not only stay with its viewers but would also encourage both parents and children. Over the course of a decade, he turned an initial idea of doing a picture book into a film, one that would show ordinary scenery of Japan; he rediscovered the beauty of the country in the time spent working on those ideas (as he moved to Tokorozawa in 1970), and he wanted to make a movie that got kids outside (of course, now a picture book of the movie actually exists, so I suppose if one really wants to they could also sift through that as well). At any rate, it should be noted that this was actually one of two features that Studio Ghibli would release in the year of 1988 in a most unique double feature, since Grave of the Fireflies was released on the same day (the films were funded by different publishers while having stark differences in tone); both features would receive attention for their qualities in later years, although this film only became more successful when it went to television the year after its release, while merchandise for the film (such as a toy of Totoro) later became quite popular.

Admittedly, a movie about two kids living in 1950s Japan that happen to encounter a furry monster could lend itself to a few interested eyes but not exactly the way you think, considering the fact that Miyazaki aimed for a film that looked as normal and as enchanting as one could make in tranquility (i.e. not about guns, action, or speed, as Miyazaki put it). As cliché as it might sound, sometimes one really does need a film kids and adults can like equally as well. The art of making a good film is to make a film worth looking into for the targeted audience, but a great film just tries to entertain everyone at hand without any sense of talking down to folks. In short, animated films obviously can be suited for everyone, and the Studio Ghibli films managed to do quite well with telling a worthy story with fluid animation that makes for a worthy follow up to the company's prior effort (Castle in the Sky, 1986). It manages to do well with its 86 minute run-time in capturing the beauty of its landscapes that balances nostalgia with modern sensibility for a refreshing result (i.e. it is a pretty movie but not merely just a pretty movie to doze by), one that is always alive no matter what happens to be on the screen. Of course, it takes its time for the title character to show itself, but the build-up to that is worth the time, no matter how much one hears about it (i.e. not just looking at the cover) because it manages to be a playful type of patience, much in the same way that one is if they simply walked across some grass to play in the park and wondered if something was on a big tree (or some other scenic view, take your pick). The voices are ideal for the characters present on screen with no distraction, with Hidaka and Sakamoto being a worthy pair to play off each other as a worthy film sibling tandem, while Itoi chimes in with warm charm from bit to bit. The parts spent with the actual creature are sweet and interesting without turning curiosities on one's head, and it helps make the closing sequences all the more worth where it needs to go. As a whole, the best that can be said for the film is that it cultivates a curious world of tranquility with magical charm that bucks the expectation one might see in other animated features as a feature for all ages. Without a dull moment in sight, Miyazaki proves to be one of the masters in crafting a useful story worth checking out with landscapes and rhythm to spare. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sudden Impact.

Review #1757: Sudden Impact.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Sondra Locke (Jennifer Spencer), Pat Hingle (Chief Lester Jannings), Bradford Dillman (Captain Briggs), Paul Drake (Mick), Michael Maurer (George Wilburn), Albert Popwell (Horace King), Audrie J. Neenan (Ray Parkins), and Jack Thibeau (Kruger) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, and #1638 - Bird)

Review: 

Remember the ham-fisted nature of the Dirty Harry series? Well, at least some of the time, anyway. True, having the first feature being the undisputed best of a five film series is not exactly a new thing, but one really can't forget just how engaging the original 1971 film was when it came to police procedural dramas. Of course, it did not go without controversy, at least from folks that have quibbles with its moral positioning (real or imagined, depending on the source). Magnum Force (1973) was not a bad follow-up film, although it certainly had a diminished quality when it came to the adversarial contrast to Eastwood (who doesn't have to do much to make the lead role his own with a few key lines); the punch for its climax was fine, but it was what it was. The Enforcer (1976) harkened to pulling from the headlines for its main confrontation that saw plenty of action and folks sprayed around; the smart remarks and vigilance continued, albeit with stock adversaries and a tone that almost could have been lampooned. This would be the first and only Dirty Harry film that Eastwood would direct; incidentally, he felt the success of the series was because people felt frustrated with the criminal justice system. Earl E. Smith and Charles B. Pierce wrote the initial script that was meant to be a starring vehicle for just Locke, but it was later turned into a film fit for both Locke and Eastwood with the help of Joseph Stinson. This would happen to be the last major feature role for Locke, who had decided to venture into directing (she had starred with Eastwood in five previous films) before personal disputes with Eastwood led to what she would call being blacklisted from the film industry.

If you were wondering just where the series would go here, well, here you go. It has a weird blend of coarse procedural clichés that go hand in hand with parts that go with moments that seem destined for curious chuckles that teeter on self-parody. A hack writer who wanted to make a parody of loose cannon cops like the one Eastwood plays wouldn't have to search hard for stuff to lampoon, what with the capacity for the lead hero to have bodies turn up dead around him (criminal or not). Justice is a tough thing to enforce when folks keep turning up, it seems. Of course the parody wouldn't be as cynical about the nature of society and criminal justice as this film does, although at least one can say there is a fairly decent movie within semi-plausible standards. Technically speaking, it is a bit better than the last film, in that it manages to have a more interesting contrast to its lead character, although it certainly does have a bit more baggage within building 117 minutes of cop drama. Of course, you could see where the series may or may not have started to run a bit on its own self-righteous steam; the fifth and final film would be released in 1988. Eastwood always seems unflappable with making movies his way with a particular view involving crime and the near-mythic hero that doesn't have to say much to get his shot clear, so one can take it or leave the actor at who he is (I say that word rather than just "the man", interpret that how you like); even an average Eastwood movie is still a useful time to be had for those who seek it, at least. Locke seems to represent the other side of the coin of driven determination in the idea of justice, and one might be amused that they don't interact with each other until nearly an hour in; they don't exactly share broad chemistry with each other, but they seem to connect the quiet wires to where they need to (it should be pointed out that in the "parody", you wouldn't even have to change the fact that she is the most effective "adversarial counterpart" to the hero) - if you believe the climax, you might just believe almost anything with Eastwood, I guess. Hingle is the straight-laced counterpart to situations that could almost require more bluster to blush oneself (what with the whole big city vs town thing), but he makes the most of it with useful candor. Drake makes an okay goon, although it is strange to note that this was his most noted role as an actor. Popwell plays the partner-surrogate to fit the detached chemistry one sees coming from interactions with Eastwood in these films (insert phrase here). As a whole, one can reasonably be engaged with the film with its casual handling of action and stance on justice (namely have more of it?) while recognizing that it likely only works as much as one wants to put into it with the usual suspects; folks that are not too big on Eastwood or his rigidity won't be swayed too much, but others will roll with the punches fine (one wonders just how the last film will go with an actor pushing near 60 though). If it is thought of as one of Eastwood's more mediocre works, one can at least state that it manages to be a fair mediocre work one would still want to think about. It may be a bit off-kilter with its overall execution, but it still manages to provide a fine time for those who seek the waning days of the Dirty Harry series with curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Devil's Rejects.

Review #1756: The Devil's Rejects.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), William Forsythe (Sheriff Wydell), Ken Foree (Charlie Altamont), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Leslie Easterbrook (Mother Firefly), Geoffrey Lewis (Roy Sullivan), Priscilla Barnes (Gloria Sullivan), Dave Sheridan (Officer Ray Dobson), Kate Norby (Wendy Banjo), Lew Temple (Adam Banjo), Danny Trejo (Rondo), and Diamond Dallas Page (Billy Ray Snapper) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009))

Review: 

I will give credit to Rob Zombie in one aspect. Anybody who can generate enough interest to get a bunch of folks interested in making horror movies with familiar faces and premises that border on halfcocked and half-original for over two decades certainly merits curiosity. At least this time around one will not be able to see the film as just some sort of offbeat take on horror films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), if only because Zombie has decided to take inspiration from other features that range from Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to Badlands (1973). The art of the grotesque has taken its talents to the road, you might say. Technically speaking, it is superior to House of 1000 Corpses (2003), even though the only thing those film have in common is Haig-Moseley-Zombie as the main focus (i.e. no weirdo travelers or even the use of Karen Black, who apparently demanded too much money to return to the role now played by Easterbrook). Experienced horror folks will be right at home with a film like this, one that rolls with brutal swings without having many hitches in its step. Zombie has a knack for making the detestable come off as curious, which I suppose helps when trying to do a psuedo-70s movie (I say this since one really does have to put on a few blinders again when trying to buy this as 1978), complete with a selection of songs that differ from the earlier approach of having Zombie doing his own music (which is fair on its own, but sometimes you need old-time music).

What can I say? If you deliver a fine time with people worth caring about or creepy scenarios with a useful payoff, you have the formula for what a good amount of folks want in horror, and this movie manages to accomplish that in spades by improving on what had been done before from Zombie (and the films he dabbles in cribbing from) that proves gruesome and curious at the same time. It makes for an interesting 107-minute run-time, that much is for sure. If you like seeing Sid Haig in a demented role that inspires a few dark chuckles, you will certainly get what you want here; the best scene might be when he is "borrowing" a car and he asks a kid why they aren't too fond of clowns....so he lets him go and tells him he better have a good reason when he comes back (or...oh hell, you know). Moseley follows along with a terrific role of brutal effectiveness, one that can equally serves as the mark of a devil's servant along with dutiful straight man to this cadre of eccentrics, who can go from bloody events to wanting ice cream in a few minutes. S. Zombie certainly has improved on the wicked allure from two years prior with an added sense of menace that means there is no weak link among the main folks when it comes to unbalanced tools unlike anybody you've seen before. Think about it: we are following some very violent folks for most of its run-time, and yet the folks we are watching are fairly interesting in those moments spent together that muddles the line of what you might usually see from films in the genre, particularly when contrasted with the other side of the coin in the pursuer and the one being pursued. Forsythe (told to base his character as a combination of Lee Marvin and Robert Shaw) certainly homes in the right sense of demented rigidity that makes him a worthy piece to the proceedings, a tool of obsession that has a few moments to let out worthy enjoyment, particularly with the setup for the climax. Foree does pretty well in amusing relief, resonating well when paired with Haig for a few interesting lines together, while the others in the supporting cast are fair for what is needed. Honestly, while I appreciate the build to the climax when it comes to throwing the depravity on its head, I think it nearly stumbles with its resolution (remember that it wasn't exactly just three folks in the last one...), but I do think the final shot will likely resolve that doubt for the most part. If you are squeamish when it comes to certain kinds of horror, it won't prove much for your fancy, but I am sure you know where you want to see in your horror movies anyway. The next film in the series (called the "Firefly trilogy" by some folks) would not happen until 3 from Hell (2019), but at least one knows that The Devil's Rejects has managed to fare well as when it comes to the curiosity of this being the most interesting work that Zombie accomplished in his first few years as a director in executing depraved sequences with useful timing and folks to hold it all up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 27 films that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's near eleven-year history for concentrated writing about horror; sure, there will be a handful of horror-ish movies covered in the next few months, but suggestions are always welcome. 

The Ring Two.

Review #1755: The Ring Two.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel), Simon Baker (Max Rourke), David Dorfman (Aidan), Elizabeth Perkins (Dr. Emma Temple), Gary Cole (Martin Savide), Sissy Spacek (Evelyn), Ryan Merriman (Jake), Emily VanCamp (Emily), Kelly Overton (Betsy), James Lesure (Doctor), and Kelly Stables (Evil Samara) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring (1998))

Review: 

"To me, I wouldn't look upon myself as a horror film maker somehow. But whenever I make horror movies, ideally I would like my audience to be really scared and to keep the scariness inside them at least for a few hours, or possibly a day or so. That happened for Ringu, or the American version."

Sure, there are a few ideas you could do when it comes to a horror movie that involves people watching a tape and dying seven days later. Of course, in trying to draw from the double-edged sword of being the sequel to an Americanized remake of a Japanese horror film, one can see where the clichés may fall in, but it is striking to see that this came from the director of the original theatrical feature that started it all with Hideo Nakata. Actually, Nakata wasn't the first one in mind for the sequel, since he actually had wanted to venture past being known as a horror filmmaker (he did a handful of dramas in his native country). It should be noted that he appreciated the 2002 remake that had been done by Gore Verbinksi, one that certainly had more room to expand on what had been done before while standing on its own. After attempts to bring in Noam Murro (a commercial director) failed, Nakata was tapped in. It should be noted that a short film called Rings is included with the DVD of this film, featuring Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, and Kelly Stables that deals with a cult of kids that like to share the experiences they have with the tape (which if you remember has to be passed on to someone before a week is over)...of course no one has apparently seen day seven, but I'm sure you know where that would go, as the story for the short film closes with the opening scene of the theatrical film. Of course, the only ones to return from the last one is Watts, Dorfman, and Stables (well, she was the stunt person for Samara, but now she replaces Daveigh Chase in playing the overall character). Nakata really thought that this triangle of characters would hold up for a script he believed was "very simple but very strong" (one that would be different from his own Ring sequel, which he had done in 1999, just to remember). Ehren Kruger returned to write the script for this film (having done the 2002 film); Nakata would not return back to the Ringu series until Sadako (2019), incidentally.

It is maddening to see just how much of a letdown this movie is, one that seems to be the bastard son of good intentions and studio notes. The aforementioned short film (16 minutes) is both a blessing and a curse, because it actually proves more intriguing than the feature film (110 minutes) that comes after it. No seriously, the premise of the short film seems more interesting to make a feature out of rather than the collection of clichés that come from the overall movie; imagine having folks that are trying to play chicken with death. Instead, the feature has shifted its focus from a killer tape to a hodgepodge that seems reminiscent of The Exorcist more than anything (at least that didn't have CGI deer). Trying to escape just doing a re-hash of what happened before has only resulted in a hollow experience that does nothing particularly new or particularly worthy enough to care, particularly since the triangle just can't keep interest up to begin with. This isn't to say that Watts does a terrible job, but she seems constricted here, mired in a mystery readily apparent to the audience way before the character figures it out. Dorfman is mildly interesting, but the moody tension that had been present the first time around just doesn't stick as well here; the case worker segment is an especially apparent waste of time in that regard, since it wastes Perkins in a shocking amount of time (hell, it uses Cole for just one scene...for attempts at humor!). Baker has the apparent charisma of television static on a clear night, while Spacek is more amusing in her one-note scene than anything. As a whole, most of this proves quite pointless, from its attempts to building lore that doesn't really go far to having its interesting scenes start and end the film (the climax certainly doesn't leave much to draw from the well, at least). There is nothing here that seems readily tense or interesting enough to hold an entire experience, and it perhaps is not surprising that there would not be another sequel in the American line for over a decade. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The circle of five reviews in three days is nearly complete. Halloween - The Week After Part 3 ends the same way 2020's version ended...with a Rob Zombie movie...The Devil's Rejects.

Altered States.

Review #1754: Altered States.

Cast: 

William Hurt (Dr. Eddie Jessup), Blair Brown (Emily Jessup), Bob Balaban (Arthur Rosenberg), Charles Haid (Mason Parrish), Thaao Penghlis (Eduardo Echeverria), Drew Barrymore (Margaret Jessup), Megan Jeffers (Grace Jessup), Dori Brenner (Sylvia Rosenberg), Peter Brandon (Alan Hobart), George Gaynes (Dr. Wissenschaft), and Jack Murdock (Hector Orteco) Directed by Ken Russell (#687 - Tommy)

Review: 

Well, as the saying goes...sometimes you just have to see it to believe it. This seems doubly true when looking at the output that came from the divergent creation of its director in Ken Russell and its writer in Paddy Chayefsky. But let us get back to the beginning, specifically in 1978. By this point in time, he was a screenwriter that had won three Academy Awards for his screenplays (Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971), Network (1976)). He had his inspiration to write a novel from a conversation he had with his friends Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner, who apparently wanted to make a monster movie in the guise of reality because King Kong (1976) was being made at the time. A three-page treatment eventually turned into a novel, with research being inspired by the work of John C. Lilly, best known for his work within isolation tanks (his work with dolphins inspired the book and su subsequent film The Day of the Dolphin (1973), incidentally). The book was a fair seller, and so it originally fell to Columbia Pictures (later Warner Bros. because of the rising budget) to try and make a film, with Arthur Penn tapped to direct. However, disagreements with Chayefsky led to him leaving the project. Apparently, when it finally came time for ask Russell, he was the 27th choice to be approached. He was picked because of his visual approach (remember that while he was the director of acclaimed films like Tommy (1975) and Women in Love (1969), he was also known for controversial works like The Devils (1971) and failures like Valentino (1977)). Keep in mind that Russell would have to film the script as written, since Chayefsky had full control. It would not go well. 

It was the last script from Chayefsky to be produced, as he died from a heart attack the following year at the age of 58, and he would be credited as "Sidney Aaron" (referring to his actual first and middle names). Russell would obviously defend the film from Chayefsky and his criticisms, stating that he had done "great justice" to the script without many modification, albeit without shooting or lighting the film the way he wanted; as quoted by Russell, "He would make suggestions, and I would listen courteously, and then disagree." (the producer of the film stated that Russell was fair with Chayefsky until filming began, while Russell related an experience of said producer asking the writer how he spelled "benign" and received "W.I.C.K.E.D" as a response). In other words, when you combine two highly-opinionated people who like to tell a story with their vision...you get something like this. The film made $19 million on a $14 million budget, although it would take Russell four years for his next project (for which he would remain busy as he had done in the previous decade).

The one horror (or science fiction, one would argue) work that Altered States seems to draw upon the most would be The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; you might consider it more sci-fi than horror, but screw it, this is a movie about a guy who looks for the true self that ends up turning into a creature and all sorts of things that could result losing all of oneself, that seems suitably fair for horror. Of course, the funny thing is that one can see both sides of the argument for how the material was handled because of how much of a curiosity it ultimately proves to be in its off-kilter execution of trying to find the scope of man within interesting imagery (as done by Bran Ferren) and a particular way of handling dialogue (which with a different acting style could have really reached further pretentiousness). Curious folks might wonder how this falls even slightly into horror when the dialogue wants to go a row over the nature of just what man is or something like that, complete with imagery that harkens to what one might see in a trip with certain substances...then a caveman comes into the picture to go with primordial goop. Heightened performances from a handful of the folks present only goes to show that sometimes one really can make a weird studio movie and get away with it, particularly with all the discussion that comes from trying to reach some sort of ecstasy. Trust me, you have to go with what you hear, no matter how weirdly laced it all seems. With 103 minutes to use, Russell handles the material that comes from having to strive for semi-serious sci-fi mumbo jumbo laced with "trip" material likely the best way one could have done, provoking interest more than stone-cold confusion (one can respect the writer for his contribution to screenwriting while also trying to hold back terming it as massively esoteric). It should be mentioned that this was the feature film debut of Hurt, who actually handles the material fairly well, all things considered. It could have been one of those roles that could have made for amusement on the weirdo joke circuit (imagery or not), but he keeps things right where they need to be in terms of confidence that makes this pursuit go right. Brown does fair here, possessed with material that would have become hammy with less matched folks or perhaps folks who like to watch weirdo imagery to go with pseudo-legit lines about love and the human experience. Balaban is fairly casual with what is seen here, but I find more interest with Haid and his approach to hearing such weird material as the semi-skeptic (at least in terms of someone who isn't on the magic mushroom train). The ending will certainly hit differently depending on the perspective of the one who watches it, if only because it has to stick to Chayefsky's intent of making (in overall sense) a love story. Whether it accomplishes that in a climax with a bunch of (not nearly as timeless) effects is up to you to go with; I shook my hands and went with it, if only because the only other conclusion would have been too darkly amusing to contemplate actually seeing on screen. As a whole, the movie balances the tightrope between passable mumbo jumbo scifi horror and wacko mumbo jumbo scifi horror, but it is at least always watchable when it needs to be, serving as a strange concoction of vision and heightened tone that you won't quite forget for quite a while.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Ring Two.