Sleuth (1972).

Review #2204. Sleuth (1972).

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (Andrew Wyke) and Michael Caine (Milo Tindle) Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (#750 - All About Eve, #1378 - People Will Talk, #1798 - No Way Out)

Review: 

In 1970, the play Sleuth came out to the stage to tremendous success as created by Anthony Shaffer. He had worked as a barrister and a copywriter before his calling as a writer. He based the play as a take on the mysteries written by author John Dickson Carr to go with inspiration from his friend Stephen Sondheim and his penchant for game-playing (incidentally, the first and only screenplay Sondheim wrote was done with Anthony Perkins involving mystery with The Last of Sheila (1973), as inspired by scavenger hunts that were done by who else but Sondheim and Perkin). The result was a Tony Award-winning play that had a variety of British actors playing the two roles, such as Anthony Quayle acting opposite Keith Baxter, with a run-on Broadway happening in the autumn of 1970. Two years later, he was brought on to write the screenplay for the film, one that has just two actors but had credits that listed fake names to fool the audience for a bit (the movie does the same thing). The film rights were purchased fairly quickly, and Shaffer expressed interest in Alan Bates to play opposite Anthony Quayle (who had played the Andrew role on stage originally) ...but when one finds Laurence Olivier, how does one say no? Through the rejection of actors such as Albert Finney and Bates came the bringing of Michael Caine to play opposite Olivier. Shaffer would be a bit busy as a writer, as his first screenplay went onto the screen in 1971 with Mr. Forbush and the Penguins before 1972 saw both Sleuth and Frenzy released. He wrote a handful of screenplays until 1993 that ranged from The Wicker Man (1973) to his last effort in Sommersby (1993).This was the 20th feature film directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Although he worked on the screenplay for a would-be adaptation of a novel called Jane in his later years, Sleuth ended up being his final film prior to his death in 1993 at the age of 83. In 2007, a new version of Sleuth was filmed that had Kenneth Branagh as director to go with Caine now the old pro playing against a younger one, this time playing against Jude Law in a movie that apparently didn't use any dialogue from Shaffer's original script. It probably didn't go as well as when Caine was in that other who-dun-it Deathtrap (as released in 1982, for which some have compared it to Sleuth, although really they arent that similar), that's for sure.

Not many movies can say that they have pros for every cast member, but this is one of those times where the fun isn't so much just the mystery but the fact that you get 138 minutes of two absolutely invested actors in their element for a film that shows a relish for methodical entertainment. When it comes to cat-and-mouse games, it really doesn't get any better than this, and it does certainly lend itself to going into it with as little to know as possible besides the fact that one really can get too absorbed into one-upping the other person. When Olivier encountered Sondheim at the end of filming, he apparently stated that he based his performance off him. Olivier puts his best foot forward in that grand display that arises from an aristocratic display that could only be shown for all of its degrees of tone and reaction by a pro that knows it is the utmost importance to not have it seem like just a bit to play for the straight gag. For all the people that know (and knew) the power of Olivier in a role with meat to play, there are probably almost as many people who know how damn good Caine can make a role within the first few scenes he appears in. The differences between him and Olivier when it comes to curiosity and upbringing for the film make a compelling double act that lends each the chance to explore how far pride can go, particularly among the higher classes. Caine excels in those razor-sharp exchanges that become more and more predicated on the idea that if someone has to win, the loser is going to be buried one way or another. It is the kind of movie to sit back with a drink and just enjoy slowly over the course of the film. Even when one has an idea of where the film might go with its tête-à-tête, the ride never seems to loosen up, and this is for a film with plenty of scenes in a house with plenty of atmosphere and staging to spare (such as with its one particular laughing electronic toy). In the end, however one finds themselves watching this film in the progression of mystery and thrills, one will have plenty to enjoy within its contained dedication shown by all involved in its execution from its director right down to its actors for all that one could ever want.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Karate Kid Part II.

Review #2203: The Karate Kid Part II.

Cast: 
Ralph Macchio (Daniel LaRusso), Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi), Nobu McCarthy (Yukie), Tamlyn Tomita (Kumiko), Danny Kamekona (Sato), Yuji Okumoto (Chozen Toguchi), Charlie Tanimoto (Miyagi Chōjun), Joey Miyashima (Toshio), Marc Hayashi (Taro), with Martin Kove (John Kreese), and William Zabka (Johnny Lawrence) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky, #895 - Rocky V, #1689 - W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings, and #1759 - The Karate Kid)

Review: 
Sure, The Karate Kid (1984) was quite the hit, so sure, let's make a sequel pretty quickly. Not only does the sequel see the return of Macchio and Morita as the lead stars, it also features Robert Mark Kamen as the screenwriter again (Elizabeth Shue however did not return). As one probably would see coming, the events of the first film are briefly shown again that includes the ending and a subsequent scene that was planned for the original film's ending is utilized here with Zabka and Kove. When producers and writers had a conflict over what was to be the basis of the second film (Miyagi's homeland versus the revenge of Kreese), a compromise was made to have the third film feature the revenge aspect, which is how one got The Karate Kid Part III (released in 1989), complete with Kamen and Avildsen back as writer and director. Interestingly enough, the presence of military bases on Okinawa make a certain type of landscape look as opposed to, say, Oahu in Hawaii.

Honestly, it is a decent movie, but it definitely is a case of a movie that threatens to unravel because of the last half. I do like the idea of our two leads branching out into a different landscape to build on the idea of trying to continue to find personal balance that, well, relates to karate without just leaning into violence, albeit now on Okinawa Island (complete with a storm that surely had a little bit of fun from The Rains Came [1939]). Those two dynamics that arise in Macchio & Tomita and Morita & McCarthy do provide some interest when it comes to showing the nature of what they are beyond karate (or what they could be, in the case of the young ones when compared to ones filled in what-could-have-been). Morita makes the movie work as Miyagi's story in slowly unraveling layers beyond just being someone that could do karate when it comes to the heart and the choices that come with looking on the homeland again. Really though, the most interesting sequence is a brief one with Macchio about finding the best thing one could do for their dad being, well, being there. This was actually the film debut of Kamekona, who had appeared in countless TV shows (most significantly Hawaii Five-O on-and-off from 1968 to its end in 1980). At least he seems to have fun in his endearing game with Morita (we are talking about middle-aged men and one really old grudge). Okumoto does fine with such a silly buildup to an inevitable fight for the reason of just needing a fight because at least he plays it with enthusiasm. The movie at least utilizes its location with charm that doesn't make one think it was there just for vacations or window dressing, particularly with its dance near the end (aside from of course, the fight that has to come from it, heh).

And then of course there is the karate, which is totally fine but inevitably amusing to see play for a setup that doesn't really try to hold a candle to the original because of how familiar it ends up being. A good chunk of the film is the build of, well, a guy not wanting to fight while his friend is somehow roped by some chump into plenty of dumb antics (like say, a big bet on breaking six blocks of ice) because of course he is. The final fight is amusing to the point of absurdity in trying to be both of closing the circle of how the film started (deciding to not kill their opponent in front of people) and ensure that the film did not in fact close on rain (don't get me started on the bit with the little drums that have swinging beads). As a whole, it is a sequel purely made for crowd-pleasing that tells a decent story when it comes to Miyagi while being pretty familiar stuff the rest of the way around for a solidly average film if one was already on board with what the original film had in mind with cheery karate.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Missing in Action.

Review #2202: Missing in Action.

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (Colonel James Braddock), M. Emmet Walsh (Jack "Tuck" Tucker), David Tress (Senator Maxwell Porter), Lenore Kasdorf (Ann Fitzgerald), Ernie Ortega (General Vinh), James Hong (General Tran), E. Erich Anderson (Masucci), and Pierrino Mascarino (Jacques) Directed by Joseph Zito.

Review: 

Much in the same way that a fruit can be cut several different ways, one can really do movies with similar subject matter with pretty different execution. If you remember, James Cameron was behind the original treatment for what became Rambo: First Blood Part II in May of 1985 (he had written it when waiting to start filming The Terminator), which, well, was an action film where Rambo went from being a "documenter of possible prisoners held by jailers" to "fuck 'em". Incidentally, earlier in the decade, Robert R. Garwood (a Private), among one of the last American POW from the Vietnam War (as captured in 1965 but one who did not return to America until 1979) faced a court martial after being accused of being a collaborator with the enemy that saw him stripped of his rank (he had claimed that American POWs were left behind in Vietnam). Even decades after the war, the Department of Defense lists "current numbers of Americans who are unaccounted for in Southeast Asia" at over a thousand. Anyway, Cameron's script led to inspiration (as one says) for the Cannon Group to see if they could do their own film involving war veterans and beat the Rambo film to the punch, which they did. In fact, they filmed two Missing in Action films, with the original plan to have the one directed by Lance Hool (which involved the POW days of the lead character) be released first before the rescue one...but the commercial prospects were found to be better with this film and so the other film was titled Missing in Action 2: The Beginning and released in March of 1985 (not long after the first one!) and somehow two months before the Rambo sequel. All of this is how the first film gets a screenplay and writing credit that has Arthur Silver, Larry Levinson and Steve Bing listed for characters, James Bruner for screenplay, and John Crowther and Lance Hool for story. 1988 saw the release of Braddock: Missing in Action III, which was considerably less successful.

Norris has stated that the film was one he made as a memorial for his younger brother Wieland, who died in combat in Vietnam. It was also the first film he did with the Cannon Group. This was the fifth film of Joseph Zito, who had directed the fourth (and intended final) film of the Friday the 13th series earlier in 1984, although his previous effort The Prowler (1981) has received far more interesting notice in later years. He did one further film with Norris in Invasion U.S.A. (1985). Imagine making a 100-minute movie with as little tension as possible and you have something that probably would fit right at home with keeping one eye open when trying to, say, paint. Norris seems to have settled into a Clint Eastwood impersonation that happens to do action with feet and blasting away, but it isn't particularly infused with even the slightest bit of charisma besides the minimum. The film somehow feels small in scale because by blasting away with faceless enemies (Hong doesn't even make it to the 45th minute but he does what the film needs before being disposed of) and having just Walsh with the semblance of energy, one just finds an average hollow film. Walsh is sly enough that being a sidekick character in his mid-forties is a hoot fitting enough to engage with. Well, I can say this much...it makes one realize that um, maybe I misjudged Good Guys Wear Black (1978) when it came to calling Norris one who sounded like an "instructional guidebook for using a power tool". This film at least drops the pretense of playing it for the thriller angle and goes straight for an action cheese fest. Sure, it lacks a true villain besides the nameless folks getting shot at, but one can at least get some sort of curiosity of seeing Norris playing opposite a character actor pro in Walsh (rest in peace) as opposed to trying to wedge in a romantic angle between Norris and Kasdorf (at least this one doesn't go like that aforementioned Good Guys film and explode a plane). I especially like how the ending is a dramatic build to...storming a building to show the truth. As a whole, it may have beaten First Blood Part II when it comes to POW rescue films, but it doesn't hold too much of a candle in overall execution, instead being an average film that lacks the final push to be anything other than the action film picked after the pile has nearly been finished.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Suburbia (1983).

Review #2201: Suburbia.

Cast: 

Bill Coyne (Evan Johnson), Chris Pedersen (Jack Diddley), Jennifer Clay (Sheila), Timothy Eric O'Brien (Skinner), Wade Walston (Joe Schmo), Flea (Razzle), André Boutilier (Peg Leg), Grant Miner (Keef), Christina Beck (T'resa), Maggie Ehrig (Mattie), Lee Frederick (Jim Tripplett), Jeff Prettyman (Bob Skokes), Don Allen (Officer Bill Rennard), Andrew Pece (Ethan Johnson), and J. Dinan Myrtetus (Sheila's father) Written and Directed by Penelope Spheeris (#238 - The Little Rascals, #806 - Wayne's World, #1019 - Dudes, #1657 - The Decline of Western Civilization, #1821 - The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years, and #1986 - The Decline of Western Civilization Part III)

Review: 

"It’s an example of the kind of movies I should have been making for my whole career and I wasn’t able to."

Yes, The Decline of Western Civilization (1981) is a punk rock documentary that one can find plenty to appreciate for its look within the punk rock scene and the documentation done by someone with the guts to just let it all hang out in Penelope Spheeris, but it was not the kind of film that screamed audience favorite. So, she set out to make a punk narrative feature, one that would take inspiration from various stories she had seen and heard, whether that involved roaming dogs or a house abandoned (apparently it was like that because the housing tract had been seized through eminent domain in order to help build a freeway). The film came about at the hands of a guy name Bert L. Dragin that apparently wanted to make movies (such as the one as presented to him by Spheeris when showing the script) because he had made considerable money as a furniture chain owner, albeit one that would like a partner to help cover the costs of making a fairly cheap movie. Naturally, this led to Roger Corman, who agreed to help with financing. Of course, because it was made with Corman as a producer, he was behind some of the ideas present in the film when it comes to what Spheeris defined as having to "either have sex or violence every 10 minutes". Interestingly, Dragin would become a director for two films of his own with Summer Camp Nightmare (1987) and Twice Dead (1988), with Spheeris co-writing the script with Dragin for the former. The film did not get much of a release besides a few festivals, but Spheeris maintains pride in the film, even once stating that she would be happy if one remembered her for this film (as opposed to Wayne's World); her next film after this was The Boys Next Door (1985).

The cast (with a few exceptions) were basically a collection of street youths and punk musicians that Spheeris recruited under the belief that it was better to try and get them to have them there and try to act rather than cast a bunch of actors and try to make them sound like punks. Perhaps not surprisingly, you can hear a few bits of live punk rock music throughout the film from bands such as D.I., T.S.O.L., and the Vandals (and yes, that is indeed Flea as a cast member in the same year he became a founding member of Red Hot Chili Peppers, although he is present in the film mostly involving rats - apparently people). Oh sure, it's not hard to find movies about wayward youths that find their own sense of family within others around them. But you sure won't find many films that ride the line of shock value and interest in the behavior of those that are shaped by the thing that surrounds them in suburbia that might as well be the second level of hell. The 1980s might have been a prosperous time for some, but it sure wasn't the easiest time for those who were left adrift and scattered in the streets to fend away. It isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, because, well, they are no angels, it is merely a case of trying to figure out how the hell the book got to be the way that it was in the first place. One is not there to watch a cry of sympathy of the punks but instead a lament for the circumstances that drew them there in the first place that happens to have a few moments to grimace or chuckle with along the way as the makeshift family hurtles towards inevitability. There are the rejected punks and the rejected when it comes to those with supposed "values" that like to discuss plans in a strip club or shoot at stray dogs (time flies when calling it in the name of "citizens against crime"). Some of the acting is hit and miss, such as with Coyne, who basically is lost in the shuffle once it gets to the group, although Clay is fairly decent. Of course, it really is a movie straight for the vibes as opposed to a collection of strong acting, and only Pedersen really strikes it best when it comes the contradictions that arise from calling oneself "The Rejected": one that would rather be around punks than his stepfather...cop. Allen in that regard, as the one sane adult figure (namely in recognizing the wasteland that folks around the suburb are wallowing in), is efficient in that regard to contrast the simple threat presented by Frederick and Prettyman that are stock but on point. If you squint hard enough, one might find a bit of The Wild One (1953) when it comes to rebels that, well, nobody tells them what to do, which in one memorable sequence involves trying to attend a funeral of one of their fallen that ends with a rough-and-tumble when the truth hits a bit too close. As a whole, it is a messy movie in the ways only a punk rock movie would make sense to be messy that doesn't try to play easy sympathy for its lead figures but instead looks at the wasteland and the ones that arise from suburbs turning from an idea of haven into a mirage. Its a rough film that rides on vibes for quite the curious experience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Return of the Musketeers.

Review #2200: The Return of the Musketeers.

Cast: 

Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), C. Thomas Howell (Raoul), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Kim Cattrall (Justine de Winter), Philippe Noiret (Cardinal Mazarin), Christopher Lee (the Comte de Rochefort), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), Eusebio Lázaro (the Duke of Beaufort), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Cyrano de Bergerac), Alan Howard (Oliver Cromwell), David Birkin (Louis XIV), and Bill Paterson (Charles I) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, #972 - The Three Musketeers, #976 - The Four Musketeers, and #1939 - Help!)

Review: 

“I really won’t talk about The Return of the Musketeers, I never have and I won’t now. But I think you can draw your own conclusions.”

On April 19, 1989, The Return of the Musketeers was released into European theaters. Let us refresh ourselves by going back a few years. In 1844, the adventure novel The Three Musketeers [Les Trois Mousquetaires] was first serialized, as written by Alexandre Dumas and his collaborator Auguste Maquet, which was the first of three Musketeer novels between 1844 and 1847 (Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later); Dumas had been inspired by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras and his memoirs of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan, an actual captain of the Musketeers of the Guard in the 1600s. Films have been done of the Musketeers since the early days of film, albeit mostly of the first book. At any rate, the Salkinds (Alexander and Ilya) had an initial idea of getting the Beatles to play the roles of the Musketeers for a film. Years went by (and, well, no Beatles to play the roles) before the Salkinds asked Richard Lester to do the film, who had not directed a film since The Bed Sitting Room (1969); noted novelist George MacDonald Fraser was hired to do the script. The Three Musketeers (1973) was filmed so heavily, that, well, clearly the Salkinds thought to pull a quick one and eventually tell the actors of the impending The Four Musketeers (1974) rather than having to strain hard to make one long film. So, now in 1989, was a return for Lester after his previous film had been Finders Keepers (1984). The Salkinds were not behind the production (in fact, they wouldn't let any old footage be used here), but Pierre Spengler, a producer involved with the previous two films, was there to produce this one; Fraser returned to do the script and a handful of cast members from the previous two films were there (even William Hobbs, who was behind the stage combat for the previous two films, returned). Lester has not been particularly keen on talking about the film too much in the 35 years since the release of this film, one that was both a trying production along with one that did not even get a proper American release (it was put on cable in 1991 for the States). Lester did one more project as a director with the 1991 concert film Get Back before essentially retiring (this was also the last screenplay written by Fraser).

The nature of Twenty Years Later basically entails that you won't really see all of the core of York, Reed, Finlay, and Chamberlain at once (the latter is credited as "special appearance by") all together at once. In fact, this was the last film to feature Kinnear, also returning from the previous two films (alongside Lee, Chaplin, and Cassel). On September 19, 1988, he suffered a horrific accident while on a horse that saw him fall off that saw him fracture his pelvis (while also having internal bleeding). The next day, he died from a heart attack while in the hospital. As such, seeing what a mix of him alongside stand-in shots (and a soundalike in parts) will probably be a bit jarring. The whole film is a jumble when it all comes down to assessment, but I would venture to say that a decent romp of yesteryear is more ideal to sit through once than not at all. They may be aged and may not be as big in star power as they were fifteen years ago, but it is hard to resist the qualities that come through most in York (if someone is compelled to do a voiceover, might as well be him) and Reed (when he is on, he is right there...), although at least Howell and Cattrall make for adequate newcomers to the smile game of adventure (one can't match Faye Dunaway exactly, but Cattrall at least seems to to be having fun trying). Finlay may be tired, but at least he has bits and pieces to contribute that go further than the "here is a scene there and here is one for the climax because I can" of Chamberlain or particularly Chaplin (you might say Lee is all too brief, but we* adore Lee being there at all). I particularly like the sequence involving a litany of traps within a rough-and-tumble fight that sees it go all the way to the foundation (literally). The clash of trying to play faithfulness to the source material goes to a point (for one thing, the threat was actually de Winter's illegitimate son, but even if this was a hit, would you have expected, say, another of these films where the Musketeers all die?), because there are moments where the strain of trying to keep up with its structure makes it nearly crash into pieces. As a whole, the 102-minute runtime makes for a fairly sustainable feature that deserved better than to be shuffled away as just a lower-release film or Lester's last hurrah, if only because there is something worth seeing with that spark of familiar wonder and chuckles. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*"we" being me, myself, and I

Civil War.

Review #2199: Civil War.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Lee Smith), Wagner Moura (Joel), Cailee Spaeny (Jessie), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy), Nick Offerman (The President), Nelson Lee (Tony), Evan Lai (Bohai), Sonoya Mizuno (Anya), and Jefferson White (Dave) Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina and #1581 - Annihilation)

Review: 

"There is something in the film which is trying to be protective of [journalists]. I think serious journalism needs protecting, because it’s under attack, so I wanted to make those people ‘heroes’ to put them front and center.”

Sure, you could have a few pre-conceptions about what the film is or what the film is not, blah blah blah. I went into the film with the bare minimum of attention given to it, which either meant that it would be fine or pretty bad. Admittedly, the first image that came to mind when watching the film was different from what I thought I would be wondering. Specifically, "Saigon Execution". It is perhaps one of the most famous images to come out of the Vietnam War, one that went far beyond just being awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. On February 1, 1968, Eddie Adams was a member of the Associated Press that was in Saigon (as known at the time, as opposed to Ho Chi Minh City) alongside an NBC News TV cameraman in Võ Sửu that saw a capture of captain Lem (a member of the Viet Cong) by a general named Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Both Adams and Võ Sửu captured a moment crystallized in time: Loan shooting Lem in the head. But the thing about Adams is that he was a man of numerous things as an observer: if he was to be remembered for anything, he wanted to be remembered for what he did beyond a photo caught in reflex, because above all, he had his principles to stand by. He was once quoted as saying that "Death is the greatest kick of all. That's why the save it for last." However it worked out, the photo has endured far more than the video (perhaps most notably, it was featured in 1968's Head)., to where even Adams has endured in memory more than Suu. I figured that this was a more interesting way to start talking about the film than simply saying that right before its release, its director stated his intention to lay off directing in the near future, among other things when it came to promoting the film and its intent.

It's interesting, Garland wanted to make a movie about journalists on the frontlines (and there are a few good journalists among a cadre of others that blur the lines), but really, he might have made one long dark joke instead, which basically has the one idea that above all, the observer is not really just an observer just because they wear a vest saying "PRESS" on it. One is observing the observer observing events in their own viewpoint and decisions made to get this coverage (because they aren't just shooting it on their own), basically. Admittedly, once you have a title like "Civil War", you pretty much have put a bullseye on your head, because what else could you have called it? (besides, I went into it barely noticing that there was meant to be a map of which places were fractured from each other because, what difference does it make?) This is a film that has one of the first lines involve a president say "Some are already calling this the greatest victory in the history of mankind" to go alongside footage of unrest, because if one thought the age they live in was bleak (what with the various things one could protest for, such as a less intrusive Israel or other worldly concerns), try this on for size. It doesn't go into too many specifics of exactly how one is in a civil war with various separated territories, but I think using a bit of imagination works out here, particularly since this is basically a road movie with journalists that either have their souls hollowed out or on the verge of it happening, which makes for a fairly unsettling film for those into what it shows (and doesn't show). Trying to frame it as some sort of centrist filmmaking is pretty shortsighted when you get down to it. Besides, the performances work out best when it comes to showing the trials and tribulations of wanting to go out to gunfire with a ready camera on hand. Dunst excels here with no false notes detected when it comes to a tired old soul that could actually play for anyone familiar with the beats of a job that nevertheless seems to have lost a bit of themselves in that grind of production. They know what lines they can cross and shouldn't cross, and it gnaws at them for one can't unsee even when one closes their eyes, so Dunst being paired with Spaeny in a mirror of experience on the frontlines makes for a pretty compelling dynamic to watch play out to the most reasoned conclusion, for which each handle deftly. Moura probably ranks as the most thrill-seeking among the core four, which actually works out pretty well in showing levity along with the craven nature that comes in being gripped in the chase, at least when compared to a more seasoned pro on the last steps on a road in Henderson. Offerman is around for both the start and finish of the film as the object of fascination that has more said around him that, well, use your imagination on how it goes to see a face meant to be playing a dictator.  Probably the most gripping scene is the one with an uncredited Jesse Plemons that exudes the certain terror that I'm sure comes with encountering the back woods on the road. He handles it masterfully for a certain amount of time that keeps the film firmly on its toes. It is certainly a loud film at times that is expected with a dystopian war film that doesn't let a stone go unturned, even in a supposedly quiet moment where a trip to a friendly-looking place leads to a darkly amusing realization. The ending helps seal the film's fate in terms of realizing just where one will find themselves when it comes to the demands of an occupation and what it might do to their soul in the process as a certain image plays out in the credits that really might not be as emphatic in its ending as one assumes at first. In the end, it is a solid 109-minute effort in tension as carried by its main quartet to make for an interesting recommendation for those who know what they are getting into in terms of imagination and the grind that arises from it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The First Omen.

Review #2198: The First Omen.

Cast: 

Nell Tiger Free (Margaret Daino), Sônia Braga (Sister Silvia), Ralph Ineson (Father Brennan), Bill Nighy (Cardinal Lawrence), Tawfeek Barhom (Father Gabriel), Maria Caballero (Luz Valez), Nicole Sorace (Carlita Scianna), Ishtar Currie-Wilson (Sister Anjelica), Andrea Arcangeli (Paolo), and Charles Dance (Father Harris) Directed by Arkasha Stevenson.

Review: 

You may recall that the idea for The Omen (1976) came about because producer Harvey Bernhard had a conversation with a friend involving the Bible and religion, which is where writer David Seltzer came in to eventually craft it into a screenplay (amusingly, Seltzer was first reluctant to do the screenplay because he did not have a belief in the devil). Richard Donner was picked to direct and, well, you know the rest. If you've seen a film with a possibly evil child and a worried mother such as, say, Rosemary’s Baby (1968) or The Exorcist (1973), well, of course it is the kind of thing to inspire a few follow-ups. This "First Omen" was first planned back in 2016, which followed long after the wake of sequel (Damien - Omen II [1978]) after sequel (Omen III: The Final Conflict [1981]) after attempted TV thing (an "Omen IV") after, well, a 2006 remake (which apparently barely changed anything). But here we are with a film set in 1971 that is the debut feature debut by Arkasha Stevenson, a former photojournalist-turned-director in her feature film debut. The screenplay was done by Tim Smith, Arkasha Stevenson, and Keith Thomas while the story was done by Ben Jacoby. There was an idea to have this be one of those films you encounter on streaming with Hulu, since this is a 20th Century (Fox) Studios distributed film, but these plans changed. Apparently, the movie almost had a rating of NC-17 because of one certain scene that had to have a few cuts made. Such is life.

Stevenson has professed herself as an Omen fan, which is a pretty good sign. Admittedly, trying to make fear enough to drive people back to church sounds about on par for a film that wants to go beat on beat to set up the original film (of course, if one remembers the original film, think back to what is found in a certain cemetery). The end result is a decent experience that isn't nearly as much of a cheap imitation as it could have turned out to be, which basically means that it is an average rendition of the original 1976 movie that was already pretty average to begin with. If wrapped with enough patience to go with the idea of something really, really spooky beyond a few weird nuns, well, you will be totally fine here because the performances generally help the film retain the believability of not making one desire to go for overt theatricality. Free in particular does well with the great vulnerability that arises in someone who is probably way over their head with handling not only the turmoil that comes in a cloudy age of doubt but the very idea that something may very well lurk within the blood. Pawn or no pawn, she is not merely there to be used as just as an object to go into the screaming night, which helps to sell the climax when it finally gets to a certain point of anticipation for dread. Sorace makes for a worthwhile pairing for that arrangement of vulnerability and shaken self that practically mirrors Free, which is an interesting task when the first scene of them involves, uh, licking. There is a certain type of confidence to admire in Ineson that does not waver or seem to be playing off as merely just someone who happens to be playing a role once inhabited by Patrick Troughton (if you recall the priest in the original, naturally). The threat presented is in the people that act as if all that is wrong is just, well, another thing among things in "Years of Lead" (okay, the film doesn't mention that term, but you get to hear historical terms pop up for films sometimes), which work in that stone-cold conviction of those who really see their way as the one and only for spirit and all, regardless of who happens to be lurking behind. Folks ready for something on the unsettling side (as opposed to gore) will be mostly on point with what the film sells. Honestly, it is the ending that probably makes the film shake a bit too much near the deep end. Regardless of the quality of the film before it, do I need anything to lay the hint further films when one is already bearing the cross of being "The First Omen". At any rate, this is a solidly decent time if one is interested in carefully placed blocks of dread that manages to utilize its 119-minute runtime to useful execution to make a solid pick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Monkey Man.

Review #2197: Monkey Man.

Cast: 

Dev Patel (Kid/Bobby/Monkey Man), Sharlto Copley (Tiger), Pitobash (Alphonso), Vipin Sharma (Alpha), Sikandar Kher (Rana), Sobhita Dhulipala (Sita), Ashwini Kalsekar (Queenie), Adithi Kalkunte (Neela), and Makarand Deshpande (Baba Shakti) Directed by Dev Patel.

Review: 

“I think the action genre has sometimes been abused by the system. I wanted to give it real soul, real trauma, real pain and you guys deserve that. And I wanted to infuse it with a little bit of culture.”

Really, for once you have to thank Netflix. No, seriously, this was a film that could have been relegated to the lands of streaming, because they bought the worldwide rights to the film when it was completed in 2021. Fortunately, they didn't have the guts to actually release it because it turns out calling it "John Wick in Mumbai" is not giving the movie the credit it deserves in reaching audiences. Jordan Peele saw the film and helped to get it released under Universal Pictures in acquisition. Of course, all of this undersells the toughness that came in actually filming the movie, where Patel broke his hand on the first action scene filmed, which was one of a string of injuries to befall the production. Patel wrote the story for the film and co-wrote the screenplay with Paul Angunawela and John Collee. I should have figured that Patel had an appreciation of Enter the Dragon before seeing this film, because it does become apparently by the end that Patel wanted to make a movie that meshed the wide variety of old movies (such as the aforementioned Bruce Lee classic) he had seen to go with inspiration from the Hindu deity Hanuman and tales his grandfather had told him about as a child. So yes, you can thank Netflix for having no guts to release a movie so that better people can swoop in and believe it would work in a theater instead. 

Sure, there is probably something to be said about the film in its ideas on certain types of living when it comes to India that relates to now or something, but the film's heart is entirely on making a kickass movie of the underdog. At a crisp 121-minute runtime is an achievement by Patel as director and actor that shows worthwhile passion in the right places that has the marking of one's soul to make for a distinct action experience. There is that certain look one sees when it comes to his eyes and expression for a good part of his scenes, regardless of if it involves a fight scene (there are a few of them, but the major ones are spread out) or not. That look is one of drive, one that is ready to take whatever hit he thinks is coming next, which is plenty of them when considering the scenes spent with a monkey mask and the eventual turn into mythic hero (really that turn of hero among the underclass could be seen in films beyond action flicks with the genre of the Western, arguably). In a film packed with seemingly everyone wanting to make a hustle, his hustle is all-consuming vengeance that is quite believable when it comes to a head. His pursuit is our pursuit, and the action that comes with it makes it all the more entertaining because it is paced so effectively. Copley is only in the film for those scenes involving fights in the ring, but even with that he is quite enjoyably in his showmanship charm. Kher and Deshpande each make for compelling threats in terms of the power they represent in their public face that aren't merely just people to be taken down in a single swoop. Their presence in power and how they convey it makes the film all the more involving when it comes to the pursuit of ass-kicking. The rest of the actors do pretty well to fill the landscape of manipulators and the manipulated that make for a worthwhile environment to watch the furor take place, whether that involves a bit of a relief from Pitobash or that quiet tension in Dhulipala. In the film's eyes, when it comes to the structure of power, the one big threat to that is someone with none of it left to lose. When the action sequences come into focus and blast one's senses away, it reminds one that the movies really can be fun when one sees the soul behind it in execution and intent, particularly with its ending that makes it come full circle with the best of respect. Regardless of what Patel plans to do as a director (in terms of genre), that buildup of tension and intensity is one to see for itself in a theater. All in all, Monkey Man is a wonderful winner for the viewer and for the ones who get to see it, particularly in a theater.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Late Night with the Devil.

Review #2196: Late Night with the Devil.

Cast: 

David Dastmalchian (Jack Delroy), Laura Gordon (Dr. June Ross-Mitchell), Ian Bliss (Carmichael the Conjurer), Fayssal Bazzi (Christou), Ingrid Torelli (Lilly D'Abo), Rhys Auteri (Gus McConnell), Nicole Chapman (Cleo James), Georgina Haig (Madeleine Delroy), Josh Quong Tart (Leo Fiske), and Michael Ironside (the Narrator) Written and Directed by Colin Cairnes and Cameron Cairnes.

Review: 

"In the '70s and '80s, there was something slightly dangerous about late-night TV. Talk shows in particular were a window into some strange adult world. We thought combining that charged, live-to-air atmosphere with the supernatural could make for a uniquely frightening film experience."

Sure, some films just come out of the blue. The Cairnes brothers had worked on a handful of television and film productions (in or around their native Australia), such as 100 Bloody Acres (2012) and Scare Campaign (2016), which had limited releases, but this film came out of the intent of the two to do something that could be self-contained, which eventually sprang with what they saw as "always felt a little bit taboo and dangerous to us as kids" with late-night talk shows of long ago. Filmed in Australia with a varied level of funding that makes this a production of Australia-UAE-USA, Late Night with the Devil was first shown on the festival circuit in early 2023, but some of us are fortunate to get a screening in a theater (IFC Films and Shudder are behind the distribution for the States prior to release in Australia, and, well, by mid-April one could stream it, so you get the idea). There is a mix of effects that range from the practical to digital to the use of AI-generated ones (with the last one: I don't care for AI as anything other than a guiding tool, so go with that in mind). 

By default, one pretty much compares found footage movies to The Blair Witch Project (1999) when it comes to achieving some sort of effect, I suppose. Fortunately, since that movie is massively overrated, clearing the bar of "Blair Witch" is a step in the right direction, and the conceit generated here by this film works out pretty well for gnarly interest for 93 minutes. I think it is more a movie I wished I liked even more than I did, because while it is a pretty good one, there are a few quibbles one can have, whether in its starting conceit or with its finish, which you may or may not see arise pretty quickly. So yes, it involves the pursuit of ratings under the guise of curiosity, and the opening is the only part that doesn't take place around the set of the show, which does look pretty nice in capturing a feeling of a time long past. The performance of Dastmalchian is the key to the whole film to being what it is when it comes to having to play a second-rate host. Apparently, it was an article he wrote in a magazine about regional hosts that got him asked first. He excels here in that clear-cut balance of self-assuring charm that has the layer of something lurking beyond the surface of someone who you can see loves the audience member that only a showbiz person can love when wanting to love them in confines bigger than one could imagine. Late night hosts can feel like one's friend (unless it is someone who sucks, like Jim-), so it is a tightrope to walk in not playing it as just a Johnny Carson pastiche or clear-cut smarm, and he does well to work it out. Bliss is the one who gets to work out the smarm in a spin probably loosely inspired by James Randi, the famed skeptic and former magician that had a handful of appearances dedicated to knocking on alleged paranormal activity (such as fraud Uri Geller, who failed to bend spoons like a fraud on live TV and then failed to successfully sue Randi when he wrote a book calling him a fraud) who also offered a cash prize if someone could prove their powers (no one ever did). His skepticism fuels the film with worthwhile conflict that is is self-aggrandizing in the most delightful of senses, particularly when paired against Gordon and her do-gooder attitude to trying to be validated in a interesting sort of contradictions (as only one can do, with a book tour but totally not willing to go all-out in parading a teenager on television, sure). Auteri plays a quality sidekick to the presentation as it degrades into one certain type of desperation in mind. Torelli plays pretty key to the film as well when it comes to an aura that likes to back in the glow of a camera by staring right into it that fits right in with the movie's presentation of clear-cut terror looming. The ending can be a bit hit or miss depending on one likes to see dread stick the landing when it finally boils to a head. Personally, this might seem odd, but I kind of wish the film ended just a minute or two before it really ends, because one could really have it go completely Twilight Zone and have it end with a great twist involving a man sacrificing the things around him to be #1 only to be trapped in a never-ending illusion. But at any rate, I accept the conclusion when it comes to sealing some entertaining dread in footage form for a movie that is on the level in pretty good execution from everyone involved. It is the kind of indie film that could make a solid recommendation on a late night for one who craves building of dread within comfortable confines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Review #2195: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Cast: 

Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Kumail Nanjiani (Nadeem Razmaadi), Patton Oswalt (Dr. Hubert Wartzki), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), Logan Kim (Podcast), Emily Alyn Lind (Melody), James Acaster (Dr. Lars Pinfield), Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), and William Atherton (Mayor Walter Peck) Directed by Gil Kenan.

Review: 

Admittedly, Ghostbusters (1984) was basically a perfect comedy movie that is hard to replicate when it comes to the successors that arose in its wake. The best thing to come out afterwards from this "franchise" probably depends on one's age, but it is pretty safe to say the 2009 video game was probably close to or, well, the best one of the lot, which now has five films (you remember: 1989, 2016 [don't know], 2021, and here), with the latter being enough of a hit to generate the idea of going further in busting (sure, this is the third of these films that like to brand themselves as "Ghost Corps", which I maintain is a silly name). I do wonder what folks care most about a film involving people that are probably a bit nutty enough to have to commit to fighting beings that play havoc with random things from time to time. The original 1989 sequel was light in the idea of strife when it comes to maintaining teamwork in the face of doubt while Afterlife presented a solid adventure of growing back the family that just happened to have ghosts in Oklahoma. Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman, who wrote the script for Afterlife, return to write the script for this film.

Oh hell, Frozen Empire was fine. Granted, there are plenty of caveats to go with that statement, but it takes a lot of wasted goodwill to make an intolerable sequel, particularly one watched in theaters, and this movie is useful enough as a ride to justify most of its surroundings. There are probably one too many people in this cast, that much is for certain. I think at a certain point "passing the torch" really should mean what it says, because it seems almost amusing to have enough busters to make up a baseball lineup, but since one is here for 115 minutes, one does aspire to not see any significant weak links among the groups (familiar, older familiar, new). This is pretty much true here, although it is clear that Grace shines the best among the group (of course with Aykroyd, we know his spirituality is right into it). It is the kind of curiosity that is charming in terms of the frustration that arises in not-quite-ready-for-adulthood (this case: bureaucracy). This results in a few interesting moments of connection beyond hunting when it comes to scenes spent with Lind (after a previous film of playing it close in quiet interaction on one side). Nanjiani seems to be having fun trying to play it off as a goof ripped from a cartoon (he cited The Real Ghostbusters animated series as an inspiration for the filmmakers with this film, so this may check out), which can be hit or miss from scene to scene. Well, it is nice to see Atherton again, who has managed to retain the certain kind of smarm that one would hope to enjoy in established character actors. It goes as such for the criminally underrated Hudson when it comes to neat charm in quasi-exposition dialogue (as opposed to Oswalt, who might as well have his role rendered by a PowerPoint presentation but with less snark). Murray and Potts may be shuffling in and out with brief attempts at dry cracks, but familiar comfort does suit some more than others. When it comes to the paranormal, I suppose sorcerers and astral projections is not the silliest bridge to cross when talking about fear-sucking ghosts that like ice. I'm fine with the threat presented here in the sense that being frozen or corralling fear is at least a semi-interesting idea seemingly cobbled from too many binges into paranormal things without becoming insulting. Oh, it is silly, but it is the kind of silly that I can at least throw my hands up rather than slap them down in derision. In general, Afterlife is a bit better when it comes to the overall jokes and the exploration of people working in tandem as a family. If you have had fine times with the previous Ghostbusters follow-ups since 1984 (forty years ago, so...), you will be fine with what is accomplished here for a stuffed ride that delivers exactly what one imagines it to be for shades of adventure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.