Deadpool & Wolverine.

Review #2236: Deadpool & Wolverine.

Cast: 

Ryan Reynolds (Wade Wilson / Deadpool), Hugh Jackman (Logan / Wolverine), Emma Corrin (Cassandra Nova), Matthew Macfadyen (Mr. Paradox), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Morena Baccarin (Vanessa), Rob Delaney (Peter), with Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Jennifer Garner (Elektra), Wesley Snipes (Blade), and Channing Tatum (Gambit) Directed by Shawn Levy.

Review: 

I will admit that I liked what I saw of Deadpool (2016) and Deadpool 2 (2018), but there is probably something a bit strange to my inner self that I didn't write as much as I thought I did about why I thought they were good. I am then reminded that the character (as created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld that first showed in publication in 1990) being once described as looking like "Ryan Reynolds crossed with a Shar Pei" apparently sprung a desire for Reynolds to, well, want to involved in making a Deadpool film for years (we do not speak of X-Men Origins: Wolverine) before it actually became a thing (as credited by a certain leak of test footage). I generally forget about seeing films a second time around unless I really feel like it, but I imagine that the pace and energy of those two films worked more often than not to go with commitment from Reynolds that was worthwhile enough for most folks. Honestly though, I didn't really care about the idea of trying to pull the character for spinoffs because, well, keeping things simple really is sometimes better (of course I still can't really get used to the term "20th Century Studios", so there we are). But sure, I suppose six years between Deadpool films is a fair accomplishment, particularly since my interest in seeing comic book movies (particularly sequels) has become more of a coinflip than ever. With that in mind, it isn't too much of a surprise to see five credited writers with Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Zeb Wells, and Shawn Levy (Reese and Wernick wrote the last two films, incidentally) to see both the return of Deadpool and Wolverine (as last played by Hugh Jackman seven years ago that surely isn't referenced here).

It is easy to say the movie is fine. It is comfortably decent in a way that I somehow should have seen coming and yet here we are with a movie that will accomplish its goals of R-rated entertainment in the realm best equated to a checkbox. Okay, maybe that isn't completely fair or meant to be an insult, but there were times during the 128-minute runtime (surprise, that is the longest of the series) where I was wondering where the line was drawn in making the film when it came to the meaning of "restraint" for what is basically a road movie. It seems to aim for being the goofball kind of comic movie that maybe ends up more like the drunk uncle type of goofiness that works best in the actual dynamic between its two main actors more than the bits and pieces of formula, which could either be about its comedic tone or, well, in its action. Jackman practically steps right back into the gear he always managed to achieve without strain or hesitation in terms of a cool loner with physicality and the timing that was a clear favorite anytime he was on the screen in the days of future past. That manages to make for a dynamic with Reynolds that is pretty funny mostly because each actually seem to have a good time being around each other in the style of a road movie. Reynolds and his love of such a gloriously violent silly character is evident still even with such time spent masked, this is for sure. Corrin is slightly effective in the rote sense of adversary (think back to the last two Deadpool film villains and get back to me) without really sticking the landing by the time of the ending because of that usual MCU complaint that still seems true: it's hard to make a neat villain when you know an effects show (or silly cameo) is coming. I actually am a bit bummed at the little time spent with the actual Deadpool supporting cast, particularly when Macfadyen only just manages to distract one in a few neat moments of timing. Evidently, there were plans to do a "Gambit" film with Tatum as the title character that ended up never happening, so here he gets to do a bit with that character, complete with an accent that I'm sure Peter Sellars would've loved in absurdity. But even with that accent, well, Snipes takes the cake as (still) the one and only Blade when it comes to timing. I suppose there is something to say about Garner returning for a bit to an old role, but Keen does better in one little campfire scene than the entirety of Garner and that one particular joke used to clearly draw laughs (there is one other cameo that drags to the most obvious death scene, but whatever). 

It only just manages to hit the line of not overrunning its welcome (more times than not) in humor, but I sure as hell can understand where that schtick can really please or really drag, and this was one of those films where even liking a film means having a moment where you hold your hand in a twirling fashion and I think you get the picture. I'm sure there are folks that will enjoy that deluge of Deadpools in its diversionary and amusing tactics, but you know, I do wonder if someone got drunk when watching Spider-Verse and thought, "hey!". I find it peculiar to see this as a sort of tribute (well, the logo is found in the sand at one point but it plays "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)...which is a song old enough for me to remember hearing it in my elementary video-book nearly 20 years ago) to those days of 20th Century Fox-Marvel films, because like an old high school friend that you used to know, that stuff was already buried neatly without the need to bring it all up again (such as the yellow suit, which I don't really understand why people care that much when the "actor" is what matters, but whatever; however, I will not argue on saying the mask looks too goofy for that one scene it gets used). As a whole, I don't usually find myself trying to wrestle with assessing a film as average as this one, but there is a strange sense of trying to figure out where the line gets drawn between having one's patience tested and accepting the overall finish. I was fine with the movie in terms of where it finished for entertainment in the plundering world of familiar images and bits that come and go that one could be forgiven for thinking of as a pastiche or even a pastiche of a pastiche. The enjoyment of the film for me lies firmly in the middle, one that proves the importance of not pushing and rushing everything in fulfillment even when just making it in the margins.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: another theme month for August.

One, Two, Three.

Review #2235: One, Two, Three.

Cast: 

James Cagney (C.R. "Mac" MacNamara), Horst Buchholz (Otto Ludwig Piffl), Pamela Tiffin (Scarlett Hazeltine), Arlene Francis (Phyllis MacNamara), Liselotte Pulver (Fräulein Ingeborg), Hanns Lothar (Schlemmer), Howard St. John (Wendell P. Hazeltine), Leon Askin (Peripetchikoff), Ralf Wolter (Borodenko), Peter Capell (Mishkin), Karl Lieffen (Fritz), and Hubert von Meyerinck (Count Waldemar von Droste-Schattenburg; Sig Ruman as English voice) Produced and Directed by Billy Wilder (#106 - Some Like It Hot, #194 - Ace in the Hole, #422 - The Fortune Cookie, #641 - The Apartment, #809 - Sunset Boulevard, #1384 - Stalag 17, #1390 - The Seven Year Itch, #1825 - Double Indemnity) 

Review: 

"We knew that we were going to have a comedy, we [were] not going to be waiting for the laughs. But we had to go with Cagney, because Cagney was the whole picture. He really had the rhythm, and that was very good. It was not funny. But just the speed was funny...The general idea was, let's make the fastest picture in the world...And yeah, we did not wait, for once, for the big laughs. We went through the big laughs. A lot of lines that needed a springboard, and we just went right through the springboard...We just did it, nine pages at a time, and he never fumbled, he never made a mistake."

This was the 18th feature film to be directed by Billy Wilder, who had been quite busy as a filmmaker by this point in time of his career. He wrote the screenplay for this film with I. A. L. Diamond for yet another collaboration with each other as the two worked together mostly uninterrupted from Love in the Afternoon (1957) to Buddy Buddy (1981); inspirations for this film (read: borrowed) was the Ferenc Molnár's 1929 play Egy, kettő, három but also Ninotchka (1939), which had been co-written by Wilder. As such, he picked James Cagney to be the star, despite queries about the fast-paced intent. This would be the penultimate performance for Cagney, who went from liking the idea of doing a film in West Berlin to being annoyed at the experience of filmmaking with having to go with such a high pace of speaking along with not enjoying the presence of Buchholz in terms of scene-stealing. If one sees the sequence involving clothes and wondering about a morning coat and "striped pants", keep in mind that it apparently took over fifty takes to get that sequence exactly to Wilder's liking (the result was that Cagney would not appear in a film for two decades). The film was released four months after construction of the Berlin Wall started (which is why the film came out with a preface mentioning August 13, 1961 and that the people one would be dealing with here are "real shifty") and generated a muted response, although a few decades later, it found an appreciation in West Berlin. Wilder and Diamond would stay busy regardless, working together three more times in the decade with Irma la Douce (1963), Kiss Me, Stupid (1964), and The Fortune Cookie (1966).

Well, it is a fairly well-rounded production, this much is for sure. Seeing the film with the best available view (i.e. paying attention to its widescreen) will at least make one appreciate the effort taken to place these characters in as wide a space as possible to display such madcap-type of dialogue. It never really reaches a place of greatness, but it isn't hard to at least defend the movie as a silly time involving the satire of go-getters on one side of Berlin and, well, the folks in the East. It is probably one of the more obvious "hit or miss" kind of comedies, where you are either with it or find it to be a lead-footed film. Cagney may not have had the most enjoyable experience with filming, but he sure does dominate the film with a tremendous amount of commitment that anchors the film in ways that would've been lost with a lesser actor. He runs with the film and never loses a step while being quite funny in having to shift gears from enterprising razzle-dazzle to screwball razzmatazz with the right cadence to lift it all rightfully. Suffice to say though, he was probably a bit correct about Buchholz, because he is merely adequate when compared to the rest of the cast in terms of timing beyond just that edge of bluster that is only slightly funny, particularly when compared to Tiffin, who is far more interesting with her hearty timing. Francis matches well with Cagney in those screwy moments together (such as referring to her husband as "mein führer" multiple times). The rest deliver a few chuckles in parts, such as Lothar having to dodge the ramifications that arise from being asked to borrow a dress in public or a few mishaps spent with a trio of communists. The 104-minute runtime is about on par with what one might see from a really fast film with a few hijinks that may be around the speed of His Girl Friday (1940) but the end result is merely just a selection of chuckles rather than hearty laughs to go with appreciation for its look. It doesn't wear out its welcome by the end, but one can see where it may have been just a bit out of its time when it comes to the final result that is sometimes silly, sometimes overwhelming and yet one that is curious enough to seek out for those big on Wilder beyond the obvious choices.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

The Steel Helmet.

Review #2234: The Steel Helmet.

Cast: 

Gene Evans (Sergeant Zack), Robert Hutton (Private Bronte), Steve Brodie (Lieutenant Driscoll), James Edwards (Corporal Thompson), Richard Loo (Sergeant Tanaka), Sid Melton (Joe), Richard Monahan (Private Baldy), William Chun ("Short Round"), Harold Fong (The Red), Neyle Morrow (First GI), and Lynn Stalmaster (Second Lieutenant) Written, Produced, and Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row)

Review: 

"I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films. It's part of human nature." - Samuel Fuller

It isn't too surprising that there were a few films made about the war effort in Korea while the war there was occurring, particularly one made by a veteran of the last World War. Samuel Fuller had served in the United States Army within the infantry. He went from working on screenplays to offering his services to direct with I Shot Jesse James (1949), which worked well enough to get him to continue as a director, which led to The Baron of Arizona (1950). With this film, he added producer to his line of credits (each of these first films were produced in some way by Robert L. Lippert). In his autobiography, he stated that he wanted to make a movie different from the usual stuff seen involving war, such as seeing the "genuine hardship of soldiers" to go with the fact that war in its confusion and brutality needed to be shown more so than straight heroism. Fuller cast Evans (an actor who had done only bit parts after returning from U.S. Army after having served as an engineer) on the strength of his actions when he approached for the role: when Fuller tossed an M1 rifle at him, he grabbed it, complete with racking it back when asked to by Fuller. He was kept even when suggestions were made to cast Larry Parks (of course, bigger studios earlier had thought of making it with John Wayne as the lead). Fuller shot exteriors for the film at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. His attempts to show the "organized insanity" that comes in war managed to ruffle feathers on each side (lefty or not), particularly with a visit with Army officials because of certain actions depicted in the film that, well, matched with actual events seen by Fuller, such as the shooting of a prisoner of war. The resulting film was a general hit (incidentally, the war would enter a period of stalemates that lasted until the 1953 ceasefire) that saw Fuller get a contract with 20th Century Fox for a time, for which his next film in Fixed Bayonets! (1951) also was a war film.

What we have is a straight-to-the-point story that manages to achieve the brilliance of looking like a thoughtful movie about the madness that arises in war that struck differently from the angle of the time within budgetary limitations that do more than if it had been a multimillion-dollar film. One gets an honest movie for 85 minutes with a worthwhile ensemble that shows the worry that arises from being packed in such a rough situation without turning it into a mark for eventual ra-ra heroism. In fact, the end of the film merely has a card saying, "There is no end to this story", which one doesn't usually get from their war films. It stokes curiosity for seeing strangers in a strange land rather than just being a mark for patriotism. Of course, they also don't usually see people asked about why they maintained their service even in the face of racism back home (such as the prior internment of Japanese Americans less than ten years prior). Fuller acts on his instincts to make a pulpy war film (dedicated to the U.S. infantry, as seen in the intro) that likely will leave a cutting impression on its viewer after it is finished. It doesn't take long to see the wisdom of having casted Evans (who would feature in a few more Fuller films) when it comes to his naturalistic performance that we follow along with in great interest in its gruff glory from the word go. The melting pot within the people around Evans is a curious one (one even is a conscientious objector) that consisted of actors who either didn't get many chances to get their due that do pretty well, such as the weariness played by Loo (a Hawaiian-born actor with Chinese ancestry that did plenty of stock roles) and Edwards. The bond of Evans and Chun is a curious one because of how each fit in the loosest of senses with the others, particularly since most of it is spent in a Buddhist temple with tension bubbling among these strangers that probably match the quote stated best in the film involving two kinds of soldiers, "those who are dead and those who are going to die." Aside from its partial time with Fong, one is mostly here with these shaky band of brothers before that fateful climax (as skillfully done with a handful of extras in a park) that drifts to a sobering conclusion for those who survive as opposed to the ones that did not get killed that day. As such, this is a worthwhile hard-nosed war film that rises above expectations with a useful cast and director all working in stride that results in an honest winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Murder, My Sweet.

Review #2233: Murder, My Sweet.

Cast: 

Dick Powell (Philip Marlowe), Claire Trevor (Helen Grayle/Velma Valento), Anne Shirley (Ann Grayle), Otto Kruger (Jules Amthor), Mike Mazurki (Moose Malloy), Miles Mander (Mr. Grayle) Douglas Walton (Lindsay Marriott), Don Douglas (Police Lt. Randall), Ralf Harolde (Dr. Sonderborg), and Esther Howard (Mrs. Jessie Florian) Directed by Edward Dmytryk (#715 - Crossfire)

Review: 

The 1940s were a tremendous time for mysteries and film noirs, with a handful involving Raymond Chandler in some form. Chandler had done a handful of writing in his early life, but he had worked in civil service and a variety of other things, which ended with being fired as vice president of the Dabney Oil Syndicate in the midst of the Great Depression. It was then that Chandler decided to write pulp fiction for a living (as inspired by reading stuff such as the pulp magazine Black Mask), which included his first novel (involving the character of Philip Marlowe) with The Big Sleep in 1939; Chandler finished seven novels with Marlowe prior to his death in 1959 at age 70. The first film based on Chandler's books was Time to Kill (1942), which was based on Chandler's third novel The High Window (1942) but with the lead character's name being "Michael Shayne" (which actually was a detective character created by Brett Halliday featured in a handful of films). There was then The Falcon Takes Over (1942), which borrowed elements from Chandlers' second novel in Farewell, My Lovely (1940) that was actually the third film in a series with a gentleman detective named "The Falcon". Now here we are in 1944 with the first Chandler adaptation with the Marlowe character while the author was busy with scripts himself (he co-wrote Double Indemnity along with And Now Tomorrow). RKO, who had been behind the aforementioned Falcon film, was behind this film, which was scripted by John Paxton. At the hand to direct is Dmytryk, who had risen from editor to directing by 1935, which was mostly in the B-category. RKO changed the title before release on the grounds that people thought it was a musical. The next adaptation of the Farewell novel would be in 1975, featuring Robert Mitchum as Marlowe. 

Powell was actually more known for his singing and romantic image. Incidentally, he had applied for the lead role in Double Indemnity, but he lost out to Fred MacMurray. The resulting success of this film altered his image, and he would feature again in a Dmytryk film with Cornered (1945). Considered by some to be among the first of the film noirs, it is pretty evident one has a wonderfully boiled movie on their hands that maneuvers through 95 minutes with worthwhile pacing and dialogue (as sometimes told in voiceover) in cutting efficiency. There is a casual edge to Powell that carries the film in ways that could only be done in an era of blistering need for entertainment. He drifts in and out with curiosity that really could fit the description made once in the film as not so much a detective but a slot machine. His nightmare in this atmosphere is one that we can get behind within all of the dirty work that arises in mystery that is especially familiar to those who love their cut-rate stories. Shirley (in her final role prior to retiring) and Trevor are the dueling objects of curiosity that each do pretty well in the usual expectations, particularly for the femme fatale in the latter. Mazurki makes a worthwhile heavy (with a little bit of help in angling, since the former wrestler was only slightly taller than Powell). The climax in finishing the setup of its intro (a man with a blindfold) is a pretty good one in closing such a lingering story of crosses with worthwhile reward (Chandler was once quoted as saying an ideal mystery was "one you would read if the end was missing", incidentally). As a whole, when it comes to seedy noirs relayed to audiences with worthwhile conviction and foundation, you can't go wrong with films such as this one to check out. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Naked Edge.

Review #2232: The Naked Edge.

Cast: 

Gary Cooper (George Radcliffe), Deborah Kerr (Martha Radcliffe), Eric Portman (Jeremy Clay), Ray McAnally (Donald Heath), Diane Cilento (Mrs. Heath), Hermione Gingold (Lilly Harris), Peter Cushing (Mr. Evan Wrack), Michael Wilding (Morris Brooke), Ronald Howard (Mr. Claridge), and 

Sandor Elès (Manfridi St John) Directed by Michael Anderson (#717 - Logan's Run and #1393 - Around the World in 80 Days)

Review: 

Admittedly, there is a bit of appeal in wondering what the fuss is about with the poster and a certain fact. The film is based on the 1955 novel First Train to Babylon, as written by Max Ehrlich. Joseph Stefano wrote the screenplay adaptation, and if you've seen the poster, that was the writer behind the screenplay adaptation for 1960's Psycho, likely his most famous accomplishment (in general, Stefano was involved more with television writing and occasional producing, such as the original The Outer Limits). Perhaps not surprisingly, the poster, and the last line of the film itself, as told to us by voiceover, do a gimmick similar to that film in not wanting audiences to be seated "during the last 13 minutes" (for a 97-minute film, but naturally it works to tell people to really hold in that break). Of course, now that one has that out of the way, this was the final film for its star in Cooper, who died of cancer on May 13, 1961, a month before the release of the film, which wasn't exactly a hit. He had worked with Anderson before with The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1959); the film was shot in London and at Elstree Studios in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. 

The runtime is a funny one to have a "don't seat folks for the last couple" trick to, particularly for a film that seems to drag its tension out as much as possible. Really this is the kind of movie where people get suspicious of folks because of having the most amusing choice of words for phrasing, as evidenced by a scene where our lead is telling about raising money for a venture that came out because he "made a killing" on the stock market. One could possibly make a few edits and make it a comedy about a guy who does increasingly outlandish things with his wife that thinks he may be guilty (such as say, asking her to join him on the edge of a cliff - actually, that's in the film). The intro with a stabbing and the time spent with Cushing in the courtroom stuff does appeal to the most basic curiosities of mine, at least. Of course, Kerr was actually a pretty good actress in her own right to match up with Cooper (who was 20 years older than her). She makes those worries and doubts seem workable for something that really would've floundered under the weight of such amusing ambiguity with a lesser actress involved. That isn't to say that Cooper doesn't pair well with Kerr, but I think one can be forgiven for stating that there are times where a weary-seeming Cooper is not so much acting as it is a man trying to push through being tired. Cooper is worrisome enough to make Kerr's queries and fears over what really may be possible (or not) worth watching, although the best scene is with Cilento in terms of force and grace. Portman is at least adequate in the middle. The eventual ending is probably not ideal in the actual rundown, particularly with portions involving a struggle, but that doesn't sink the film completely at least because if one gets far enough to appreciate the film beforehand with its look in terms of cinematography (as shot by Erwin Hillier and Tony White) and bubbling dread, then one can't be too off. As a whole, it isn't exactly the finest hour for its stars or its director, but it has a nice look and probably enough ambiguity to seek out once if the curiosity factor is there enough to go in as cold as possible for its mystery, which for me just manages to make it over the finish line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Death Race 2000.

Review #2231: Death Race 2000.

Cast: 

David Carradine ("Frankenstein"), Simone Griffeth (Annie Smith), Sylvester Stallone (Joe "Machine Gun" Viterbo), Mary Woronov (Jane "Calamity Jane" Kelly), Roberta Collins (Matilda "The Hun"), Martin Kove (Ray "Nero the Hero" Lonagan), Louisa Moritz (Myra), Don Steele (Junior Bruce), Joyce Jameson (Grace Pander), Carle Bensen (Harold), Sandy McCallum (Mr. President), Paul Laurence (Special Agent), and Harriet Medin (Thomasina Paine) Directed by Paul Bartel (#955 - Eating Raoul)

Review: 

"Most of my guilty pleasures in this film were ripped out by the roots by Roger Corman before the film ever saw the light of day and substituted with crushed heads and blood squibs. Nevertheless, there is a joke about the French wrecking our economy and telephone system that I still find amusing. And I am pleased by the scene introducing the Girl Fan (played very effectively by my sister Wendy) who is to sacrifice herself beneath the wheels of David Carradine's race car and wants to meet him so that the gesture will have 'meaning'."

Okay, so you have managed to encounter a Roger Corman-related production. Gratuitous and all around weird is what one might expect from a film that was inspired by the publicity that came for the film Rollerball, which was slated for release in June of 1975. Corman found a short story to crib for an adaptation with Ib Melchior's "The Racer", which actually had been inspired by the revulsion Melchior seemingly had when he saw a death at a motor race. Script troubles meant that the film had a prolonged production schedule, which initially had a script written by Robert Thom before re-writes were done by Charles B. Griffith and its eventual director (Corman would play influence when it came to looking over tone, naturally). At director was Paul Bartel, who had made his first noted film with the short The Secret Cinema in 1968 (after several years of shorts, which included work for the United States Information Agency) before becoming a feature director with the horror-comedy film Private Parts (1972), which was produced by Gene Corman; the following year, Bartel did second unit work on Big Bad Mama. Interestingly, Carradine wanted to pick a movie to help his film career after spending three seasons as the star of Kung Fu, the television show he is perhaps most famous for (having seen the show, this is probably true), and the film was released one day after the final show airing; he came around after Peter Fonda was approached and had declined (of course, there was a moment in time during the turbulent production that had Bartel thinking about replacing Carradine with Lee Majors (!), but the two eventually bonded). The film was a hit in the general sense; Bartel's next film was Cannonball (1976), which had Carradine as star that aimed for comedy within its inspiration based on a real race (as you might know). In 1978, Corman, having a contract with Carradine, spearheaded a push for another vehicle-related film with motorcycles that that eventually became Deathsport (as directed by Allan Arkush and Nicholas Niciphor), which was not particularly successful. In 2008, a remake of the film was done by Paul W. S. Anderson, which was the first of five "Death Race" films that were either follow-ups to the 2008 film or in the case of Death Race 2050 (2017, as produced by Corman), a sequel to the original.

So, here is how the future is envisioned by 1975 standards: to pacify the population under a tough regime dealing within crisis comes the "Transcontinental Road Race" that has seen twenty years of violence and gore because of combat of cars and, well, people. You get to see the gauntlet of just who would do these kinds of races: people who dress up like gangsters...and Nazis. In the land of B-movies, it really can come down to just how much fun one sees on screen when it comes to execution and commitment. This is aa pretty neat one that surely delivered a tiny bit of inspiration for Mad Max (1979). The conflict of nudity and gore with the attempts at comedy (the latter was favored by Bartel and Carradine to an extent) makes for a curious experiment that may have a random viewer wondering just what the hell they are supposed to think about its 80-minute runtime of lean and mean nature. That strange casual blend (in of itself a "Frankenstein" creation of Corman and Bartel) of guts and the occasional chuckle that arises from people watching the violence of car-on-man (or in the case of point-seeking to the extreme, the elderly) is a feeling that one always hopes to find in an exploitation film. I particularly like hearing from Bensen and his mimicking of Howard Cosell when it comes to being a voice from the crowd (alongside other "journalists"). Carradine just has a natural charm to him that attracts one's curiosity in what is left said and unsaid within that everyman nature that comes out for a role that if played by a lesser talent would've been just a film with less interesting impact in terms of (pun intended) drive. He has the gumption to roll with the inane goofiness that is apparent even with the real assertion one could argue about just how much curiosity people really have about violence (in living color). It's interesting that two of the early roles for Stallone before Rocky (1976) were Corman productions, with this and Capone being released in 1975 (the same year that he got the inspiration for, well, Rocky). He provides a few good heel chuckles in a cast that is mostly fine in those silly one-note mannerisms (which ranges from the aforementioned Nazi helmeted person to, uh, bits of nudity). There is just a mayhem and energy here that works so well in making light of the obsession that arises from violence in terms of the spectator or opportunistic journalists that is hard to match. The climax is pretty neat in one lasting chuckle that really does prove Bartel had the right idea in mind (Corman wanted to film an ending where the FBI shoots an annoying reporter rather than, well...) in making a film with useful timing in manic commitment without having to be broad about it. In the long run, it is a neatly cheap movie with the idea of conveying what people seem to think about seeing violence play out right in front of them that goes with the entertainment value of the film: fun on the run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Longlegs.

Review #2230: Longlegs.

Cast: 

Maika Monroe (Lee Harker), Nicolas Cage (Longlegs), Blair Underwood (Agent Carter), Alicia Witt (Ruth Harker), Michelle Choi-Lee (Agent Browning), Dakota Daulby (Agent Horatio Fisk), Kiernan Shipka (Carrie Anne Camera), Jason Day (Father Camera), and Lisa Chandler (Mother Camera) Written and Directed by Oz Perkins.

Review: 

"I really just tried to make something that would be noticeable and enjoyable, especially to a horror audience. Horror audiences put up with a lot of bad stuff and they take it because they need it; they need the horror fix. But every once in a while, you want to give them something that’s a little bit more manicured and curated for them."

I will admit that I waited a bit to write this review because I wanted to process just what this film managed to do in its execution and understand just where the film rests as probably one of the more breakout kind of films to hit the theater. For one thing, this is the fourth film directed by Oz Perkins, who became a director in 2015 with The Blackcoat's Daughter. He had done a few stints in acting prior to becoming a writer/director, as one might expect from the son of two actors. One description of the film by Perkins (as writer/director) was one where the aim was to "create a pop art piece." There apparently was a guerilla marketing campaign (as coordinated by distributor Neon) when it came to marketing the film that involved stuff one could find in billboards and "true crime" websites to go with masking a certain presence for trailers (no television). Well, I found the movie having buzz because of a bit of rumblings on the thing they call the Internet and was thinking "if it makes my theater, sure"; the result was a film that has been said to be relative hit for all involved since being released this July.

I want to preface this by saying that the movie is pretty good on the technical levels. It is the kind of movie that doesn't really ripple away from its period setting and it does have a level of dread present within that conclusion drawn from sacrifices. Anyway, I was fine with the movie, but I really should temper my expectations on a movie that gets some really good buzz. You get a few familiar feelings when watching it such as Se7en (1995), or other serial killer-related topics but don't find something lacking in atmosphere when it comes to details for a calmly lived-in 101-minute feature. The film is a showcase of sorts for Monroe (who actually starred in a film I should probably have covered before with It Follows [2014]), mostly because her clinical performance works wonders for the film in inquisitive grace. She just has that zip without even needing much dialogue to really make it all work in someone thrust into such a growing rumble of startling realization that comes with being gripped with the actual place in the art of procedure. And then of course there is Cage, caked in some interesting makeup and a few scenes to lurk around with the presence of a spider weaving yet another web for itself. He achieves an unsettling feeling with the way he approaches the camera with an aura of expression and timing that you can believe could lurk among the rest of the pawns in the board of life and death (consider how one sees him from his first sighting and, say, the one where he lurks in a small store). Underwood and Witt are crucial keys in forming the fair amount of dread that comes in procedure, particularly with the latter because of the on-screen dynamic between the two that shows the right amount of understanding in what really lurks beyond the nature of parental sacrifice. As a whole, I found that waiting to assess the film made me realize that a film that wanted to play patient within general patience in procedure did in fact manage to do just enough to work in good execution despite my misgivings that arose from the handling in between a certain moment and the climax, which is pretty unsettling in the ultimate long run when it comes being, well, the end of a story in more ways than one. It isn't exactly my favorite horror film of the year, but it is still pretty efficient in most of its unsettling foundation to make a worthwhile feature in the eyes of procedural dread and the beast that lurks in both secrets and sacrifices that could work well for those with the patience to just let it sink in.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Review #2229: I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Cast: 

Nancy Allen (Pam Mitchell), Bobby Di Cicco (Tony Smerko), Marc McClure (Larry Dubois), Susan Kendall Newman (Janis Goldman), Theresa Saldana (Grace Corrigan), Wendie Jo Sperber (Rosie Petrofsky), Eddie Deezen (Richard "Ringo" Klaus), Christian Juttner (Peter Plimpton), Will Jordan (Ed Sullivan), Read Morgan (Peter's Father), Claude Earl Jones (Al), and James Houghton (Eddie) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away)

Review: 

Sure, there have been a few Beatles-related films here and there. But this is one that its creators often referred to as "a cross between American Graffiti and Ben-Hur" that somehow makes sense (for the latter film, one never sees a certain face...). Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. This included meeting Bob Gale at USC Film School that shared his interest in making "Hollywood movies". Zemeckis directed a short film called "A Field of Honor" that saw him awarded a Student Academy Award in 1975 that attracted the attention of Steven Spielberg because, well, Zemeckis barged into Spielberg's office one day to show it to him. This got Spielberg to be a mentor to Zemeckis that would see him tabbed to direct his first feature film at Universal Pictures, which was this film. Apparently, the original idea was basically the question of if one could make a movie just about waiting in line that eventually spiraled from there. 1978 was an interesting idea for Beatles-adjacent films, with this (loosely sharing the title of The Beatles song "I Want"-oh you already know) being the middle of a group that included the TV mockumentary All You Need Is Cash and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (the jukebox musical with plenty of Beatles songs...as mostly covered by Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees). The resulting film (as written by Zemeckis and Gale as their first filmed screenplay) was not a hit despite warm reviews (preview and beyond) but Zemeckis and Gale kept busy, with the two's script for 1941 being filmed (by Spielberg) and released in 1979 before Zemeckis directed his next film with Used Cars (1980).

It is a pretty madcap film (98 minutes) about the nature of a moment crystalized in time, specifically February of 1964. It is a warmhearted film about people who just get swept up in the mayhem of Beatlemania for a film that lives it to the fullest in a way that manages to ride on charm without needing to show a Beatle up close (which goes with a main group where 28-year-old Allen was the most experienced on film). It is a neatly constructed ensemble film that doesn't have (or really need) an all-encompassing narrative to just roll with people that all manage to evoke a certain time and type (which even features Murray the K, who really referred to himself as a "fifth Beatle") that one can resonate with amid all of the nostalgia that doesn't cloy for a return of the old days but instead just rides the wave of hysteria. One does not wince at seeing the hysteria that arises from these folks, such as saying "Well, his wife could die" when presented with the fact that one of the Beatles being married or just the fact that people could go gaga for something that just happened be in the stomping ground of a Beatle. There is a key balance among the four leading stories that shows a guiding touch of humor within self-realization (small or not), starting with Allen, who has such worthwhile timing when it comes to finding that nerves really do wash away when faced with let's just say is euphoria with a guitar (as opposed to just being a reluctant pal-to-be-wife). Sperber is probably the one that draws the most amusement, because she is paired a good chunk of the time with Deezen and his particular type of energy (perhaps not surprisingly, he has called himself the "world's biggest" Beatles fan) as devotes fans that really makes one consider just how wrapped up a "fan" can be. The rest of the cast does pretty well in drawing amusement in the exhibition of teenage impulse (you know the usual, such as pushing folk music, wannabee saboteur, or wavering fixations), which probably works best with the sequence involving Newman, Di Cicco and Juttner that sees them abscond with tickets with some silly movements and lines that they sell just as well as any other time in the film. The Sullivan sequence involving shots that cut from seeing the group (amid a crowd of other fans) and then, well, parts of that Beatles performance (with stand-ins obviously that were coordinated by a Beatles superfan when it came to movements) is the cherry on top of a worthwhile journey with a pride for the time it aims to capture without stuttering at any real moment. Sure, it is a familiar film in its comedy, but it is a comforting type of film that shows talent among its young cast and crew in terms of execution and overall charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

How the West Was Won.

Review #2228: How the West Was Won.

Cast (i.e. who features most prominently in each segment)

"The Rivers" segment: James Stewart (Linus Rawlings), Carroll Baker (Eve Prescott), Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott), Karl Malden (Zebulon Prescott), Agnes Moorehead (Rebecca Prescott), Walter Brennan (Col. Jeb Hawkins), and Brigid Bazlen (Dora Hawkins) Directed by Henry Hathaway (#1314 - True Grit and #1687 - O. Henry's Full House)

"The Plains" segment: Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott), Gregory Peck (Cleve Van Valen), Robert Preston (Roger Morgan), Thelma Ritter (Agatha Clegg), and David Brian (Lilith's attorney) Directed by Henry Hathaway.

"The Civil War" segment: George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), Andy Devine (Corporal Peterson), Harry Morgan (Gen. Ulysses S. Grant), John Wayne (Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman), Russ Tamblyn (Confederate deserter), Carroll Baker (Eve Prescott Rawlings), and Raymond Massey (President Abraham Lincoln) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, #1372 - Fort Apache, #1392 - The Searchers, #1409 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, #1778 - 3 Godfathers, #1827 - Tobacco Road)

"The Railroad" segment: Henry Fonda (Jethro Stuart), George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), and Richard Widmark (Mike King) Directed by George Marshall (#650 - The Ghost Breakers)

"The Outlaws" segment: George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), Lee J. Cobb (Marshal Lou Ramsey), Eli Wallach (Charlie Gant), Carolyn Jones (Julie), Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott van Valen), and Mickey Shaughnessy (Deputy Stover) Directed by Henry Hathaway

With Spencer Tracy (Narrator).

Review: 

Yes, there was a union between Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Cinerama. MGM had plenty of success with making epics that attracted folks to not just go with television such as, say, Ben-Hur (1959), so it makes sense to say that there was two films distributed by MGM involving another big-related process in film. The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm was released in the three-strip Cinerama process in August of 1962 before November saw the release of How the West Was Won, which apparently took inspiration from a series of articles by Life magazine (take one guess what the title of those articles was) that was first published in 1959. As one might remember, Cinerama (as invented by Fred Waller) was a process involving widescreen with a considerably distinct presence: three projectors projecting images onto a curved screen (the panoramic image on a screen curved 146 degrees around the front of an audience. This Is Cinerama (1954) was the showcase that rocked folks as a grand travelogue; as one might notice, trying to shoot actors with this setup was tough when it comes to sightlines and requiring plenty of detail dressing of clothing for sets. Hathaway was quoted famously as calling it "Goddamn Cinerama" (along with calling it "nothing but a big window display") when noting the fact that the closest as one could get with the process was a waist shot; because of the wide view, one apparently couldn't watch the actors without somehow being in the shot. Bottom line, one would see various films done in varying levels of camera lenses such as Ultra Panavision 70 to Super Panavision 70, as Cinerama became single camera for later films such as It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). At any rate, here we have a big Western covering various moments of the Old West for MGM, with directors chosen specifically because they were "old pros" (as opposed to "no young geniuses", as quoted by producer Bernard Smith); Ford and Marshall had directed films since the late 1910s while Hathaway started in 1932 before each director eventually ended their careers by the turn of the 1960s into 1970. Going by the word of Hathaway, production was semi-rough, owing to both the Cinerama filming process and (in his words), "an idiot for a producer" to the point where production almost ended before the filming of the fifth and final segment; he also claimed to write the second segment of the film, as he was originally brought in to help with scripting problems, although the final print listed James R. Webb as the only screenwriter. The movie was a roaring success and has a pretty good reputation for itself among epics, particularly since one can watch it on home video (since the 21st century) with pretty good restoration (as one must do when it comes to making screens look whole).

There are plenty of peaks and valleys with this film, most of which come from the fact that the quality of enjoyment comes and goes depending on which segment one is on in the 164-minute epic. The opening segment has a near sixty-year-old Stewart playing a guy meant to be 28, while Reynolds and Peppard are the only actors in the most segments (three) to go with borrowing footage from The Alamo [1960] and needing four cinematographers. You get plenty to see in this endurance round of anthology action: river pirates, rapids, wagon attacks, a John Wayne cameo, stampedes, and a railroad attack all in one. It is pretty much Hathaway's film to hold court involving drive and desire in the frontier, as the Civil War and railroad segments (as done by Ford and Marshall) don't exactly rise too far above stagy scenario-making (apparently, Hathaway did re-shots for the railroad segment). The first two segments are probably the strongest in terms of general construction, even if one is always seeing the strain of trying to make a worthwhile epic that has to rely on plenty of pictorial views and a bit of bombastic acting (as one might see coming when having to deal with weird cameras) to go with the motions. The third segment is mostly set around the aftermath of the Battle of Shiloh that has brief moments in the start and finish involving the Rawlings family farm. Most of it though...is a couple of folks listening to a conversation of two U.S. generals (William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant). Apparently, Spencer Tracy was once tapped to play Grant, but this eventually washed away to just have him provide the narration from time to time. As tempting as it is to wonder how cool it would've been to see Tracy and Wayne on the same screen...it probably wouldn't have made it any less stagey, because really it isn't as involving as it could've been. Regardless of the detail taken for costuming (again, one had to be careful and not skimp in front of those Cinerama cameras), it just comes up feeling hollow for actual interest because you know you've seen (and heard) Wayne and Morgan in better Westerns. The fourth segment and fifth are pretty mild on each count, but at least the latter segment has the railroad spectacle to let the film coast on a good note despite the fact that I can barely remember Peppard as a lead presence here. It is a hard thing to do for a film that has him (by his idea) do a Stewart impersonation in the middle of things because hey, do you remember that Stewart played the character's dad for one segment? The highlights are the sequences involving action because of the staging that allows for things to just move on their own, as opposed to acting that is mostly just fine (it is hard to really pick a favorite), but you have a cadre of character actors to go with name guys doing a fraction of the work that straddles just above being accused of phoning it in and settling right into "stagey but comfortable". As a whole, it is a grand old epic that is good enough in the categories that matter in spectacle to make a serviceable recommendation for those interested in what the film tries to show within a distinct camera setup and approach.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

MaXXXine.

Review #2227: MaXXXine.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine Minx), Elizabeth Debicki (Elizabeth Bender), Moses Sumney (Leon), Michelle Monaghan (Det. Williams), Bobby Cannavale (Det. Torres), Halsey (Tabby Martin), Lily Collins (Molly Bennett), Giancarlo Esposito (Teddy Knight, Esq.), Kevin Bacon (John Labat), and Simon Prast (Ernest Miller) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl and #2133 - X)

Review: 

"My goal is to put you in the era and to put you in the aesthetics of that, so that way it feels end-to-end created."

X (2022) was a neat time for those who like films with a touch of familiar sleaze to go with their horror movies, one that was a "ballad of sex and violence". Pearl (2022) was, well, delightful in its bloody charm that I seem to mention either too much or not enough in charming horror features that included a teaser for "MaXXXine". As with the last two, West serves as both editor, co-producer and director/writer. The film (if you didn't already know) is set in 1985 around the time of The Night Stalker murders, who had a spree of murders and offenses in the state of Calfornia prior to his capture on August 31, 1985. Evidently, MaXXXine may not be the capstone of an "X trilogy" but instead just the third wheel of a well-oiled pastiche machine, which actually seems to be a compliment when it comes to worthwhile slasher fun that looks around at just how people get influenced by cinema (such as perhaps the kind of folks that can recite Hollywood Boulevard [1976] or The Day of the Locust [1975] when thinking about slime in the belly of the filmmaking beast). Or at least a film in the journey of self-actualization with an ending that happens to be a bit different than expected.

Sure, it is a glossy pastiche that is a notch below the last two films. But the enjoyment of the film for me makes it pretty easy because it seems pretty evident that when it comes to genres of film, horror is the easiest to spotlight and defend at the same time. B-movies and slasher films, when entertaining, still manage to get crap from people who either think horror is supposed to be "dignified" or wouldn't know entertainment if it bit them in the ass. People like to get spooked just as much as they like to absorb a film trying to play familiar dress up. This is a delightfully vapid and occasionally gruesome movie that I enjoyed most of the time that really does show just how cheap thrills really do provide worthwhile intervention when executed well enough. The driven nature of the main character was pretty unnerving in each of the previous two films, and while it may not be as prominent this time around, there are flashes of just how craven one really can be when driven to get the life they believe they deserve, even if it means stomping away (literally) at would-be saboteurs. Goth manages to maintain that strange sense of unnerving confidence that is alluring in all of its weird charm that straddles the craven line that comes in someone that really could be called an antihero in the best of ways. There are a few scenes that could stand as a highlight, but I think the one where she finds herself stuck in a chair with makeup all over spooks me the most (well, a stomping one might be spooky for others too, but staging terror is a matter of pride when it comes to horror). Being wrapped up in a murder mystery while others try to play A-values into a B-movie production makes for a few chuckles with Debicki or with Sumney (playing the other side of movie-connected folks, a man of the video store), but it is pretty evident that Bacon steals the show with such smarmy confidence befitting of his natural energy that comes out (accent and all). Monaghan and Cannavale provide familiar procedural chuckles that roll right in for my tastes because, well, familiarity always wins the day if it is committed. Eventually one sees where Esposito and Prast make for homely touches of where the film really will go within gruesome truths, particularly with the latter. The eventual reveal is probably not hard to see coming after a certain amount of time, but I appreciate the circular logic that comes in wanting to make a statement about the nature of Hollywood by making a film themselves. In the end, the intervention that arises for its climax (if you haven't seen it, it sounds like a dumb joke, but...) serves the film enough as a hodgepodge of gloss and blood for an engaging time that will surely make West's next idea a worthwhile one to look forward to.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.