Valley of the Dolls.

Review #1931: Valley of the Dolls.

Cast: 

Barbara Parkins (Anne Welles), Patty Duke (Neely O'Hara), Paul Burke (Lyon Burke), Sharon Tate (Jennifer North), Tony Scotti (Tony Polar), Lee Grant (Miriam Polar), Susan Hayward (Helen Lawson), Martin Milner (Mel Anderson), Charles Drake (Kevin Gillmore), Alexander Davion (Ted Casablanca), Richard Angarola (Claude Chardot), Naomi Stevens (Miss Steinberg), and Robert H. Harris (Henry Bellamy) Directed by Mark Robson (#1797 - Home of the Brave)

Review: 

In 1966, Jacqueline Susann saw her first novel published in Valley of the Dolls. She had aspired to become an actress at a young age in the 1930s, and she got to appear in a handful of stage shows and television, but likely her most known quality was in commercials, which she wrote, produced and starred in for a number of years; she also had a habit of downing amphetamines (calling them "dolls") around this time, which apparently started not long after her son was diagnosed with autism and put into an institution when he was 3. In 1962, at the age of 44, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She then made a pact with God to say that she would prove herself to be the best-selling writer in the world if she was given ten more years of life. Often called the first "brand-name" novelist, Susann became quite the show-woman in promoting books, and her first published work was Every Night, Josephine! in 1963 (inspired by letter she wrote to her pet dog). Valley of the Dolls, the work she is most famous for, came in 1966. Years after steamy novels like Peyton Place succeeded with readers (not with critics), Valley of the Dolls was a twenty-year odyssey in the lives of three young women who all happen to fall prey to drugs called "dolls" that featured other characters inspired by real-life stars such as Ethel Merman, Carole Landis, Judy Garland and Dean Martin. Fifty years after its release, the book has sold more than 31 million copies, and it inspired a film, a "continuation novel", two TV adaptations and a parody with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). A book into the process of making Valley of the Dolls called one of the most beloved bad book and movies of its time was written by Stephen Rebello in 2020. Robson was an interesting choice to direct. The Montreal native honed his craft as an editor before he became a director, directing 34 films from The Seventh Victim (1943) to Avalanche Express (1979), with a number of the films seeing him also serve as a producer. Harlan Ellison, Helen Deutsch, and Dorothy Kingsley were brought in to work on the script, although Ellison hated what they did to the book and requested his name taken off - imagine a book that already sees a character kill themselves and another go off the wagon ending on a breezy note. Two further adaptation of the five novels Susann wrote have followed: The Love Machine (1971) and Once Is Not Enough (1975). In 1974, after over a decade of a battle with cancer, Susann died in 1974 at the age of 56.

Just like the film adaptation of Peyton Place (released in 1957 with Robson as director) and Sex and the Single Girl, the book really is steamier than the film it came from, since the book featured elements of homosexuality in both men and women. Of course, the movie takes place in the current day rather than the book timeline from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s. Jacqueline Susann saw the film on a cruise ship premiere, and she thought it was crap, although she kept that opinion to herself so to not give the movie an early thrashing...which came plenty (probably didn't help that the casting wasn't what she wanted, since she wanted people like Ursula Andress, Bette Davis, Shirley MacLaine and Elvis Presley for the lead roles). The movie and book ended up reflecting each other: audiences dug it while critics trashed it. The movie is an explosion of gloss and grooviness that looks like it was processed in the 1950s that makes a tale of sexual liberation and the entertainment industry seem quite amusing. Adultery, divorce, addiction and deviancy seem like something pulled from the silliest of moral stories.  It's no wonder why she didn't care for it: it's a movie that doesn't know what foot to put in front of the other and looks like a soap opera run amuck. Parkins is just the everyman character, firmly in the middle of weirdo things happening around them with the appeal of a broomstick stuck in a schmaltzy molasses. You might say a normal-ish person is the ideal among all the weirdness, but ordinary isn't always fun. Apparently, Duke wanted to do the film to help transition her into more adult roles, since her role was the most dynamic (she had won an Academy Award for playing Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker and she also had her own TV show). She even gets the opportunity to sing (dubbed by Gail Heideman). The funny thing is that the movie nearly walloped her career, although really, she does pretty well in the art of eating the screen. She eats the screen in all the ways one would hope. Tate is okay, at least because Burke and Scotti are blander. Judy Garland was originally cast in the role later played by Susan Heyward, and promotions were done with that in mind, and she would get to sing a song, which was pre-recorded. After a week, she suffered from her dependence on alcohol and Demerol that saw her get fired from 20th Century Fox. Apparently, on the final day, Robson made her wait until 4pm to film her scenes after making her wait since 8am, in the belief that she would be upset and drunk at the time (so yes, if you believe the account from Duke about Robson, the latter sounds like an asshole). Heyward, an Academy Award winner, is decent in terms of vaunted confidence without particularly having much to really do besides one scene of Duke fighting her over who has the fake appendage on and how to go on. Grant seems to be shuffling through as if the paycheck is just tempting enough to go on. Eh, the movie is as it is: silly but mostly watchable, if one accommodates it being more for the experience rather than a full collection of interesting people. Sure, people think it may be a camp classic with its stylistic kitsch or maybe a revealing look into the struggles of women, but in the end, it all boils down to an absurd and amusing affair that can be thought of as a fantasy for whoever is watching: the gossip-obsessed people desiring a pop event, or people looking for a silly crappy movie to watch (or maybe gay people that look to reclaim the film as a camp classic, but I will let you decide that, since I'm not here for that). In that sense, 55 years has given Valley of the Dolls is overwhelming in the best and worst ways that could only come from a certain time and certain perspective. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached the ninth and final film of Turkey Week. I really wanted to scrap the bottom of the barrel in terms of movies fitting for the label of "turkey" for Turkey Week. Since the first two Turkey Weeks had eight reviews, I wanted to try and include at least one more movie than what I did before, and I can say that there were a few candidates that missed the cut that may be considered for next year

The Scarlet Letter (1995), Turks in Space, Sidekicks, Verotika, An American Hippie in Israel, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, and The Conqueror

Any and all suggestions are welcome for next year.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Review #1930: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash / Rex Carter), Randy Quaid (Bruno), Rosario Dawson (Dina Lake), Jay Mohr (Anthony Frankowski / Tony Francis), Peter Boyle (Rowland), Luis Guzmán (Felix Laranga), Joe Pantoliano (Mogan), James Rebhorn (Belcher), Pam Grier (Flura Nash), John Cleese (James), Burt Young (Gino), Lillo Brancato (Larry), and Victor Varnado (Kelp) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers)

Review: 

"I knew we didn’t have the kind of wit and the fun that I would want...I felt that it was not really working fully...But it wasn't very obvious how to correct it." 

Poor Ron Underwood. He was an exchange student in what is now known as Sri Lanka for AFS Intercultural Programs, and it inspired him to become a filmmaker by what he saw there. He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (after changing his mind from studying at Occidental College as a pre-med student). After doing short film and television projects, Tremors (1990) became his very first film as a director, and he also served as a co-writer. Underwood did four further films in the 1990s such as City Slickers (1991) and Mighty Joe Young (1998). When he was finishing work on the latter film, he received an offer to work on a script by Neil Cuthbert that had Eddie Murphy attached that dealt with a colony on the Moon. The Cuthbert script had been bouncing around Hollywood for years, first being brought as a project at Universal...in 1983. 1989 even saw an attempt to see at Universal with Peter Faiman (the director behind Crocodile Dundee) as director. Keep in mind, when Underwood was brought in, he joined in with the understanding that they had 7-9 months to work on the script before Murphy could join in to help with shooting. Underwood felt that there was an issue with the main core in the script, and yet it never came together. Murphy did not care for the script that was presented to him, nor the handful of scripts presented afterwards, and he seemingly wanted a film that was written for someone like Sylvester Stallone or Harrison Ford that would have him bring the comedy...which meant a straight draft. Underwood stuck with Castle Rock Entertainment because of the obligation he had to friends that worked with there despite the fact he had other offers while the film process "seemed to just be going and on"...the result was that he was on the production for four years.

The film was such a tremendous failure with audiences and critics, being one of the few $100 million movies to not even make ten percent of its budget back. Underwood would direct for television on a fairly regular basis in 2003 (one year after this film) while having just one film credit since that film: In the Mix (2005), although he at least seems happy by what he gets to direct. Even Eddie Murphy made light of the failure of the film, although if anyone is to be blamed for this film, it is him (Underwood, while being charitable about him being nice, thought Murphy wasn't feeling funny in production). The problem with the movie is that it isn't particularly funny, and it desires an actor with some sort of energy to it due to how the bland story is not particularly interesting as an adventure nor as a "mystery". It doesn't feel particularly like a science fiction worth gawking at, looking like the world's cheapest expensive film, never insipiring curiosity over the time or tech beyond demo levels. The only highlight might be Quaid, having a bald head while trying to play an old robot. Somehow, he proves the quirks that are just begging to be let out here, having the rare distinction of being funnier than the actual lead. Murphy has the "in it for the money" face, not inspiring anything for comedy or for adventure, and the fact that he has a double role as the villain doesn't do him any favors either. The only one to possibly pity would be Dawson, adrift in a film with no energy for her to tap into/absorb for fun. John Cleese being in this film in the shape of a hologram is the very definition of "phoned in", as if he was tricked into believing that he had to top Eric Idle in phoned in supporting performances (hey, speaking of Idle movies...next year?). Faking one out with a few seconds of Alec Baldwin is more amusing than the gags presented (such as Hilary Clinton being on a $100 bill or a Trump Realty sign), sadly. The less said about Pantoliano, Boyle, Guzman, and Mohr, the better. As a whole, what we have here is a movie that is not particularly funny, not particularly adventurous, and not particularly fun. It is a snooze fest for 95 minutes that only avoids being called one of the absolute worst after 20 years because there isn't even enough to remember in how bad it is. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Last one: Valley of the Dolls.

Warrior of the Lost World.

Review #1929: Warrior of the Lost World.

Cast: 

Robert Ginty (The Rider), Persis Khambatta (Nastasia), Donald Pleasence (Prossor), Fred Williamson (Henchman), Harrison Muller Sr (McWayne), Philip Dallas (Elder), and Laura Nucci (Elder) Written and Directed by David Worth.

Review: 

Making a rip-off of Mad Max is bad enough but being a low rent knock-off is the true crime when it comes to boredom inducing schlock. You've got all the ingredients for boredom here: weirdo nomad mercenaries that have the acting chops of drywall, high-tech motorcycles that beep dialogue at you, and a totally evil government headlined by a bald evildoer. At director was David Worth, who got his start as a cinematographer in the 1970s that added directing to his output with films such as Poor Pretty Eddie (1975). In later years, the Los Angeles natie served as cinematographer to mainstream works such as Bronco Billy (1980) and Bloodsport (1988). although his most noted film as director is probably Kickboxer (1989). Although he is now over eighty years old, he apparently keeps busy in the movie business. So yes, what else is featured in the film: weird "Enlightened" supernatural beings that have a wall that people could just bump into like our main character that have a "New Way" as rebels. You've got a woman interest who gets guys into saving their dad by threatening to shoot the hero in the balls. Don't forget the real highlight: A Megaweapon truck that could beat the hell out of most armed forces...except one guy and his weirdo plan while weirdly sounded gunfire is in the background. The torture scenes aren't even something worth getting hysterical over. To top it all off, the movie even sequel baits itself at the end, made more amusing with an awkward kiss between our heroes. The philosophy of the movie is one you've heard from other movies, only now there are punks to join the cause, so that's interesting, I guess?

It is a bland B-movie, silly to make fun of in how much of a rip-off of better things it ultimately is, one that even has the balls to having an opening text crawl. The 92 minutes roll off with bland amusement, where seeing the talking motorcycle might be the most interesting sequence in the film. Ginty is a total non-entity in this film, somehow coming off as a bad impersonation of both Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell. This offbeat attempt at a Mad Max-Western mixup proves pretty bad when you don't have an interesting lead actor to carry things. I guess Williamson would've been cooler if he was in the film for more than three little scenes. Muller looks like he wanted to play a stiff leader in the vein of something like a politician, but he only ends up as a stiff board. When it comes to performances, they all are pretty bad, but I respect Pleasence, dressed in a suit that might as well be Blofeld from You Only Live Twice, trying to keep things on a semi-solid level with his attempt at creeping villainy (at least what you might see from an actor in their mid 60s). However, since none of the other actors have anything remotely close to charisma, he ends up as the weird one to focus all your attention on. Hell, he outacts Khambatta, who might as well be confused with a broomstick. Things happen in the wasteland that might as well double for some random European dump that might mean that this would be extra primo material for someone to rip-off for their own silly movies, complete with making their own crappy gun effects. As a whole, the best way to enjoy this film is either as a riff or as a way to see better things mashed up together, which makes it an ideal day for a "turkey" spotlight.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

The Wild World of Batwoman.

Review #1928: The Wild World of Batwoman.

Cast: 

Katherine Victor (Batwoman), George Andre (Professor G. Octavius Neon), Steve Brodie (Jim Flanagan), Richard Banks (Rat Fink), Steve Conte (Bruno), Mel Oshins (Tiger), Bruno VeSota (Seltzer), Bob Arbogast (Voice of the Spirits in Séance), and Lloyd Nelson (Heathcliff) Written, Produced, and Directed by Jerry Warren.

Review: 

You may or may not know about Jerry Warren. Well, he was a California native that wanted to get into the film business, and he even appeared in a handful of small parts in films of the 1940s. He became a filmmaker with Man Beast (1956), which he directed and produced. He would direct a couple of his own films before deciding to just simply buy and distribute films made internationally with re-editing (such as 1959's Space Invasion of Lapland). This was his penultimate feature, as Warren did one further film as director and producer of Frankenstein Island (1981) after spending the time between films on his ranch; in total, Warren was involved as director in some capacity (full or in segments) for eleven films. Katherine Victor had worked with Warren on films such as Teenage Zombies (1959) and Curse of the Stone Hand (1965). She was promised a movie with better production values to be made in color with her own boat. Bruno VeSota called the film script as "like memorizing a telephone book with pages picked at random". DC Comics sued Warren for "copyright infringement", since you know, the movie was made to try and capitalize on the Batman craze that happened with the 1966 series, but the lawsuit was won by Warren; he later released the film as She Was a Hippy Vampire. The film re-uses footage from No Time to Kill (1959) and The Mole People (1956), and you even get to see the batgirls get mated with mole people...nah, just kidding. 

Victor has a costume all by herself: a bat insignia with cardboard cutout that is outlined in pencil and filled in with black eyeliner that is right on her chest to go along with a leotard, a domino mask, and feathers. You can see the enthusiasm on her face at being in a movie with no boat or the semblance of being anything other than incomprehensible. Incidentally, she served as a continuity director (among other roles) on a handful of animated films and cartoons released by Walt Disney Animation Studios, which probably means that any cartoon that she was a part of in some form was automatically better than this film. Hell, she could have done as little as provide someone with a piece of paper, and boom, that means she did more to making a useful product than what she does here. This is the kind of movie with "synthetic" vampires that drink smoothies for the introduction and wrist radios for the "Batgirls" that must deal with the acquisition of an "Atomic Hearing Aid". You get to see a seance to try and find the device that ends up seeing a "Chinese" spirit interrupting the ceremony. I think dubbing the film would almost make the film something worth understanding. At any rate, the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew also covered the film. 70 minutes of mildly boring entertainment that may or may not work in the realm of subdued surreal crapfests, one where you can see a director-writer-producer-editor mishandle each category. You get to see an actor do a crappy attempt at an accent while playing a mad scientist. You get to see a bunch of dancing and a plot that moves like jello and feels like kitsch in all of the worst ways. In other words: things happen, and you just have to make sure you don't fall asleep when it ends in a mishmash of words. The fact that the movie managed to garner a 0 rating is not even a surprise, because giving the movie credit for anything seems like a bridge too far. Lousy acting, lousy action, lousy from top to bottom is the best way to describe the film. One can only wonder what other "films" came from Jerry Warren that could possibly top this one in rancid quality.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Warrior of the Lost World.

Saving Christmas.

Review #1927: Saving Christmas.

Cast: 

Kirk Cameron (Kirk Cameron), Darren Doane (Christian White), Bridgette Ridenour (Kirk's sister), David Shannon (Diondre), Raphi Henly (Conspiracy Theorist), and Ben Kientz (St. Nick) Directed by Darren Doane.

Review: 

“Why are Christians so joyless sometimes? It’s actually sad, it’s interesting how Christians will sort of pride themselves on saying hey don’t you know Christmas is a pagan holiday…We call this 2014 for the very reason that Christ was born and changed the world, he separated AD from BC, and we should celebrate that with 100 percent joy. There is no reason why you and I should not have 14-foot-tall Christmas tree and presents and caroling session with delicious food, because it is time to celebrate God becoming flesh.” - Kirk Cameron

You may or may not know who Kirk Cameron is. Well, he was best known for being one of the stars of Growing Pains, which ran from 1985 to 1992 that turned a kid actor into a teen star. He did a couple of films and television projects between this show, but for the most part, this is the thing he is best known, unless one counts his work in Christian-themed projects such as the Left Behind trilogy (2001-2005) and Fireproof (2008), since Cameron converted to Evangelical Christianity in the mid-1990s. Darren Doane must have enjoyed being a co-star in a film that he co-wrote (with Cheston Hervey) and directed, if only because this is the film he is generally known for, unless one counts a variety of concert films, music videos, and documentaries (such as Unstoppable (2013), which featured Cameron in a co-production with Liberty University, which is also the case with this film). Interestingly enough, he has made exactly one film as a director since this film, which was a documentary.

I will state for the record that I have nothing against religious movies or films that try to present a point-of-view that may or may not differ with what I believe. In fact, I steer clear of religious movies (for the most part) because of my lack of enthusiasm for trying to pry my eyes into what are probably good-intentioned films of faith (in other words, I don't find much to care about with films such as War Room (2015), at least not now). But I made an exception for this sniveling piece of dogcrap. Sure, Cameron may be a worthy target to make fun of when it comes to the Internet age, particularly since this film was released with his name on the film title, but what the hell do you really expect from a movie that says that every time you see a Christmas tree, "you're actually looking at an empty cross"? But I am getting ahead of myself. There are a handful of weird things to point out in an experience that proves that even Jehovah's Witnesses don't waste an hour of your time. The 79-minute run-time is a complete lie, since the movie is really only 62 minutes of real plot, five minutes of hip-hop dancing (no, seriously), and roughly 12 minutes of credits (ten of them being at the end, because the movie has the balls to have opening credits seven minutes after it has "started"). Keep in mind that the first four minutes is Kirk Cameron talking about how much he loves Christmas while drinking an empty cup of hot chocolate. But hey, if Kirk Cameron wants to counteract people supposedly saying to "tone down" the holiday spirit, what could go wrong?

Cameron may have actually had a good idea on his hands, but in reverse: he has the eyes that look like they would be good on a Devil figure, one who influences their friends to do weird things with "facts". If that doesn't suit you, I'll do you one better: the set-up to Doane's character makes it look like he could actually devolve into a serial killer for the Lord. Anyway, that opening scene only proves that when it comes to making movies that are "kind, compassionate, helpful, generous", Cameron has merely provided a kick to the nuts to anyone who isn't already highly religious. I understand his idea in trying to provide new stories to old symbols, but the result is a film with barely anything in it besides Kirk Cameron talking in gobbledygook about pagans (whether in a car or in monologue). Instead of a film that tries to remind one of what the spirit of Christmas is beyond just a tree, Cameron has instead made a movie that loosely ties Christmas traditions to the Bible along with commercialization. Hell, a movie that talked more about Saint Nicholas, the guy whose story that Santa Claus is inspired by, would be better than the throwaway segment shown here. It is a divine experience in the art of boredom, inspiring no sense of joy unless one thinks of mockery as truly the highest form of flattery. The only thing that this movie would possibly be more enjoyable in weirdness would be an atheist filming themselves "debunking" Christianity.  

Notice how I don't even have to refer to previous comments of Kirk Cameron and his evangelical ministry The Way of the Master (as co-hosted with Ray Comfort) when it comes to making fun of him. This is obviously one of those movies made on the cheap while packing as many folks Cameron and Doane knew in some way, whether that meant the Ridenour families or even Cameron and Doane's children (to say nothing of Cameron's sister playing...Cameron's sister, which is amusing). Well, and Shannon, who gets to say such "interesting" lines such as talking about conspiracies like no crazy shirt Fridays or "straight power" or talking to a conspiracy guy behind coffee cups (????). By the time the movie finishes with Doane taking a bellyflop slide into the Christmas tree, the only thing one gets from this sniveling mess is that one can't tell how much of this dreck is the fault of Doane (co-writer, director, co-star) and how much is the fault of Cameron (star, executive producer). All of this would be pretty blah if it wasn't for the subsequent actions of Cameron. When he saw the reviews on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes (a zero rating from critics and a low rating from people on the site), he went online and called for people that loved the movie to give it a high rating that would "send the message to all the critics that WE decide what movies we want our families to see." He proceeded to believe that the movie is the target of a conspiracy between "haters" and "atheists". Sorry Kirk Cameron, but it doesn't take a person of religion or non-religion to say that your movie sucks. A decade will pass from the release of this film in a couple of years, and the movie will still be thought of as a piece of crap. A couple of years will pass to make it a quarter-century since it was release, and people will still be considered a piece of crap. Hell, the year of 2114 will come and go to commemorate a century since release (assuming that the Earth is alive), and you know what? The movie will still be considered a piece of unholy crap. Enjoy the holidays.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Later today: The Wild World of Batwoman.

The Concorde... Airport '79

Review #1926: The Concorde... Airport '79.

Cast: 

Alain Delon (Capt. Paul Metrand), Susan Blakely (Maggie Whelan), Robert Wagner (Kevin Harrison), Sylvia Kristel (Isabelle), George Kennedy (Capt. Joseph "Joe" Patroni), Eddie Albert (Eli Sands), Bibi Andersson (Francine), Charo (Margarita), Pierre Jalbert (Henri), John Davidson (Robert Palmer), Andrea Marcovicci (Alicia Rogov), Martha Raye (Loretta), Cicely Tyson (Elaine), Jimmie Walker (Boise), David Warner (Peter O'Neill), Mercedes McCambridge (Nelli), Avery Schreiber (Russian coach Markov), and Sybil Danning (Amy) Directed by David Lowell Rich.

Review: 

"We believe that Concorde is a magical star that people will go to see in a good motion picture." - Jennings Lang

You remember the Airport movies, I am sure. Based on the novel of the same name by Arthur Hailey, Airport (1970) was an all-star dud. The sequel Airport 1975 (1974) was more of the same. Airport '77 (1977) can be described aptly: "no better and no worse than the previous two features in terms of mediocrity. Sure, there are probably a few more things to make fun of here, but it is the same kind of blah movie from before that made money in a time where people were ripe for seeing these kinds of movies." The screenplay was done by Eric Roth, but Jennings Lang was behind the story along with serving as producer.  Lang had produced the last two Airport films, but he also was a producer on films such as Play Misty for Me (1971) and Earthquake (1974), but this was the only script that Lang ever did. Roth got his start with film scripts such as The Nickel Ride (1974), but he would go on to better work in later years: he wrote films such as Forrest Gump (1994)...and The Postman (1997). The movie was made on a budget of $14 million. It actually made $65 million, making over 75% of its money in audiences not in America or Canada. Keep in mind, the cast is a bit more international this time around, owing to the fact that the Concorde was a plane manufactured by France and British developers. The supersonic airliner plane had its first flight in 1969 before being retired from service in 2003, three years after the only fatal incident of the plane, which by horrible coincidence was the plane utilized for this film. Air France and Aerospatiale (the French national airline and the makers of the plane, respectively) allowed permission to use the Concorde after a few modifications to the script, such as pilots behaving right in the cockpit (so yeah, they could drink off duty and romance, but discussions weren't cool); amusingly, the movie talks about the impending 1980 Olympic Games, for which the summer edition was hosted in Moscow, one that saw America boycott the Games. Of course, the reviews in contemporary times were even more negative than the last three films. The effects used here involve blue screen that deal with primer and paint to help with possible blending. As for Rich, he was the 1978 winner of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie, but he did get plenty of work from 1950 to 1987, such as Madame X (1966).

Imagine having the guy from Good Times, the title character from Emmanuelle (1974), a French matinee idol, and George Kennedy in the same movie. Oh, and a plane that deals with obstacles such as air balloons, an attack drone, an evil jet fighter pilot, and bomb sabotage with most of the passengers on board to experience more terror than making the rounds for Christmas shopping. So yes, this is the first one of these films with a cleanly set villain in terms of multi-phased terror, namely because of how overly complicated they make it in the art of trying to take down one person (the first film had a bomb and the third film had a hijacker, but neither had a Plan B). Far be it from just having an assassin take them down (aside from the guy they take down right in front of her), nah, you have to launch a drone at them. Only the power of firing a flare gun out the cockpit window and doing a roll can stop drone power. Hell, the climax of the film involves the plane having to land on a snowy mountain and freeing the passengers before the damn thing explodes! You know, if the Airport movies were meant to be bizarro propaganda against flying, this one is probably the peak of anti-flying entertainment: enjoy the Concorde in the title, just watch out for the possible chance of pilots that either fire flare guns to prevent terrorism or explosions. The stories of the people don't mean diddly poo, since one cares even less than they did before with boring people meeting disaster planes.

Kennedy played a mechanic in the first film, then he played an airline vice president, then he played a aero expert/technical advisor, and now he plays a pilot of the Concorde who gets to have an escapade with the plane and a hooker played by Andersson. Truly, some actors get all the luck (imagine being a reliable character presence and having an Academy Award), even if his performance is more of a gruff sleepwalk more than anything. Delon apparently made this film as his last shot at breaking into American notice, since being a French star wasn't enough - it did not end well, although at least Delon ended up just fine back in his native country where he could get a script worth acting. The fact that he is acting opposite Kristel in bland overtones is especially sad. Blakely can't make any headway into being noticeable among all the cheese, because who cares about people being targeted for murder when the preposterous Robert Wagner is acting opposite you? To say nothing of the middling attempts at comic relief of Walker or Albert (or worse yet, Charo having only one scene to do schtick). 113 minutes of pure unintentional humor is a weird price to pay, but anyone who has seen their way through Dean Martin trying to play a pilot or Gloria Swanson play Gloria Swanson or Bermuda Triangle bullshit will surely have no problem with a movie that practically starts with its head in the sand.

Remember, this was the last of these crappy movies. Of course, this film was released in the same year that saw the Italian thriller Concorde Affaire '79, but the real nail in even thinking about doing another Airport movie probably came with Airplane! (1980), the spoof to end all spoofs with airplanes. If you like crappy movies with recognizable names, this may be up your alley. It may be the worst of the bunch, but those with a sicko committee desire to see how low crappy airplane/big cast movies can go will surely have a ball here.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Saving Christmas. 

Double Down.

Review #1925: Double Down

Cast: 

Neil Breen (Aaron Brand), Laura Hale (Megan), Mike Brady (Agent), Robert DiFrancesco (Agent), Bonnie Carmalt (Bride), George Kerr (Old Man), Maynard Mahler (Father), Rose Mahler (Mother), Marry Taylor (Senator), Alan Rogers (Director of the FBI), Huel Washington (Homeland Security Director), and Bill Frid (Director of the CIA) Written, Produced, and Directed by Neil Breen (#1767 - Fateful Findings)

Review: 

I am sure you remember Neil Breen, the filmmaker of movies bad enough for the Internet to turn him into an offbeat folk hero who has released five films (soon to be six, as announced on his YouTube page last month) as director, writer, and star. All of his films have been made on an extremely low budget, going from being an architect and real-estate estate agent to filmmaker, with this film being shot around Nevada as the first of his feature film career. Granted, Fateful Findings (2013) is one he is most notable for when it comes to schlock enjoyment, but one really should consider starting at the beginning. Hell, judging from his Twitter account, members of the MENSA Institute are apparently fans of his films and invited him to speak at one of their meetings. How can you not have curiosity for a director that uses an AOL account for emails? The common theme for these films evidently deals with supernatural events, government conspiracies, and loneliness. As the credits state, Breen was the musical director, co-editor, production manager, casting agent, and the catering man, while there was no lighting, make-up or hair. A reminder: his current last film could be bought for over 20 bucks ($28.95 domestic, $39.95 international - no subtitles!), but you can't even buy this film online, unless one happens to find a good print on the Web. Breen's second film would be released in 2009 with I Am Here ... Now, which had Breen play a cybernetic deity.

I sometimes wonder if Breen (who was apparently in his mid 40s when making this film) is actually writing subliminal fan fiction of himself in the same way that Tom Laughlin did with his hacky Billy Jack movies. It is a vanity project of the weirdest order. Wrapped within conspiracies is a lead "hero" character in a movie filled with black-and-white morality. This is the kind of movie where a married couple targeted for death shoot themselves rather than get murdered by our lead hero, who in a later scene is seen putting his military medals on a denim vest (with a Purple Heart!). Hell, Breen is playing a guy that eats a lot of canned tuna and has a shield that keeps him safe while living in the middle of the desert, and he tests out anthrax by putting some of it in a lake with fish in it! You dwell on the weird stuff he does rather than the fact that this is a guy getting to play a hacker agent that is the most talented ever that can control computers with gloves that could hold governments hostage with biological bombs (as told to us in voiceover, which accompanies the whole movie). You could list a whole bunch of silly things: the first 18 minutes of a 93-minute movie pass before anyone besides Breen says a word, you get to see him talk to his parents in Heaven and possibly cure someone of cancer, a lady hired to distract a guy as a hooker, red Ferraris, slow montage of a man walking down a mountain to start the movie, I think you get the idea. The only way to watch this movie is by accepting the absurdity in all of its ironic form. I would rather watch five Neil Breen movies than five Alone in the Dark (2005) movies, so I guess that makes a recommendation: one star for Breen getting his start in making an indie hustle for the Internet to give attention to, and that is about it. He is the pinnacle of outside art, one who probably believes that we live in a simulation and enjoys making movies in a way that only he understands.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Concorde...Airport '79. 

Alone in the Dark.

Review #1924: Alone in the Dark.

Cast: 

Christian Slater (Edward Carnby), Tara Reid (Aline Cedrac), Stephen Dorff (Commander Richard Burke), Frank C. Turner (Agent Fischer), Matthew Walker (Professor Lionel Hudgens), Will Sanderson (Agent Miles), and Mike Dopud (Agent Turner) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King)

Review: 

“You feel the failure already in front of you.” 

You know, there are little things you can dwell on every time you see a film by Uwe Boll. For one, he actually published a dissertation that resulted in him holding a PhD (for narrative structure in TV and literature!). But yes, Dr. Uwe Boll did grow up with a love for film, shooting films on handheld cameras when he was a teen in Germany. Hell, he two whole documentaries dedicated to him and his film "process" (one aptly titled Fuck You All: The Uwe Boll Story), so obviously there is something to look into when it comes to a man who clearly doesn't take criticism siting down (or retire easy, as evidenced by his return to filmmaking after spending six years...in the restaurant industry). Remember that Boll was in the midst of his video game movie phase, one where he resolved to make his movie fast and cheap. This film was no different: seven distinct scripts were in circulation for this film with no consensus for which one would be used. Of course, maybe it would have worked out better if they went with the one done by rookie writer Blair Erickson, who came up with a first draft that aimed for a thriller with horror in the shadows...which Boll decided needed to be done on a different level that turned it into an action film. You have four production companies: Boll KG Entertainment, Herold Productions, Brightlight Pictures, and Infogrames Entertainment, all part of an adaptation of the video game series of the same name that was developed by Infogrames in 1992 all about a private investigator looking at a haunted house with undead creatures. With the movie, here is a detective of the paranormal for our lead...a survivor of evil experiments that make him sense spooky stuff and heighten his abilities (hence why he can do a ridiculous somersault kick from the ground). Yes, a movie about a long-lost Native American tribe that believed there was a door between two worlds and a totally secret Bureau 713. Oh, and an evil scientist is there or something.

Sure, his non-video game films may inspire interest in the idea that they may show some sort of passion from its director. But only misery exists in this film, and God knows misery loves company. Boll may think that his critics were out to get him because of his ways of making films, but...yeah man, making a bunch of crappy movies with the mood of a funeral parlor is not going to do any favors. Putting a text crawl in your movie (read by Boll himself!) because test audiences didn't know what the hell the movie was about only speaks misery. How can you take a movie seriously when the gaffes pile up more than the dead bodies? How do you make a scene where a guy is saying he is showing three pictures to someone but is shown presenting four pictures? How can you make a movie where the visible bullets (light in the dark shots) are shown to miss their targets completely? How do you have an actor play a dead body and then not cut away when they are tilting their head? These fundamental errors compact a movie that maneuvers through 96 minutes of screentime with pacing that can only be described as "constipated". Even B-movies have some sort of charm to carry whatever bullshit they want to peddle in weird horror enjoyment, but all you get here is a movie that has the charm of an Internet hack getting punched in the face. It actually is a contest to see who comes off worse in the acting department: Slater, who looks like he wants to sleepwalk the entire movie on autopilot, or Reid, who says her lines with zero conviction while being hamstrung by the most perplexing lines ever put on film (the one about asking why you would put all the pieces of a puzzle far away from each other is extra primo); go figure, the one thing that Boll talked about with Reid is the fact that he couldn't get her to participate in a scene where she takes her top off - yeah, because that would've totally helped. A broomstick and a bucket have more connection than these two, and the one who ends up with the most "interesting" performance is Dorff, chewing at the scenery whenever he is able to appear on screen in ways that would make a drill sergeant blush. Walker isn't even a real "mad scientist" to make fun of, acting with the urgency of a man taking his sweet time to drink coffee at 6am. The effects are laughable, reminding one that even a man in a trash bag would be more convincing than this CG mess, and it amusing to see monster action in the dark that looks worse than a quick-time event in a video game. The attempt at sequel-baiting with the last shot (after stating that the whole city was evacuated...seemingly in the span of a day) with the most blatant rip-off a better movie in years is the final nail in the bed of rakes that has no redeeming features except for people who want to see crap in the crappiest of ways possible. I just can't see myself giving myself a star for this movie, and I would like to congratulate Uwe Boll for joining the zero-star club that makes him part of such company such as James Nguyen, Rick Sloane, and Coleman Francis. Enjoy the honor and for the rest of us, pick literally any other movie than this.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: On the third day of Turkey Week, Double Down.

United Passions.

Review #1923: United Passions.

Cast: 

Tim Roth (Sepp Blatter), Gérard Depardieu (Jules Rimet), Sam Neill (João Havelange), Fisher Stevens (Carl Hirschmann), Jemima West (Annette Rimet), Thomas Kretschmann (Horst Dassler), Julian Miller (Ludwig Sylow), Jason Barry (Edgar Willcox), Martin Jarvis (Sir Stanley Rous), Bruce Mackinnon (Louis Muhlinghaus), Anthony Higgins (Lord Kinnaird), Nicholas Gleaves (Henri Delaunay), Richard Dillane (Larsen), and Antonio de la Torre (Enrique Buero) Directed by Frédéric Auburtin.

Review: 

"What’s very hard for me is that I’m not a stupid director that took the job for a big check. I tried to do my best, and little by little because of the way the production went and because of FIFA’s involvement and because there was no marketing, now when you Google it, the film is the worst ever and biggest box office disaster."

To get myself into the mood to watch a movie about FIFA, I decided to watch the first thing that popped into my head about reacting to United Passions...a contemporary John Oliver clip. Sure, my brain may think of Oliver as a lizard that happens to be able to talk, but I did want some sort of reference for what folks thought of United Passions before it came out. Apparently, the clip showed that a screening in New York had just one person buy a ticket for the film when it premiered in America in 2015, after it had been shown around other countries in the summer of 2014 as a French production that is mostly told in English (aside from a few parts with English subtitles). Apparently, it sold about $300 worth of tickets when it premiered in a few theaters in the USA. No, not $900 in each theater, $900 combined. I could have saved even slightly more time by watching Tim Roth talk about the movie for a minute, but nobody wants to watch an actor apologize for a movie, especially when seeing them be in crap is far funnier. Thankfully, I did not have to buy this movie to see it. Generally, I try to avoid wasting my money when it comes to spending time (109 minutes this time) with movies, so one can thank YouTube for bringing curiosity to the masses. Aside from seeing a blurb designating this film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival (?), one can only expect what to see from a work of "dramatic fiction". The only reason I picked this film is because of the tremendous coincidence of FIFA deciding to hold a World Cup in Qatar (totally a place with no human rights violations, huh?) in the middle of November. Just a reminder: this film was released in America in the wake of the 2015 FIFA scandal, which saw accusations of bribery of FIFA officials and the eventual resignation of its federation president. Of course, the funny thing is the fact that the movie was released in the summer of 2014 to coincide with the 2014 World Cup, held in South Africa (with the movie ending on a re-enactment of the announcement of the country being the host of the Cup). The film was written by Frédéric Auburtin and Jean-Paul Delfino. The French director had worked as an assistant director on a handful of films from 1985 to 1998 (most notably The Man in the Iron Mask, for example) He directed three films (with one film segment, with none generally known) alongside a few television projects, but this is his most known effort. In fact, it is the last film he has directed. FIFA funded most of the $30 million project, if you did not already know (going from funding 40% of the film as intended to much more).

Who the hell wanted to make a movie not about the game of soccer, but the founding of an organization? More specifically, who the hell wanted a movie about International Association Football Federation (FIFA)? For the rest of this review, I will refer to the game as soccer, if only because I refuse to not stop saying soccer. Anyway, this movie about a soccer federation has the dubious task of trying to tell a history that spanned many decades, whether that involves the growth of the organization in the turn of the 20th century to the first World Cup in 1930 to the delay of not holding a World Cup from after 1938 until 1950, the "Death Match" in 1942, to the Blatter era (the only word that I can think of for him is "hack"). Incidentally, FIFA saw England join it three times: 1905, 1924, and 1946, which is pretty contrary to the opening sequence of seeing England (referred to lovingly and mockingly numerous times in the films as "inventor of the game") reject FIFA. A documentary, preferably not funded by FIFA, might have proved more interesting. Hell, watching soccer itself may have been less of a timewaster than this. For one, it would have actual compelling aspects to it, if only to see the different angles of how an organization came together: the real truth, corruption and all. I feel like I am watching a really glossy PR ad, one that looks more like 1954 than 2014 in general excitement for the material it wants to show, which is "mild". There is something amusing about presenting the 1950 World Cup match between Brazil and Uruguay in a somber matter (where the host nation Brazil lost in the final group stage needing only to tie to win the Cup) when it comes and goes like all the other things that happen in the movie. The most amusing sequence is a stock montage that sees clips from various World Cups to pass time, which even has a shot of Roth standing by a closed casket of a dead person (yes, seriously). I especially like this one line that talks about how the Olympics is political, but that the World Cup is about people...before a line a couple of minutes later about South Africans and that it is impossible to "keep politics out of sport" contrary to the belief of South Africans. You have Tim Roth play a person born in Switzerland, "Academy Award producer Fisher Stevens" play a Dutch man and Sam Neill play a Brazilian. Roth shows up by the hour mark, after Depardieu has dominated a good part of it and Neill has just managed to come in the picture at the 49th minute. Perhaps there is a certain irony in an actor taking a role solely for the money when the person he is playing has been dogged about claims of corruption and financial mismanagement. This is even more amusing since the film is actually mostly about the tenure where Neill's character is in charge rather than with Roth (Blatter was not FIFA president until 1998). Roth may talk all he wants about his apologies for not questioning the script ("Where's all the corruption in the script? Where is all the back-stabbing, the deals? So it was a tough one. I tried to slide in a sense of it, as much as I could", an actual quote from Roth), but he is laughably stiff here. There is a black hole where a performance should be: a vanity project that doesn't have the slightest bit of charisma from any of the performances that make the main actors look like anything other than accountants. Neill looks like he wants to be anywhere else, while Depardieu is having a ball in terms of zoned out acting. The director may say he tried to insert ironic parts past FIFA's "observation". Who came up with the idea to show kids playing soccer in a dump throughout the movie? Actually, that was the writers, who apparently came up with it to avoid having the film be connected with their first idea of an investigator looking at the history of FIFA in corruption. Is it irony or unintentional amusement in the face of FIFA wasting money on this? As a whole, the only thing to say about the movie is that it sucks. Watching eleven corporate videos in a row would be more tolerable than this movie, which is glossy in the same way a gold bucket of crap is still crap. Watching a soccer game end in a tie may actually be more entertaining than this movie, which is probably the funniest way to waste making money on a glossy propaganda mess.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week is upon us again! This time, for the 3rd edition of this favorite project of mine of films known in some way for being "turkeys", I am going to take out the traditional method of starting with older movies and instead going in a free-form pattern to make for a few surprises. In fact, the traditional eight-course of bad movies will increase slightly...to a surprise amount. Next up in Turkey Week III: Alone in the Dark.

Redux: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Review #126: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Cast: 

Richard Dreyfuss (Roy Neary), Teri Garr (Ronnie Neary), Melinda Dillon (Jillian Guiler), François Truffaut (Claude Lacombe), Bob Balaban (David Laughlin), J. Patrick McNamara (Project Leader), Warren Kemmerling (Major “Wild Bill” Walsh), Roberts Blossom (Farmer), Philip Dodds (Jean Claude), and Cary Guffey (Barry Guiler) Directed by Steven Spielberg.

Review: 

“People are always looking for – I don’t know what you’d call it – I guess, the cosmic entertainment. More than the meteorological explanation. From the behavioral science point of view, I was just as interested in finding out why people looked to the skies, and want to believe, as I was in looking to the skies myself, to try to understand what’s happening up there, that the Air Force and the Government don’t want to tell us about.”

The 1970s were a hell of a time to make movies. Steven Spielberg became a major director during this time because of numerous features that he made, whether that involved television films such as Duel (1971) or his film debut with The Sugarland Express (1974), or more specifically, the big blockbuster Jaws (1975). Close Encounters of the Third Kind went from a development deal first done in 1973 to release in 1977, one with a script entirely written by himself that was inspired by a variety of factors, at least when it arose from script hell. The original idea was to have a script done by Paul Schrader, but troubles with the script led to re-writes by John Hill (each of which involved a cop as the lead) before Spielberg took over himself. David Giler, Jerry Belson, Hal Barwood, and Matthew Robbins all made suggestions or script doctoring, although only Spielberg is credited on the final script. One inspiration was Spielberg and his father seeing meteor showers, but one also has to consider Spielberg's previous 1964 film Firelight, which he wrote and directed as a 17-year-old living in Phoenix, Arizona. That film (not available to the public) dealt with an investigation of a series of colored lights in the sky that saw people disappear. Lastly, the song "When You Wish Upon a Star" also proved inspiration in the writing. His next film would come out two years later with 1941, the war ensemble comedy flop. There are numerous versions of the film, owing to how post-production was handled between Spielberg and Columbia Pictures. The film was rushed into finishing by the studio for a release on November 16, 1977, while Spielberg would've liked to release it the summer of next year. They made a deal together after its success that would see him re-edit the film how he wanted, provided that he include a sequence that showed the interior of the mothership. Spielberg regretted the sequence, which was first seen in 1980 as a "Special Edition" that apparently added a few sequences involving Dreyfuss and his character in the family time before his close encounter. A third edition labeled the "Collector's Edition" is basically the same re-edit but without the mothership sequence. Incidentally, Devils Tower, which had a couple of scenes filmed on location (minus the airstrip that was filmed on a disused airbase in Alabama), has a showing of the film on a nightly basis. Incidentally, Columbia Pictures tried to force a sequel, and Spielberg did conceive an idea called Night Skies on the off-hand chance they tried to make a film without him, which even saw John Sayles serve as a consultant for what would have been done after Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) that would've been about aliens terrorizing a family. The script did not go too far, save for one thing: an alien being depicted as befriending one of the terrorized people as a benevolent creature to someone living in a broken home eventually spiraled into E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982).

I wonder what was in my thought process when watching this movie all those years ago, since the only time I remember watching the film was in April of 2012, although being the first film that I wrote a review (brief as it was) after the passing of my dad. Maybe I dug the special effects, for which Douglas Trumbull was the visual effects supervisor while Carlo Rambaldi designed the extraterrestrials. Or maybe it was John Williams and his music score that got to me more than anything. Looking back, the movie is good, but it was not nearly as good as I imagined it was, although one can certainly see the appealing qualities in the 45 years that have passed since its release beyond the visually arresting imagination seen in plenty of Spielberg movies. It is the visual images that come from the movie that create the lasting impression of the film in awe, whether that involves a kid being distraught after seeing a fatherly meltdown involving mashed potatoes or the abduction of a little kid or the very first time that we see the alien lights. The scope of the film is quite involving, with effects that mostly back this vision up (I can see where Spielberg would think that digital effects of now might supercede what is seen here, but hey, effects made by human hands and tenacity work fine when it is executed well).

These are the actors that were presented the chance to play the main role before Dreyfuss and his lobbying paid off: Steve McQueen (said no because he couldn't cry on cue), Dustin Hoffman, and Gene Hackman, and Jack Nicholson. Truffaut, as you probably know, was a famous French director. Spielberg wanted him for this role from the first moment of casting, although he apparently put it off until the last minute (incidentally, he appeared in four feature films as an actor, but this was the only one where he was not the director). Dreyfuss is technically the best part of the film when it comes to the acting, although I would argue that Dillon holds just as much weight despite less than half of the screentime. As much I despise the character in the long run, he does play it with conviction to where one does have the semblance of sympathy of seeing an obsession drive a family man into a curious place where imagination is only half the story. Garr isn't given too much to really do besides being the skeptic (i.e., a level-headed person that has to be shown as a foil because the movie doesn't have an answer) with worry and fears. Dillon is the one to appreciate in panic, one that we are always on the side on in the pained parental fear held most: a missing child. I almost think that the film might have worked better with her on the mount rather than Dreyfuss, but you have to remember that the character is distinctly one that reflects the director in his curiosity more than anything.

It is the ending that doesn't quite bring things together to a great finish. Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that a character like Roy decides to just galivant across the galaxy is a bit weird when you remember that most of the film saw him try to raise two kids with his wife. Regardless of how the film presents the family, it just comes off as a bit too selfish to really work as an ending in the way that I'm sure Spielberg wanted. In fact, Spielberg has been quoted as saying that he wouldn't have made the film the way it was after he started his own family, as he had a "privilege of youth" when making the original film (Dreyfuss has stated in recent years that any idea of the ending being different if Spielberg was a family man to be "nonsense"). I felt that the story between Dillon's character and the desperation and obsession she has over the alien encounter is far more interesting to consider than deadbeat Roy tearing down his whole life on Earth, unless one is meant to take it as the tragedy that it sounds like. But this is a movie where the way to deal with a massive spaceship is to trade musical notes. As a whole, the movie kind of just ends with parts that seem more like possibilities for further curiosity rather than a complete story such as missing men from long ago brought back to Earth, or the idea of just how one reacts to seeing their son get snatched and get returned to them. As a whole, the movie has endured for the imagination it inspires within the unknown with mostly skillful execution, one that is at least a contender for the first tier of interesting sci-fi movies of the past 50 years and a worthy effort from a soon legendary director. It inspires a curiosity in the exploration of what lies beneath knowing that one is not alone in this world beyond the people inhabiting the Earth, which is crisply presented in a solid enough manner by Spielberg and company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

On Sunday: Turkey Week III, a collection of "turkey" movies from November 20th until November 26th.

Starship Troopers.

Review #1922: Starship Troopers.

Cast: 

Casper Van Dien (Johnny Rico), Dina Meyer (Dizzy Flores), Denise Richards (Carmen Ibanez), Jake Busey (Ace Levy), Neil Patrick Harris (Carl Jenkins), Clancy Brown (Sgt. Zim), Seth Gilliam (Sugar Watkins), Patrick Muldoon (Zander Barcalow), and Michael Ironside (Jean Rasczak) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop and #632 - Total Recall)

Review: 

You know, this is a strange movie to think about with its reputation in the 25 years that have passed since its release. Edward Neumeier started writing an original script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" in the time that followed RoboCop, which he co-wrote (with Michael Miner). The script was a bug movie that also happened to be a teen romance movie. However, when Jon Davison noticed the similarities to Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the script was kindly modified to fit as an "adaptation" of the book in order to sell better to any interested studios. It was a film made for over $100 million that made its budget back by a slight amount. The reputation of the film has handily improved in later years to where it is considered a "cult classic". Incidentally, there have been four sequels, all released direct-to-video (the lead star in Van Dien reprised his role in two of the films while Ed Neumeier wrote three of them while directing one). If I am being honest, I wonder how a straight adaptation of the novel would have been rather than this ended up. A cursory glance at the plot of the original work notes that they share a similar structure: a young lad (in the book a Filipino) enters the military because of a woman, makes an error but decides not to leave, sees family members in Buenos Aires get nuked, participates in a futile battle on the alien Arachind before seeing a successful raid on the brain caste and queens while seeing a platoon named after him. But the work is more involved in discussing the nature of what a world would look like if only veterans of the military were allowed to vote (also Rico ends up serving alongside his father in the book). Of course, fascism in the eyes of people wanting to label something fascist may just be their personal boogeyman rather than based on facts (but hey, the book is totally about fascism, trust a person on the Internet telling you this). With all of that in mind, the movie is massively average. Satire or not, I found it just a mild movie. It doesn't shock me or enrage me one bit, but maybe that falls to how many movies one has seen over the years. You might think that the fact that folks being unable to "recognize true propaganda" is a bad thing, but you know, Dirty Harry (1971) was labeled a fascist movie, and I don't see people getting weird about it being average in the "entertainment" department. "Joke" or not, an average movie is still average.

Hey, do you want a movie that tells you that violence is the way to solve problems (satire)? Okay then, enjoy a cadre of teen romance cliches sprinkled in for probably longer than you actually think it will be present. Take my perspective on it: Things in this movie only seem interesting when it involves the Arachnids. The movie may think it is pretty funny for itself when talking about "fascism", but my god, sometimes you should just embrace the cliches that people really care about when it comes to "sci-fi action film". Oh, but RoboCop (1987) is a sci-fi satire that was handled great by Verhoeven, you might say. Well, one realizes pretty quickly that RoboCop would be as convincing as a ball of mud trying to be tinfoil if "teenagers" were the lead focus. That isn't to say I despised the characters (because hey, they mostly act like folks who don't think they are bad guys), but there was never a time where I felt this material was anything better than the general schlock you might see from a 1950s sci-fi film about dealing with marauders from abroad or being anything better than the unintentional amusement found in Top Gun (1986). The attempt to turn the idea of a military elite-ruled world (reminder: Verhoeven didn't even finish the novel because it apparently depressed him) into a mockery of politics and culture of modern America is just basically "Beverly Hills 90210 meets Vietnam War". I don't think Heinlein really wanted a government where the military was the head honcho, I just think he wanted to show how one might operate in some twisted way. Hell, consider this quote from Heinlein: "War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose.” In response to that, Verhoeven and Neumeier have turned his curiosity into mockery, and I guess this is meant to be clever only because it happens to be an adaptation of a particular novel. Keep in mind, I did like the movie fine, but it isn't worth the discussion as some sort of hidden masterpiece. It is a bug movie on par with schlock movies of the past that happens to be made on a large budget with characters that were pulled from a soap opera mixed in with stock characters (who are ungodly more interesting) that results in a silly effects show. The parts involving a possible "Brain Bug" is quite interesting, if only to suggest the idea of fighting an enemy that isn't just an ugly dumb bug, even if more time is spent wondering just how dumb our lead is before he gets the idea of who wants to bone him. It is the B-movie spectacle that I care most about in the long run of 129 minutes, and Verhoeven does stage his adventure with the basic stops one does see coming without trying to pull an anti-climax. Van Dien maneuvers the dialogue of wood with general interest (whether in on the joke or not), but honestly Ironside and Brown are the highlights for me, if only because they are the seasoned pros of hardlined patience that the movie does best. Patrick Harris and Richards end up overshadowed by Meyer, who naturally doesn't get to enjoy all of the climax. Actually, Busey makes a pretty good heel for a time, so there's another little compliment amongst what seems to be me gritting my teeth. At any rate, I wish I liked the movie more than I did. It does just fine in the presentation of spectacle in all of its weird and cheap forms while barely making headway in any other department, working best for those who dig over-the-top movies that may or may not read as "effective" satire. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

No Country for Old Men.

Review #1921: No Country for Old Men.

Cast: 

Tommy Lee Jones (Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Garret Dillahunt (Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Barry Corbin (Ellis), Stephen Root (Man who hires Wells), Rodger Boyce (El Paso Sheriff), and Beth Grant (Carla Jean's mother) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, #1552 - A Serious Man, and #1629 - Miller's Crossing) 

Review: 

The movie is adapted from 2005 novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. While the Coen brothers were trying to adapt the novel To the White Sea, producer Scott Rudin approached them with the rights to make a film adaptation of the book. This is the 12th feature film by the Coen brothers, who as usual edited the film, with this coming off the heels of their previous work such as Intolerable Cruelty (2003) and The Ladykillers (2004). Take it for what it is worth when it comes to how they went with Bardem: he told them "I don't drive, I speak bad English and I hate violence", and yet he was their ideal choice to star in the film (after Heath Ledger had been in talks before bowing out)...provided that his schedule would work with them, because it would have been Mark Strong if that didn't work out. At any rate, this proved to be one of their most successful films, with the Coens receiving three Academy Awards for their work in this film. 

For me, part of the thing that comes with looking at movies that fall into multiple categories is to look at how it manages to execute what you might see coming from the genre without becoming consumed by what you expect over all things. The film has been called a "neo-Western", "crime thriller", or even "noir". For me, the movie was at its most curious and enjoyable in its setup when it comes to showing the stories of the three lead characters, one that knows when to say something meaningful. I think I can acknowledge the faithfulness of the novel and book with its meditation on the futility of trying to make a clean getaway while also thinking it is just a really nice shaggy dog thriller. Inevitable or not, I just found more to like overall in their previous works such as Miller's Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996) when it came from top to bottom execution. But don't take my words as a big criticism, because the movie is still pretty good, an old-fashioned period piece that deals with the pitfalls of chance and fate for 122 minutes. They weave a tale that is generally compelling with a generally involving cast and locale.

In a sense, the movie is almost a slasher film, if only because Bardem's sociopath character kills nearly every person he meets (which basically translates to about a dozen people). He is deniably the best part of the film in how he shows unwavering terror with no reservations about just who he is: an agent of death, one who looms over everything. Of course, Brolin is no slouch in comparison when it comes to the other side of fate: trying to evade what and where one is going to end up regardless of the layers of inevitability. Jones has the least amount of time among the three, but folks who are familiar with Jones and his ability to make any type of cut-and-dry role seem interesting to spend time with. He is caught in the middle of fate: being ill-equipped to deal with the ever-changing frontier. Harrelson is the odd man among the supporting cast, a bargaining man who unintentionally is the weak link among the supporting players because of how he comes and goes, particularly when Macdonald and Corbin make such interesting presences without as much time to spare (the latter has one scene with Jones total while the former is the only one to share a scene with each of the main three). The landscape of the film is quite nice, in that one never thinks about the setting of the film being 1980 beyond just figuring it is 1980, complete with the barest of music and cinematography by the dependable Roger Deakins. As a whole, it is a movie that takes its time to build the layers of bleakly amusing fate that works most of its wonders through the usual Coen building blocks of genre blending and distinct characters that ends up making a solid (if not perfect) experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

3 from Hell.

Review #1920: 3 from Hell.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Vera-Ellen 'Baby' Firefly), Bill Moseley (Otis B. Driftwood), Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Richard Brake (Winslow Foxworth 'Foxy' Coltrane), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Warden Virgil Dallas Harper), Danny Trejo (Rondo), Dee Wallace (Greta), Daniel Roebuck (Morris Green), Pancho Moler (Sebastian), Steven Michael Quezada (Diego), Jackie S. Garcia (Princesa), Bill Oberst Jr. (Tony Commando), Lucinda Jenney (Nebraska), Austin Stoker (Earl Gibson), Emilio Rivera ('Aquarius'), and Clint Howard (Mr. Baggy Britches) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), and #1756 - The Devil's Rejects)

Review: 

If you remember, Rob Zombie had directed two features involving a family of deranged weirdo killers in House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005). The 2003 movie is certainly a mixed bag if there ever was one, liked by folks who probably dug a musician and horror fan like Zombie making a pastiche of things he liked growing up. Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, and Sid Haig made a quality trio, albeit on a small scale due to the variety of folks that were in that film. But I dug that movie as an average little ride of drive-in ghoulishness. The Devil's Rejects was a pretty good movie to those who admired the deranged sensibility that came from a trio of actors that were allowed to breathe a bit more with a couple of notable lines and sequences. It was even more of a drive-in movie, but it does so with such blood-soaked enthusiasm. The ending is a pretty good one when it comes to just going nuts with finding a way to run into oblivion. So yes, 14 years later, here is another Zombie film involving a killer trio, with this being the third of the "Firefly" trilogy. Sid Haig was meant to return alongside Zombie and Moseley for a big role. However, Haig was recovering from surgery that had him lose a considerable amount of weight that would make Zombie have to modify his plans. As such, he has one little scene in the beginning before he is given a sendoff; his one scene is nice, at least. Sadly, Haig died a couple of days after the release of this film at the age of 80. As such, it is Richard Brake who is the new part of the trio of Zombie and Mosley. The film had a special three-night showing in September 2019 before release on home video. This was the 7th feature film from Zombie, with his previous effort having been 31 (2016), a movie he has compared to the aforementioned Rejects film.

I would say that this movie is decent enough to justify being made, which I suppose means that Zombie has managed to make a movie that will be hit-or-miss depending on one's patience for his habits as a filmmaker in trying to aim for the drive-in throwback with his personal favorites of music and actors to go along with a few familiar story beats. It does repeat a few things from the previous feature, for better or worse, which means that one will find that Zombie's comfort zone lies within seeing the nature of chaos in a weary world where killers are more fun than folks interested in revenge or in authority (i.e., if one is big on Zombie, the chaos comes off as renewed rather than repetitive). Of course, the opening sequence is a key distinction, touching upon the family as akin to the Manson family with its public curiosity. Eh, only the explanation to how the trio survived a cadre of bullets is probably the only interest (personally, if the trio responded to the praise with mayhem, it might've been a darkly amusing payoff) before the movie gets a grip and pulls its location of Mexico. For 115 minutes, it also is a bit of a tight demand for some audiences, but I did end up finding it an appropriately grisly time that shows the main three in comfortable chemistry to appreciate. S. Zombie proves effective in showing the growing delusion of the character without needing to rely on hammy tricks, and since we have seen here in two previous films, the lingering characteristics that jump from film to film make it all the more captivating in mayhem. Moseley is just as effective in his marked servitude in the work of the devil that has charm just as before without copying every little schtick moment from before. Brake does just fine here, managing to hold his own in terms of charisma (you know, for a killer) that blends right in with the others that doesn't aim for a Haig impersonation while making for useful chemistry between him and Moseley in film sibling form. The others are merely just puppets for the trio to play around with, such as Phillips being held in captive terror or a mild adversary with Rivera or a wide progression of one-shot wonders (Howard playing a clown, Danny Trejo having the bare minimum to do, a smarmy Edson), you get the idea. It works to a point, although it probably makes the overall climax just a mild display of drive-in horror enjoyment. 

As a whole, it is firmly in the middle in quality when compared to the other two films, which means that those who like it and those who don't like it have equally compelling cases if asked by a curious horror fan what seems best to watch on a late night. I veer on the side of support, as long as one liked what they saw before. Regardless of if this is the final one of these films or if we see Zombie do further films involving drive-in horror ambitions, you will have some sort of curiosity with this film in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 28 films (and one redux) that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's 12th season for concentrated writing about horror. Suggestions are always welcome as we move on to other films, and it is almost time for another Thanksgiving celebration, if you know what I mean.