The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Review #2417: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Cast: 

Terence Stamp (Bernadette Bassenger), Hugo Weaving (Anthony "Tick" Belrose / Mitzi Del Bra), Guy Pearce (Adam Whitely / Felicia Jollygoodfellow), Bill Hunter (Robert "Bob" Spart), Sarah Chadwick (Marion Barber), Mark Holmes (Benjamin "Benji" Barber), Julia Cortez (Cynthia), Alan Dargin (Alan), and Ken Radley (Frank) Written and Directed by Stephan Elliott.

Review: 

“We didn't back down from the Australian-ness of it; we said, ‘This is us. Take us or leave us.’ And the world chose to take it....I think the heart and soul of the film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert that works is that in the midst of all the glitz and glamour and showing off and bitchy lines and great songs, there was a really simple story about a man trying to come out to his son."

Sure, why not. Stephan Elliott (born in Sydney in New South Wales, Australia) had made his debut as a filmmaker with Frauds (1993), having apparently been a filmmaker...of weddings, for several years. Apparently, the wait in getting that film made led to what eventually became Priscilla, specifically a Mardi Gras that he saw a plume of feathers rolling up a street like a tumbleweed. The movie was inspired by three actual drag queens that were intended to be in the movie: Cindy Pastel (Ritchie Finger), Strykermyer (Mark Fitzhugh) and Lady Bump (Stuart Garske). Of course, when Elliott managed to attract interest for a considerable production (millions of Australian dollars, which I'm sure has its own currency stature), it was instead decided to go with "bankable" actors. Various people from Tony Curtis (the Some Like It Hot star was apparently talked out of it by his wife) to David Bowie were floated around. At any rate, Elliot suggested to his friend Andrew Saw to do a documentary on the original trio, which ended up happening with Ladies Please in 1995.* The Australian production, to put it mildly, wound up as an international sensation, even winning Academy Awards for its costume design by Tim Chappel and Lizzy Gardiner (one example was a dress made with "rubber thongs", so here is a visual of that). In 2006, a stage musical premiered in Sydney, with Elliott co-writing the book that has had various productions come around all the world. Elliott has continued to direct over the years, ranging from Easy Virtue (2008) to his latest one with Swinging Safari (2017); he actually announced plans to do a sequel to this film in recent years. Terence Stamp died just a few weeks ago at the age of 87.

Hell, I don't know drag queens that well. I understand it as merely a way for people to express themselves in a world filled with vulnerability all around. Some people do karaoke to the poor drunks at the bar, others put on costumes to play to the lyrics of an ABBA song, the important thing is to be free, at least that is how I would view it. I don't know the bohemian, but it doesn't mean there isn't something that can be gleamed from it with some degree of humor or heart, and this works out pretty well for what you might call a road movie fit for all the misfits. Specifically, it is a movie for people trying to figure out what they really are in the proverbial closet of responsibilities. You've got a person in grief doubting they can find love, one who has a son and a wife he drifted from, and, well, a young man in the flaming arrogancy of youth all trying to make due on the road that isn't necessarily going to be a straight-edge path (hell, you've got folks fainting at one particular sight twice). The darndest thing is that the costumes really are pretty neat, they manage to fit the character in a strangely graceful way, where you could just accept it right then and there that someone will wear a getup filled with shoes in the same way that you'd expect a couple of ping-pong balls could make a creature costume for a sci-fi movie (ironically, the three main actors learned that when in full drag, nobody knew who they were). So yes, it isn't so much an act for the performer as it is a way to just express themselves, and that actually is pretty funny in the hands of a terrific ensemble. Stamp in particular is exquisite, rising above what could've merely been fodder for just delivering zingers and actually making it quite enjoyable to see the plight on screen for the easiest dilemma facing old folk: too many memories and not nearly enough time to see it all through. Simply put, Stamp (initially reluctant but gradually got into it) just sinks right into a performance that is wholly believable in all of the quibbles and charm necessary because damn it, who else could just be Bernadette? Weaving does sell the dilemma that comes with trying to face who they really are beyond hang-ups and see things as they should be, which does eventually work out for its climax when bringing the folks together. Of course, it is Pearce (known at the time for his television work in Neighbours, which had Elliott with some doubts) and his devilishly bold energy that steals the show, whether that involves the sequence with him on top of the bus or just the snappy barbs that come around with Stamp for obvious campy enjoyment, at least to a point. Hunter (a good friend of Stamp) is the last key to the puzzle, and there is something quite infectious about his charm that rolls right alongside the others when he gets involved. In general, the movie is quite infectious in what probably counts as a form of "camp", but I just like seeing the dedication it takes to put on garish stuff and just do it in front of people, flamboyance be damned. The 103 minutes pass on by with little hitches, managing quickly to have you rolling along with these folks, whether that involves their bus being defaced or the sobering sequence where Adam gets beaten up and has a talk with the one who ends up saving him from the harrowing reality that can come with people who look and talk a little different from "the norm", as they say. By the end, you've got a few folks that have become a bit wiser from their journey and had a little bit of fun along the way, and that's a pretty good thing to accomplish. As a whole, it is a nice little road movie that shows the perils of the road in each and every shade alongside the warmth that comes with finding who one really is beyond the mask, which is a pretty funny and sobering accomplishment that nobody really could just see coming from Australia.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, that was the same year the movie To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995) came out involving three actors as drag queens on the road. The crew of the Priscilla film heard about the production of that movie but were not too worried about it being a ripoff when they read the script.

The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey.

Review #2416: The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey.

Cast: 

Bruce Lyons (Connor), Chris Haywood (Arno), Hamish McFarlane (Griffin), Marshall Napier (Searle), Noel Appleby (Ulf), Paul Livingston (Martin), Sarah Peirse (Linnet), Mark Wheatley (Tog 1), Tony Herbert (Tog 2), Jessica Cardiff-Smith (Esme), and Roy Wesney (Grandpa) Directed by Vincent Ward (#627 - What Dreams May Come)

Review: 

"It's easy to get films made that are more generic. I want my films to be accessible, though I also want to do them on my own terms, and to be about my own concerns as a filmmaker."

Sure, of course New Zealand counts for World cinema, since they do manage to conjure up a few interesting directors and movies from time to time, particularly with this co-production between New Zealand and Australia. Vincent Ward was born in Greytown to a background of farmers (his father] had damaged hands from the war that still maintained his farm). He studied Fine Arts in university but ended up becoming a filmmaker in 1978. He made his feature debut with Vigil (1984) that had come from years of searching for ideal settings to film and in casting; the movie was the first of the country's type to get on the prominent festival circuit. Apparently, the impetus of the next film by Ward started when he tried to cross a German autobahn (a federal controlled-access highway system) and got stranded. Ward wrote the script with Geoff Gapple and Kely Lyons. Made over the course of ten weeks in 1987 with a look that had influence from the Middle Ages (the film utilizes certain shades when it is set in the present day when compared to the black-and-white medieval sequences) to go alongside elaborate shots, the movie only became reality when the Australian Film Commission gave partial funding when the usual way of tax breaks was rejected. Ward didn't exactly become a household name, although it was not really his fault. He was actually the first director tapped to direct Alien 3, as he wrote the treatment that was thoroughly beaten to hell in the final rendition. Instead, Ward followed the Navigator film with Map of the Human Heart (1993). His next batch of films came with What Dreams May Come (1998), River Queen (2005), and Rain of the Children (2008), with the latter being his last released movie. At any rate, he keeps busy with painting and video art.

Whether seen as a fantasy adventure or as seen as movie of keeping one's faith under all circumstances, it is a pretty curious movie that is far more than, well, travelling through time (or do they...). Dream land or not, the atmospheric qualities of the movie come out pretty well in showing the wacked world of a place closed off (in some way) from certain people (one is in 1348, the other, well, in the 20th century), as one does when involving New Zealand, I suppose. It isn't so much that the modern world would look spooky to someone from an older time: nay, it (be it a highway full of many lanes) would look downright hellish, and it really is a bit of destiny to hold it all together for the plight of God and for themselves. The ragtag ensemble is pretty good in conveying the foibles and lingering destiny, mostly on the shoulders of McFarlane, who actually didn't become a regular actor (instead favoring being an assistant director in films and TV), but it is true that they have a wide-eyed appeal here that works for those who understand the zeal that comes in youth. It also reflects well on Lyons (who acted in just one other film), who actually was thought of in mind by one of the co-writers (K.Lyons, who he was married to). It just so happens that the ordinary can look extraordinary in the faces of youth, and that works out to make the ending all the more ironic. It is a moody film that does look really nice while conveying a sense of adventure with its own playing of time and imagery, which does make the 93-minute runtime go off without too many hitches. As a whole, its a movie that reminds one that some folks really believe that faith can override anything, rationales be damned.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Desperado.

Review #2415: Desperado.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Manito "El Mariachi"), Joaquim de Almeida (Cesar "Bucho"), Salma Hayek (Carolina), Steve Buscemi (Buscemi), Cheech Marin (Short Bartender), Quentin Tarantino (Pick-Up Guy), Carlos Gomez (Memo "Right Hand"), Tito Larriva (Tavo), Angel Aviles (Zamira), Danny Trejo (Navajas), Abraham Verduzco (Niño), Carlos Gallardo (Campa), and Albert Michel Jr (Quino) Written and Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel, #1903 - From Dusk till Dawn, #2377 - El Mariachi)

Review: 

Admittedly, I wanted to Desperado for quite a while. I bought a DVD pack with it included a while ago and, well, it is time to collect. Robert Rodriguez followed El Mariachi (1992) with a television movie assignment that came out of the blue with Roadracers (1994)*. But here were are with his second feature film, a "Neo-Western action movie" once again. The movie was shot in late 1994 with a budget that was described as, well, adding a few more zeroes from before that was shot in the same place (Ciudad Acuña) as the first movie; as before, Rodriguez serves as writer, director, and editor. Sure, the movie had its troubles: the original cut was rated NC-17 by the MPAA due to the graphic violence that had to see a handful of cuts just to get an R rating, complete with taking out a shootout at the end that I think you will be curious about. When the movie was released on August 25, 1995 (the first of three Rodriguez-involved projects in a year next to winter 1995's Four Rooms, where Rodriguez directed one of the four segments and 1996's From Dusk till Dawn), the film was a general hit with audiences, and, well, there was eventually a follow-up film with Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003). 

It is a nice movie for those who know what they are getting into with a movie that is more of a side-step sequel than anything, one that feels the need to see the last scene of the previous movie but with a different face this time around. Now it dwells on the idea that killing the killer wasn't enough to satisfy the fallen mariachi, now it rests to chop the head ahead of that guy too. For the most part, the movie is generally satisfying to those who liked the ambition shown in the other film without seeming like a product of compromises, which mainly means some energetic shooting and a few quick cuts to go with a slightly more packaged story. So yes, the adrenaline rush may not be for everyone, but it does have likeable folks to carry things for 105 minutes. Undeniably, Banderas has a gritty charm to make this character one worth searching further in how one could just slip into guns as if it was a rhythm to replace the one ripped from his busted hand. He clearly oozes the appeal that one could see a lover or a killer in the same breath without a false note detected because you roll with him and his baptism of fire that clearly needs the touch of people again. It helps to have Hayek (in her first key role in an American movie, after a good deal of telenovela appearances) generate just as much sensual appeal in curiosity at the idea of someone who isn't merely just a tool like other folks in the town but has their own sins just the same. Perhaps not surprisingly, their chemistry simmers quickly to the surface that is clear to root for and watch play out for all of the passionate strings you damn well know will be pulled. de Almeida (cast prior to shooting when Raul Julia died) is at least an adequate adversary to shoot for in clear-cut ruthlessness alongside wavering stability (note the sequence where he can't find his phone), at least until the movie makes its one turn of the screw that probably will strain at least one person's doubts. At least the supporting cast comes and goes for a few curious chuckles from Buscemi and the staging for the mayhem is worthy enough to make it look like the fights worth investing time in. Sure, the climax isn't played out to the whole bloody affair (instead having a few dark chuckles with the arrival (and departure of Gallardo and Michel Jr to the fray), but the slap-bang enjoyment of the film as a whole is consistent and kinetic enough to be satisfied with the movie reflecting the way the last one went: on the road but with company to travel this time around. As a whole, it is an improvement on El Mariachi with its general staging of action and all-around charm to ride the storm of doubt made by an up-and-coming director that is worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, because he managed to license music from Link Wray (it was cheap at the time), it played a tiny influence on Pulp Fiction (1994), because Quentin Tarantino saw Rodriguez using that music and got the idea to use Wray's "Rumble" for his film. No, really, you can read that and hear about "72 camera setups with a single camera in one day."

The Hired Hand.

Review #2414: The Hired Hand.

Cast: 

Peter Fonda (Harry Collings), Warren Oates (Arch Harris), Verna Bloom (Hannah Collings), Robert Pratt (Dan Griffen), Severn Darden (McVey), Rita Rogers (Mexican Woman), Ann Doran (Mrs. Sorenson), Ted Markland (Luke), Owen Orr (Mace), Al Hopson (Bartender), Megan Denver (Janey Collings), and Michael McClure (Plummer) Directed by Peter Fonda.

Review: 

“I’m sure they would have liked me to do another biker movie. But I wanted to try something different — something more like what my father might have done. I wanted to do a western, because it’s the genre where you can explore the mythologies of America. And, yeah, because of my own psychological links to the genre, because of the many my dad did. I felt I had to do this one because there were no clichés in this script, just western mythology.”

Hey, remember Easy Rider (1969)? That was the movie where Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda worked together on the counterculture movie-oh, sorry, was having a bit of deja vu. But hey, this movie is a directing debut, believe it or not. Fonda had directed exactly zero other things before this movie, no industrial stuff, no TV stuff. Universal gave money to Hopper and Fonda and plenty of privilege to make something for them that presumably would make oodles of money: Hopper went to Peru and Fonda went to New Mexico (okay he filmed a cameo for The Last Movie) and ended up making movies that, well, didn't exactly please the studio. Fonda was interested in the script, as written by Alan Sharp, a Scottish novelist that had gone from TV to film with The Last Run (1971). As it turned out, Sharp would be behind a handful of scripts of varying quality ranging from Night Moves (1975) to The Osterman Weekend (1983) to Rob Roy (1995). Fonda stated in later years that while he expected Easy Rider to make money, he didn't think about the idea of being an icon, and it was with The Hired Hand he wanted to "break that mold" (apparently, one instance of filming was briefly interrupted by a drive-in theater that nearby was playing, well, Easy Rider). At any rate, The Hired Hand was only shown for a few weeks in first-run engagement and Fonda contended that Universal wasn't behind the movie in general.* Apparently, the studio was going to do a billboard promoting the movie with Fonda in a cowboy hat and a billing of "That Easy Rider Rides Again!" that Fonda explicitly (read: preparing to blow it up) told them to take it down. Fonda directed just two more movies in his lifetime: The Idaho Transfer (1975) and Wanda Nevada (1979). The movie did live on in the drive-in circuit for a number of years and even being edited for TV (twenty minutes were actually put back in the movie, featuring Larry Hagman as a sheriff) before a DVD restoration happened in the 2000s, and the movie has a handful of admirers that include Martin Scorsese. Apparently, Fonda showed the movie to his father Henry late in his life, whereupon he stated, "Now, that’s my kind of western."

Admittedly, you can see where Universal probably wasn't big on the movie by the fact that it is a movie firmly about trying to settle oneself in the frontier rather than a slap-bang adventure. Anything that dwells on someone trying to move on from the dusty trail (and finding a reality that probably is a bit feminist, at least in some arguments) rather than duels in the desert has to sound like an art film to those without some sort of patience for a film that just soothes the soul of those who look (and hear) closer. Oh sure, the movie does feature a bit of action throughout its 93-minute runtime, but you will dwell more on the fact that some people really can't just go home again more than anything. The young (as seen in the opening sequence) might not understand what it means to rest, but the weary know all too well about knowing about the grass and how green it seems on the other side. It is funny to see a movie with three distinct presences that grace the screen with varying levels of sensitivity that you sometimes don't even see with experienced directors. Fonda and his understated nature come clear in a yearning that is striking when compared to what one sees with Oates and his natural instincts that does in fact also know what it means to care about certain folks and their feelings. Bloom has her own distinct interests that do not revolve around just letting old wounds go by the wayside. This is made clear in a sequence where she in fact says, yes, she had plenty of time to plow her field when her husband was away. A good chunk of the movie is driven by the very fact that the touch of a person like Bloom sounds more captivating than being on the road any longer but also that one has to earn one's trust and so on and so forth, since it all deals with responsibility in love and friendship. Granted, it isn't a movie to see a terrifying threat (Darden spends a chunk of it crippled, as one does when one's feet have bullets in them), but the resulting clash at the end probably makes for it quite well. The music was composed by Bruce Langhorne, the folk musician who apparently was the inspiration for the Bob Dylan song "Mr. Tambourine Man". Langhorne* did music here with the sitar, fiddle, and banjo and went on to do a handful more movies (ranging from the aforementioned Idaho movie to Melvin and Howard [1980]). Much like the landscape, it sure is a hell of a thing to experience. As a whole. what we have here is a sobering look on responsibility in the frontier for a "far out Western" that might be just up your alley for those looking for a sobering type of movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I like this one quote by Fonda: “They had no intention, I think, of getting behind it. They hated me and Hopper, but mostly me and Bert Schneider. Yeah, they thought we were trying to overthrow the system. I mean, how egotistical. Overthrow the government, yeah. But Hollywood? Jesus, no…”

*Langhorne, I should point out, did his music without the use of two (and a half) fingers, as he had suffered an accident as a youth. 

The Last Movie.

Review #2413: The Last Movie.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Kansas), Stella Garcia (Maria), Don Gordon (Neville Robey), Julie Adams (Mrs. Anderson), Peter Fonda (The Young Sheriff), Sylvia Miles (The Script Clerk), Samuel Fuller (Sam), Dean Stockwell (Billy the Kid), Russ Tamblyn (Charlie Bowdre), Tomas Milian (The Priest), Toni Basil (Rose), Severn Darden (The Mayor), Roy Engel (Harry Anderson), Henry Jaglom (The Minister's Son), Warren Finnerty (The Banker), Michelle Phillips (The Banker's Daughter), Kris Kristofferson (The Minstrel Wrangler), Michael Anderson Jr (The Mayor's Son), and Rod Cameron (Pat Garrett) Directed by Dennis Hopper (#1430 - Easy Rider).

Review: 

“I'm trying to say our lives are fragmented. That some people care and some people don't care and some don't know how to care."

Hey, remember Easy Rider (1969)? That was the movie where Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda worked together on the counterculture movie to end all counterculture movies. The veracity of who wrote what with that movie (as also worked on by Terry Southern) is debatable, but what you saw with that movie was one directed by Hopper and starring him and Fonda that, well, yes, it was a hit. Hopper and Fonda would go into their own paths after the success of the movie because studios thought that they could replicate movies like that (cheap and "cool") for themselves. Paradoxically, the idea for what became The Last Movie came a number of years prior to Easy Rider, as Hopper, in the midst of finishing The Sons of Katie Elder (1965), came up with an idea during the wrap party under the influence of what else but pot that saw him come up with an idea about "making movies and the effect it has on people, and what they do when a movie company leaves town." Enter Stewart Stern. Hopper enlisted the services of the screenwriter (having done such scripts as Rebel Without a Cause [1955]), with each partaking in certain practices (namely blowing smoke down the snorkel of a scuba mask) that resulted in a script that would have a "far out" ending involving the culmination of a stuntman staying in a Latin American town and seeing the people react to a film company having shot a Western there. Long story short, the idea would go through several hands considered for producers and stars (Phil Spector was once thought to be involved as a producer alongside Jason Robards to star). The success of Easy Rider would make one think that the company led by Bert Schneider would back The Last Movie, but that was not to be. Instead, Universal Pictures dropped right in and even gave him final cut privileges as long as he did it on a tight budget. There are various roads that all seem to intersect with the making of the film, which started in Peru in 1970 and went through a road of drugs and other various substances behind the scenes (as captured in The American Dreamer, a documentary that followed Hopper around that at one point showed him carry a gun around), although the shoot itself was apparently not that chaotic. Funny thing about that script: Hopper basically junked it in favor of improvisation, not even bothering to shoot the ending (as noted by Stern, because Hopper asked him to come to New Mexico when he was editing it down). It eventually culminated in a disjointed print in 1971 (apparently, Alejandro Jodorowsky, director of films such as El Topo, had a hand in the editing process). The end result, after such strange sorrow, was a movie that barely made it into theaters and was essentially dropped by Universal with the energy of a wayward child being dumped onto a military school. Hopper (who took the movie on lecture tours as late as 1978) did not direct another movie until Out of the Blue (1980). The movie was not available on DVD for many years and a restoration of the movie only happened in 2018.*

Universal apparently had the belief that if you gave a couple of young directors a budget of $1 million, you would get something worthwhile. The result was the following: Douglas Trumbull made Silent Running, Monte Hellman made Two-Lane Blacktop, George Lucas made American Graffiti, Peter Fonda's The Hired Hand and the aforementioned Last Movie as made by Hopper. Honestly, the only way to view the movie is to just see it. You can't really get a great description of the movie that isn't just describing things that happen (such as "scene missing" or credits that pop up out of the blue). It wasn't exactly a critic favorite (Roger Ebert called it a "wasteland of cinematic wreckage"). It isn't even a movie you could watch for the acting, unless you want to see people improvise on the level just above dinner theater or to see the weird wacky weary world of one Dennis Hopper. It probably won't do many favors to those who thought Zabriskie Point (1970) was obtuse to watch. But it is quite the trip for 108 minutes to realize that reality and ritual can in fact collide for what you might call a new type of heaven or hell. One probably fades in and out about the same level as this movie does, complete with having an uncertain road close right from under one's skin. The whole movie could be called as one that gets under your skin: arrogant, free-wheeling, beautiful to look at (as shot by the famed László Kovács), rambling, pick any adjective you want. But there is something about it that is hard to resist when it comes to just calling it a mess. Hopper is a fascinating presence to be around even in the moments that might resemble a drifter on a stormy night. You'll see people come and go (yes, the director Samuel Fuller appears at one point alongside the film debut of the immeasurable Kristofferson) and that I suppose is just how it feels in our own lives to have people love and betray us in where they come and go (a chunk of this might sound like syrupy hokum, but life is bullshit enough before one goes around not saying what they think, don't you think?). Real or imagined, we live the life we make for ourselves and sometimes that can be a slice of heaven or a piece straight from hell. We see violence on TV and film and sometimes we just believe that it is something to slip by us with no muddling into our own lives but it does fester in us because that is just how things are as one of the supposed creatures of a certain power. It is a bit funny to see Universal foot the bill for such a weird movie. In truth, it took me a while to ponder what the hell I watched with this movie and the end result is that I found it to be a curious movie that exists in the realm of near-unrankability: you either will like it or you won't like it, but at least Hopper made something he could be proud of cultivating.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*By sheer coincidence, that was the same year that The Other Side of the Wind (the movie where Hopper appeared in that was shot in the 1970s) came out.

Weapons (2025).

Review #2412: Weapons.

Cast: 

Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Austin Abrams (James), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Amy Madigan (Gladys), Toby Huss (Ed Locke), Sara Paxton (Erica), Justin Long (Gary), June Diane Raphael (Donna Morgan), Whitmer Thomas (Mr. Lilly), and Callie Schuttera (Mrs. Lilly) Directed by Zach Cregger (#1894 - Barbarian)

Review:

"It seems like horror is one of the few outlets for real creativity right now on a big scale. I can’t really think of another one. Without horror, you go to the theater and you get people in tights for $200 million and there’s not a lot of room for risk in those movies. And no shade, I’m all for entertainment, entertaining. But, it’s a shame that there’s not a lot of room for anything else. I love horror, my creative tuning fork resonates strong with horror, so I’m lucky in that regard."

Above all, the best thing to give credit for with this movie is that the bidding war was won by folks who aimed to put this in theaters, because it could've easily gone to Netflix. The success of Barbarian (2022) obviously lent itself the idea that whatever Zach Cregger would do next, it would generate some interest. When in the last stages of making that movie, his best friend died in an accident and the emotional pain that came from that led to writing that went from "a place of catharsis" to, well, something that became a script. The labor disputes of the past few years resulted in delays (namely because of casting, as Pedro Pascal was originally cast as the lead opposite Renate Reisve), but here we are. The movie has partial inspiration in its structure from Magnolia (1999) and the Jennifer Egan novel A Visit from the Goon Squad that also saw him take inspiration from his personal life (read further into the idea of the inversion of a family dynamic from a foreign element that isn't merely just alcohol, maybe). The result is a movie (made for roughly over $30 million) that is already thought of as a considerable success with audiences; the possibility of a follow-up might spring up somewhere down the line. Truly, there are some interesting directors to consider for horror (some with hype like Jordan Peele, others with curiosity from us like Damien Leone, insert one here).

The game of surprise is on display a bit with this movie, which I was hoping would be just fine with the hype that it had received around its release date because sometimes you really can get burned by hype (see: Hereditary). But this is a fine movie, even if it probably a bit more darkly amusing than particularly spooky. It probably helped that I didn't know that much about it, right down to it basically being comprised of "little movies" inside its 128-minute structure that lend a few layers in understanding what happens when people really are just themselves rather than part of a deeper community. Because, well, for this movie at least, a tragedy isn't a way for people to find some common ground with others but is instead a way for self-isolation to grow further and further (we are not that far apart from people who lived in the time where they got spooked by a child having AIDS, if you want to go that far). With a mystery (real or imagined) in particular, people get irritated with the longer it all goes because clearly conspiracies exist everywhere, where the technology of now (ring cameras, anybody? of course, it also helps to have maps) hasn't made us any less prone to paranoia. Basically, the movie isn't about the mystery of where those 17 children are but instead is about the type of people that are basically left over from that (i.e. a reaction to grief, as one probably infers from how the movie came to be in the first place*). Whether that means springing to the blame wagon or hitting the bottle or trying to do their job, it all crashes together by the time the curtain has been pulled down. It helps that the ensemble is pretty damn good in carrying it all together. Brolin and Garner each share the spotlight in their varying reaction to such sorrow around them (one sleeps in their son's bed, the other sleeps with the bottle*). There is a straight-shooting sensibility to both that let you see the quirks and flaws that arise in each of them that is worth emphasizing with and following through to all of the odd moments (one moment in particular stands out in having a strange sequence get summarized in one pithy question that is pretty funny in context). The other folks are just as interesting in seeing the weary nature of trying to keep up appearances in a world that doesn't really seem to care about communities as it believes itself to be (or so one hears from PTA meetings), which probably works best with the humor expressed in the contrast between how Ehrenrich is seen vs Abrams in similar sequences (at least that is how you would put a sequence of someone meeting up at a bar seen twice) that sees inner chuckles delivered from each. Christopher probably does the best of the bunch in what is required from the last proverbial leg of the (spooky) chair in the reactions that come from a life invaded that works out pretty well when paired with Madigan, who is quite spooky in the veneer of a human creature that commands one's attention when she arrives to the proceedings. Basically, you get a movie about people that do not have their house nearly in order as they believe themselves to be that is darkly amusing because of the maneuvering that has to take place just to get to certain points (consider, for example, that the chase sequence starts at a distance, has a middle with a store where the storekeep stands idly by and ends with a splat), right down to its ending*. Most of it works out to engaging heights when you consider who the real boogeyman can be. Sure, some people probably will think it is a bit of a rug pull when you see what it really is all about and others will roll right with the road taken. I just wish it had a little more sizzle in terms of spooks, but there are a handful of effects (Wong and his fate come to mind) that do carry attention to satisfy my curiosity. Basically, the enemy is someone who can play the guy who believes in chemtrails as a sucker in order to do things in plain sight. As a whole, Weapons clearly works best when you don't see it as a mystery or waiting for jump scares and just let it flow through you with curiosity that may or may not be the kind of film worth looking into further on another watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, some people might find the movie to be about school shootings or something. Hell, maybe the curtains really are just blue too.

*I myself don't get alcohol, but if I had to deal with a few nuts every waking day, sure, why not drink a bit?

*Look, I love movies that decide that the villain has to be ripped to shreds like it was Christmas wrapping, that's pretty funny. The narration that starts and ends the film is pretty convenient but about on point without spoonfeeding you. I do wonder what the reaction of Justine was in terms of "You parents owe me big time" when the children were found - maybe they elect her mayor or give her $1000 in booze?

Nobody 2.

Review #2411: Nobody 2.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Becca Mansell), John Ortiz (Wyatt Martin), Colin Hanks (Abel), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Sharon Stone (Lendina), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Daniel Bernhardt (Kartoush), and Lucius Hoyos (Max Martin) Directed by Timo Tjahjanto.

Review: 

You might remember that Nobody (2021) was a bit of a delight in what one could call an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence." Derek Kolstad wrote the script for that movie, and it probably is a good omen that he returns to write the script (having sole credit for the story and co-writing the screenplay with Aaron Rabin). Sure, maybe the punchline at the end of the day was that an action hero was being inhabited by Bob Odenkirk, but it was a pretty neat movie in both showing someone who did look the part for an action movie and had fun with it (and, apparently, the training regimen done for that movie probably saved his life when he had a heart issue in 2021). The movie is directed by Timo Tjahjanto, a West German-born Indonesian filmmaker making his American debut after five movies made in his native Indonesia. For the most part, a good deal of the cast from the first film reprise their roles for this film.

The movie might be on vacation a bit, but at least it does have some entertainment value for the most basic of requirements. On the average scale of action movies, it probably would be in the middle between the 2025 slate of Novocaine and Ballerina, and it certainly wouldn't top the first Nobody, but being an average sequel is not a bad thing. Instead of trying to cope with the idea of just being a dull family man, we now have a guy who just kicks ass and thinks he can simply just ride that wave for a while that really can't just have a break. I guess one's nature makes things inevitable for someone who just allows things to get nuts. Do I expect more from certain action movies? Eh....not really. In fact, sometimes an action movie beat could resemble the horror movie in where I play generous because God only knows what would happen if either genre was at the mercy of streaming.* Odenkirk is still pretty game to carry the proceedings with worthwhile believability that can look and sound the part of an asskicker (to an extent) while having the troubles that come with someone who just can't resist scratching the proverbial itch. Nielsen is relatively fine in the same way that one is accepting of a dark cloud gathering because they are clearly ready with an umbrella in hand, I suppose. Stone is actually pretty neat as the routine villain, minus the fact that one could do with most (all?) of the lines stating how scary she is meant to be (ooh, she'll kill your bloodline if you cross her, what's next, she'll clone you to kill you again?), because she just has that basic instinctual touch to seem unnerving enough already. You get a smidge of time with others that are mostly "hey, that's nice" or "sure", so there's that. The action sequences are generally satisfying in the staging that mostly keeps things fresh, as signified with having a duck boat involved to go with a few chuckles in the lingering absurdity that comes with a vacation area becoming the most evident staging area for mayhem. The ending is, well, surely a bit too familiar, mainly because it thrives on conveniences for nearly too much of its 89 minutes (the last movie also started and ended in the same place, naturally) and I'm not entirely sure this is a movie that needs a follow up to feel whole. As a whole, Nobody 2 is a casual trek through the proverbial woods of movie-shuffling, one that achieves most of what it sets out to do in vacation-based action beats. I don't really know if there is a profound desire for a third of these movies, but I can always endorse a decent time with an action movie when it seems necessary to do so, so there's that, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Arguably, you have stuff happen to people in action movies that would fit right in for horror movies, such as say, a dart to the eye.

The Return of the Living Dead.

Review #2410: The Return of the Living Dead.

Cast: 

Clu Gulager (Burt Wilson), James Karen (Frank Johnson), Don Calfa (Ernie Kaltenbrunner), Thom Mathew (Freddy Hanscom), Beverly Randolph (Tina), Miguel A. Núñez Jr ("Spider"), John Philbin (Chuck), Jewel Shepard (Casey), Brian Peck ("Scuz"), Linnea Quigley ("Trash"), Mark Venturini ("Suicide"), Jonathan Terry (Colonel Horace Glover), Cathleen Cordell (Ethel Glover, Colonel's Wife), Drew Deighan (Jerry, The Paramedic), and James Dalesandro (Tom, The Paramedic) Directed by Dan O'Bannon.

Review: 

Ever heard of a fork in the road for "Dead" movies? You might remember that Night of the Living Dead (1968) was co-written by John A. Russo and George A. Romero that had plenty of input from each side. The movie was, well, a hit, so naturally Romero and Russo would become involved with something totally interesting to follow it...well, not quite. There's Always Vanilla was directed by Romero while Russo was just a co-producer. They basically split after that and did their own things. Russo did a few horror novels (such as The Return of the Living Dead) and movies of his own. Apparently, in 1978, Russo and Romero did an agreement where Romero got to produce and distribute Dawn of the Dead while Russo got the right to do his Return of the Living Dead, as long as it was not promoted as a direct sequel to Night of the Living Dead. The story is credited to Rudy Ricci, John Russo (who, well, wanted to make a straight feature), and Russell Streiner, although it had had plenty of re-writes in the screenplay by Dan O'Bannon, who became the one to direct the movie when Tobe Hooper backed out to make the movie Lifeforce (1985). O'Bannon would direct just one other film with The Resurrected (1991) prior to his death in 2009 at the age of 63. Of sorts, the movie spawned a franchise, in that one could call a number of movies called Return of the Living Dead a franchise (1988, 1993, 2005, 2005) despite having little to no involvement from O'Bannon and company; Romero apparently was more annoyed that Russo didn't get his script made into a film. There are a few versions of the movie. The 2002 Special Edition DVD had music alterations because of copyright issues, while the 2007 release altered the basement zombie voice. A 2012 UK release had the original audio and soundtrack. Funny enough, even with "2K scan" and "4K scan" versions of the film for home media, the song "Dead Beat Dance" is hard to actually include. Even funnier, there was litigation over who had the rights to the intellectual property of the film as late as 2024. 

For whatever reason, the movie was first released abroad in April 1985 before hitting the States on August 16, 1985 (paradoxically being ahead and behind Romero's Day of the Dead, which was released in July 1985 in the States). I guess you could say it was a send-up of the Dead movies. But if that was the case, why call Night of the Living Dead as a movie based on actual events for this movie? Of course, this movie is the one that says zombies need brains, so there's that. For a person that rather liked Day of the Dead, it is a bit strange to call The Return of the Living Dead as merely a fine movie. Taking place in 1984 Kentucky (as one does when using the "based on a true story" trick), it certainly is a movie fit for a late night that would love to hear about a supposed cult classic and just roll with its action (91 minutes). It is a bit unwieldy in its humor, but it does have a killer look to its creatures and has some worthwhile mayhem with its death sequences because at a certain point, death spiraling can be gruesomely funny. The bumbling between Gulager and Karen and Calfa is amusing for a time, although one really does need more of a divide between them and the resulting punks, who really are just folks too bored and too cynical than punk, arguably; Quigley and her suggestive grace probably steals the show among the rest.  It does have a thin plot, as one does with a siege movie that has people eventually run and board things up before having a dour ending that probably had in mind to top Night even if it is a bit loopy. The zombies not just being easy to shoot or torch is interesting and probably served as an interesting jumping point for future films involving the dead, that's for sure. I like the effects for the zombies that have a good deal of muck (one is even chained up and others might be zombified animals), and the movie does have a general sense of mayhem for its entertainment. As a whole, it is a solid zombie flick with a few chuckles and gruesome fun that likely will be fit for a dark and stormy night that clearly has had staying power for four decades for good reason.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Naked Gun (2025).

Review #2409: The Naked Gun.

Cast: 

Liam Neeson (Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.), Pamela Anderson (Beth Davenport), Paul Walter Hauser (Capt. Ed Hocken Jr.), Danny Huston (Richard Cane), CCH Pounder (Chief Davis), Kevin Durand (Sig Gustafson), Liza Koshy (Detective Barnes), Eddie Yu (Detective Park), Moses Jones ("Not Nordberg Jr."), and Cody Rhodes (Bartender) Directed by Akiva Schaffer.

Review: 

Okay, I wanted to wait a bit on this one. Hey, remember The Naked Gun? The trio of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker had been behind The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) and Airplane! (1980) and they wanted to do another spoof movie, with the TV show M Squad as the basis, since they liked the show (which you might remember starred Lee Marvin back in the 1950s). But Michael Eisner of Paramount Pictures liked the concept enough to try and secure a six-episode TV show (against the better judgement of the trio) that ended up being aired on ABC in 1982...and the network didn't get it (a show with no laugh track that looked like a 60s program? Too hard for audiences). Six episodes (two directed by Joe Dante) were shown, but two were dumped in the summer. Eventually, through the efforts of them and Pat Proft, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (which took a few bits from the show) came out in 1988. Zucker described the kind of spoof that they did as one not of comic timing but dramatic timing that had actors act as if they didn't know they were in a comedy, with Leslie Nielsen being a natural. Sure, the two sequels (Zucker directed 2½: The Smell of Fear [1991] and co-wrote 33⅓: The Final Insult [1994] with Proft) were mostly fine in quality, but I think you understand the fun involved. Oddly enough, there really were plans for a fourth movie many, many years down the line in 2009, complete with it being intended for TV with Nielsen (ironically, the script was to be written by Alan Spencer, who had developed his own cop parody years prior with the TV show Sledge Hammer!). Nielsen passed away in 2010 before anything could happen, but plans bubbled again with Ed Helms in mind to be the lead, and Zucker and Proft were even tapped to write (with a secret agent son of Frank Drebin) that went nowhere. Finally, in 2021, plans bubbled again with Seth MacFarlane being hired to develop the project (which wouldn't have Zucker or Proft involved, although at least the former isn't bitter about it) and pitch it to Liam Neeson (who had worked with MacFarlane with A Million Ways to Die in the West [2014]) to star. The result is a movie written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand, and Akiva Schaffer (with various contributions by Mark Hentemann, MacFarlane and Alec Sulkin); you might know Schaffer from such movies as Hot Rod [2007] and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping [2016].

There are probably a few people who love or hate reboots, remakes, the whatever word you want to call it. I'm pretty on the fence on the idea because maybe I am not old enough to really stress about the world soon having two Running Man movies. There are quite a few nice things I can say about this movie, which is a nice relief. Neeson seems to be the right choice to go from a litany of dramas and action movies to try and play comedy, doesn't he? Admittedly, doing a "new version" of something might make one hesitate (especially when nearly doing the "horror movie followed up with the same title" thing), but I think what The Naked Gun does best is to simply roll along with the lines with daffy enthusiasm, right down to ending on a take on freeze frames. It probably helps that the runtime (85 minutes) just seems right on point for having the viewer satisfied with quick satisfaction that doesn't seem rushed or seem like an overgrown made-for-TV sheen. It just aims to deliver as many gags as possible with an interest in having fun with the idea of real-world foibles like oddball rich people (some obsess over naming apps after letters, others obsess about their pants), oddball technology, cloying over the old days (people actually hate Clippy? Shame!)*, and so on. Even for someone in their seventies, Neeson clearly has the touch for comedy to really carry this movie as long as it needs to go, operating the proceedings with such gruff sincerity that isn't simply just trying to be Leslie Nielsen all over again (the instance of gun fu at one point is particularly amusing). It happens that he has some worthwhile chemistry with Anderson*, who is just as adept in mowing down lines with sharp rhythm that might be worth seeing again in the future. Huston (as following the tradition of Ricardo Montalbán, Robert Goulet, and Fred Ward in Naked Gun adversaries) actually ends up being pretty neat, smarmy but totally just having fun with being the kind of guy who would be in a comedy about trying to make people fight each other (the last scene in particularly is pretty funny). You then have a worthy supporting ensemble that runs down from Hauser (a neat successor to Sr's George Kennedy) to the always on-time Pounder. There are a litany of gags and cameos that accompany the movie like any good ol' comedy would do without seeming like painful obligation and it leaves the possibility of wanting more without reeking of desperation. As a whole, it probably is the best of the three follow-ups to the original Naked Gun,

which is a hell of a thing to say when wanting to talk about a commitment-filled comedy in 2025.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*What the hell is a TiVo, anyway?

*Apparently, Anderson was to be in the third Naked Gun movie but had to turn it down. The circle is complete.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Review #2408: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Cast: 

Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim and Nega Scott), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Ramona Flowers), Kieran Culkin (Wallace Wells), Anna Kendrick (Stacey Pilgrim), Brie Larson (Natalie V. "Envy" Adams), Alison Pill (Kim Pine), Aubrey Plaza (Julie Powers), Johnny Simmons ("Young" Neil Nordegraf), Mark Webber (Stephen Stills), Ellen Wong (Knives Chau), with Satya Bhabha (Matthew Patel), Chris Evans (Lucas Lee), Brandon Routh (Todd Ingram), Mae Whitman (Roxanne "Roxy" Richter), Keita Saito (Ken Katayanagi), Shota Saito (Kyle Katayanagi), and Jason Schwartzman (Gideon "G-Man" Graves) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead)

Review: 

"We thought it should play out like a musical in a way in terms of the fights are not dissimilar to the songs. I always thought there were a lot of martial arts films that were like musicals, so we wanted to take that further. Ya know, in a Gene Kelly film when he performs an amazing routine, at the end of the scene no one goes, 'Oh my god, that was fucking amazing!' The song is about something, and then there might be some dialogue at the end that is also about that theme. And that's kind of how this works where people have these huge fights – and it's kind of like how it is in the books – where everything goes back to normal, and there's a little reaction to what just happened, but there's no sort of mourn the dead."

Yes, it is weird to see how time flies by to say a movie from the 2010s is now 15 years old. It serves as an adaptation of the series of graphic novels of the same name that had been published in six volumes from 2004 to 2010, as written and drawn by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who had been inspired by various works ranging from Ranma 1/2, Koudelka (layouts) and other manga. Around the time after the publication of the first volume came the inklings of maybe adapting it to film, and Edgar Wright (of the then-released Shaun of the Dead, which naturally was followed up with Hot Fuzz [2007]) was approached and he liked the idea because he liked the books, with one factor being that he noted that with a few exceptions*, there hadn't been a "bigger film that dealt in sort of like a comedy comic book film...combining the mundane with the fantastical.". Wright and Michael Bacall wrote the screenplay for the film while O'Malley was involved with "bits and pieces" of the process (in particular, the ending had influence by O'Malley over the original planned ending, since the movie was coming out in the wake of the release of the last volume in July of 2010). The movie was inspired by a litany of movies ranging from Danger: Diabolik [1968] to Phantom of the Paradise [1974] (particularly with its villain, consider that). Apparently, Universal Pictures didn't know how to market the movie to audiences; the movie was first screened in July of 2010 before being released in theaters starting with America on August 13, 2010 and it was not a major success at the time. However, as one probably guessed, it has developed a following. The entire cast reprised their roles for an animated TV show (Scott Pilgrim Takes Off) that had a handful of episodes in 2023.

It probably is a movie that gets better and better for those who really like what the movie is selling in terms of light fun in an era where people still wondered what the hell was the difference between "geek" and "nerd" anymore. It probably helps that there was a pretty talented cast involved* who happens to be pretty enjoyable to view on screen. For me...it was fine. It rides a good deal of highs and a few lows for 112 minutes that generally has the enthusiasm to make one at least see themselves somewhere in the entertaining ensemble and visual sequences. You might as well call it a distinct comic or also video game movie with the fact that it actually takes the time to look like a comic (i.e. sound effect onomatopoeia) to go along with its video game logic with, well, handling action sequences. You either roll with its punches (some visual and some in jokes such as tricking a vegan into drinking half-and-half) or, well, you don't. Call it silly, but it does take a bit of time to really, truly, root for that title character. At least his hang-ups are more interesting to think about in everyman weirdness than say, Woody Allen*. Actually, I take that back, it does take a bit of time to also appreciate Ramona beyond calling her a flake (and in turn, calling Scott a little worm)*. But I like Cera and Winstead just fine, so there's that. It's an interesting push-and-pull thing where one is juggling seeing the life of our guy and the folks around him, and I think it works out pretty well in the fact that there isn't a weak spot amongst the folks. In particular, it is fun to see Culkin and Plaza every now and then because of their natural timing that just is really funny in snappy charm (look, how many folks have lines where they are censored with a black box on purpose). Chau actually is a bit funny in her own path of realization beyond just hanging around in the ides of youth and so on. Of the group of "Evil Exes", Evans and Schwartzman do stick out the best, namely because there are a handful of laughs in bravado from the former and the Phil Spector imitation in the latter that keep the movie rolling along just right. It is a movie that has a boundless charm that with the right mindset in mind for the viewer would be enough to deflect any lingering quibbles with the movie. Lack of stakes? Eh, its a movie about a guy getting a hold of himself beyond just having the same expectations of oneself that happens to need to turn opponents into pixels, stakes are for "suspense" movies. It just happens to be a movie fit for casual enjoyment, and it likely developed a cult following because people really did come around to viewing the movie for all of its little quirks that is admirable to see in commitment. Fifteen years later, we may very well see further people get latched onto the movie and its grabbing of the times it was made in a further interesting light fifteen further years down the line.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Specifically, Ghost World and American Splendor, as noted here.

**Imagine saying a film had two future Academy Award winners in its cast and it is located in the supporting cast with Culkin and Larson.

***I will state that I did know exactly one person who liked changing their hair color to blue. She liked women and even shacked up with a married person. It's too bad she was a flake, she seemed like a friend at one point in time.

****Speaking of people with an "interesting" attraction to young women. Okay, I stretched that joke, but I don't like that little cretin.

Private Property (1960).

Review #2407: Private Property (1960).

Cast: 

Corey Allen (Duke), Warren Oates (Boots), Kate Manx (Ann Carlyle), Jerome Cowan (Ed Hogate), Robert Wark (Roger Carlyle), and Jules Maitland (gas station owner) Directed by Leslie Stevens (#862 - Incubus)

Review:

"There is nothing wrong with being a hack writer. I would point with pride to the inspired hacking of Shakespeare, Michelangelo—you can go through a big list. As a playwright, I achieved the rank of night clerk in a hotel at 22, night-ward attendant in a New York psychiatric hospital at 25 and the exalted status of copy boy for Time magazine at 28. These jobs paid my room rent while I was writing plays."

You might know that Leslie Stevens had created the original The Outer Limits show that ran from 1963 to 1965. Well, there were a few other things in between all of that, as one expects from the son of a Navy admiral. He served in the Army Air Forces during World War II but found more interest in writing that saw him do his first play off Broadway in 1954. A number of his plays were turned into movies: The Lovers (1956) became The War Lord in 1965 and The Marriage-Go-Round (1956) was made into a movie in 1961. Stevens became a screenwriter with Arthur Penn's The Left Handed Gun (1958). And then, well, here he became a film director with Private Property (1960). The movie was made at the house of Stevens (alongside a vacant one adjacent to it) that was done in ten days for roughly $59,000 that apparently had moments where they stop shooting in mid-sentence. Stevens, alongside Stanley Colbert, who produced the movie, dubbed themselves "America's only authentic New Wave filmmakers", and it should be said they got some talent behind the camera with Ted McCord and his camera operator Conrad Hall (as one does when needing someone to shoot underwater). The movie was thought by a few folks as disturbing, and in a time where people seemed to actually care what the Catholic National Legion of Decency said about movies (they called it "highly suggestive" in dialogue, sequences and music, and I guess that means they watched the movie with one eye open), the movie couldn't even get a Production Code seal and therefore no national distribution. Apparently, future US president John F. Kennedy (and his wife) saw the movie in 1960 and apparently was depressed by the film*. However, the movie did have appreciation in Europe and therefore made roughly $2 million in its time. For a number of years, the movie was believed to be lost before being discovered and restored by the UCLA Film & Television Archive, so nowadays you have a pretty good chance of being able to see the movie if you look for it in the right spots. Stevens directed three further features: Hero's Island (1962), Incubus (1966; that was the movie filmed in Esperanto), and Three Kinds of Heat (1987) prior to his death in 1998 at the age of 74. A remake by Chadd Harbold was released in 2022.

For a movie with basically three people in it, you really can feed the sordidness on screen that sees one's space slowly get smaller and smaller. Sure, it doesn't have gore or nudity, but you can feel the grime all the same for a movie that has a fascination for such strange psyches that make up the lead duo. And this with such an interesting trio of actors, if you think about it. Allen became more known as a TV director in this decade (having peaked in film with a key role in Rebel Without a Cause [1955]) and Oates was only just burrowing out of television roles before getting meatier roles. Manx appeared in only one other movie with the aforementioned Hero's Island before her sudden death in 1964 at the age of 34. And for 79 minutes, you get a really dreary movie in the simmering that comes through in such carefully shot moments. It probably helps that with Manx's character, she is mostly seen as being trapped in the illusion of suburban happiness and a listless life filled with such little color to begin with (one might wonder the psychological implications that come from directing one's spouse in their own house about them having a listless life before muggers come about*). Its more of a performance to experience to be trapped by more than anything, which goes hand-in-hand with the stupor that comes with seeing Allen or Oates interact against her (which is more "at her" than "with her"). in that regard, Allen is pretty spooky in the strange little ways he enters Manx's life (to say nothing of the observations made about her to Oates that aren't different from looking at meat). Oates is appropriately awkward enough in that chained (of sorts) dynamic with Allen that might as well have been culled from Of Mice and Men. Sure, it probably doesn't have as much tension as it might need to really hold up a fairly standard climax (crime doesn't pay when folks kill each other off, suffice to say), but it is a curiosity that probably deserved better than to be forgotten for so long, that's for sure. As a whole, it is a fairly decent movie, one with authentic spirit to make a sordid tale and stick with it that might be worth acknowledging by checking it out late at night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Lyndon B. Johnson probably got a chuckle at that pansy being disturbed at something the Catholics didn't like. What, this isn't me being political about the movie, I just think JFK sucks when compared to LBJ, I thought this was a normal thing?

*Hey, remember Billy Jack (1971), the movie where Tom Laughlin directed a scene where a woman (played by his actual wife and co-writer on the film, Delores Taylor) gets raped?

Lionheart (1990).

Review #2406: Lionheart.

Cast:

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Lyon "Lionheart" Gaultier), Harrison Page (Joshua Eldridge), Deborah Rennard (Cynthia Caldera), Lisa Pelikan (Hélène Gaultier), Ashley Johnson (Nicole Gaultier), Brian Thompson (Russell), Vojislav Govedarica (Sgt. Hartog), Michel Qissi (Moustafa), Abdel Qissi (Attila), Ash Adams (Francois Gaultier), George McDaniel (Adjutant), and Jeff Langton (Sonny) Directed by Sheldon Lettich.

Review: 

"Most Van Damme movies are basically structured like old Fred Astaire movies. Astaire’s movies employ a very simple plot (“I have to convince her to marry me before she can marry that rich guy who doesn’t really love her”) which Astaire uses to hang his dance numbers on. Similarly, in Van Damme movies there’s a simple plot (“They killed our parents, we must get revenge”) which we can then hang a number of fight scenes on. In an Astaire movie, it all leads to the big crucial dance number at the end (where he wins over the girl). In a Van Damme movie, it all leads to the big fight at the end (where he kills the guys who murdered his parents)."

Admittedly, I can't blame Jean-Claude Van Damme from getting into the "input" side of filmmaking. This was the debut of Lettich as a director; after serving for a few years in the Marine Corps (specifically radio operator and with the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company), he went on to study Photography in college before becoming interested in being a filmmaker in the late 1970s (inquire further here). So, you've got two ideas crash into one: Van Damme wrote an outline for a fighting movie in the underground while his friend Sheldon Lettich had a script in mind involving the "classic era" of the French Foreign Legion. Sure, that script didn't go anywhere (apparently it was intended for Sylvester Stallone, since the two had written Rambo III [1988] together) but I think you get how Lionheart would come out combining the two a bit. Well, that and both guys liked the movie Hard Times (1975). Imperial Entertainment tried to get a different writer to do rewrites so as to not spend much money on Lettich, which is where S. N. Warren came in. However, Warren's rewrites (save for the name) were basically curtailed Lettich was hired to do a rewrite and just direct the movie; the result is that Warren, Lettich and Van Damme got credit for the screenplay and the latter got credit for the story; Van Damme also served as fight choreographer for the movie.* The movie was shown as "A.W.O.L.: Absent Without Leave" at the Cannes Film Market in May 1990 and picked up by Universal Studios for later distribution in early 1991. Strangely, the movie was released in France as "Full Contact" (better than the working title of the movie in the first place: "The Wrong Bet"). The movie was a relative success with audiences, following along the line of Van Damme star movies such as Bloodsport (1988) and Cyborg (1989).

Sure, it is a bit of a ridiculous trip down the road (the egregious "ass club" of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) has a teammate), but there is something quite endearing about its execution that I can't help but like. You've got an array of fights that for whatever reason go from the mean streets to at one point taking place in a pool. You've got a movie that decides, screw it, you are getting straight-to-the-point drama that can only go the way of a swift kick to, well, you know. It runs on sheer audacity from Lettich and Van Damme to make for a relatively enjoyable time. Having not seen Bloodsport in about six years, I imagine that my reasoning that Lionheart is the better "fighting without the cops knowing" movie (incidentally, both movies have a final fight where the lead must rally from a big injury, whether that involves being unable to see or, well, a bad rib) mainly because this movie actually seems to have some sort of enjoyment beyond being tall tale hokum. It probably helps that the movie is just about a guy trying to make good rather than about revenge (okay maybe it is an "on the run" movie, but at least it is a worthwhile pursuit, though I'm not really sure the Legion looks that good). Sure, it might be easy to compare him to Steven Seagal (both have their own "command" of reality in dialogue), but there is just something about Van Damme and his physicality that goes hand in hand with a sly sense of charm to watch play out against all odds. I think it helps that he isn't thrust into a side dynamic of romance and instead has a pal to engage with in Page (likely best known for the TV show Sledge Hammer!), who is quite a charmer. Unusually, you've got Thompson playing second fiddle to Renard (speaking of TV regulars, a regular on Dallas), which is mostly so you can see the allusion of tension between her and Van Damme that is somewhat cheeky if not entirely routine. The 105-minute runtime is about on point for a movie that arranges several fights with people watching in the distance (notice how the view from the street isn't too different in enthusiasm from the view from a different locale later on) that looks pretty good in brutality and the final fight does manage to evoke some triumph. It is a solidly decent time likely worth checking out if one is already curious about what Van Damme brings to the table in action, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Well, maybe I am being a bit vague about Van Damme being involved with films: apparently Van Damme contributed uncredited editing on Bloodsport [1988] and Cyborg [1989]. 

The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Review #2405: The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Cast: 

Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Julia Garner (Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer), Sarah Niles (Lynne Nichols), Mark Gatiss (Ted Gilbert), Natasha Lyonne (Rachel Rozman), Paul Walter Hauser (Harvey Elder / Mole Man), Ralph Ineson (Galactus), and Matthew Wood (H.E.R.B.I.E.) Directed by Matt Shakman.

Review: 

Sure, you might know that 20th Century Fox was behind those ridiculous attempts at making Fantastic Four movies based on the team that on each occasion (2005, 2007, 2015) somehow managed to flounder more than if the unreleased 1994 movie had been given the shot it deserved.* It took six years from the acquisition of that studio (and subsequent pausing of any plans to do a Marvel-based movie) and one cameo from a different Reed Richards (hey, remember when they let Sam Raimi do a movie with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [2022]?) but here we are again. The director for this film in Matt Shakman (remember that Jon Watts was once tapped for the film before dropping out) had previously directed one film with Cut Bank (2014) that was in the midst of plenty of television from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to whatever "WandaVision" is (his family-centric pitch, for already established heroes is what you get here, and you can infer further here). For whatever reason, there are five writers listed for this film: Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer, and Kat Wood for the story and Josh Friedman, Pearson, Kaplan, Springer for the screenplay.

I wanted to wait a while to see the movie because what the hell is this movie doing being released so close to the other superhero movie of the summer? Was this movie rushed in the belief that it just had to meet a late July slate? It can't even last for over two hours (114 minutes might sound like I'm only technically correct, but still), what exactly happened here? Sure, it does have a few interesting moments to go with a resourceful style (speaking of which, how idiotic must one be to not have included H.E.R.B.I.E. in one of these previous movies?) and so on, but there is something that you either will believe should've been done years ago or is not nearly as grand as it should be. Maybe it is the over-saturation that had been present in the past few years (if I have to spend time streaming a show in the attempts at going with an alleged film universe, I would rather learn how to knit instead), maybe the general feeling that setting it in a different Earth when an "Avengers movie" is already imminent seems a bit silly, maybe it just is an okay film. Do you ever watch something and in your mind, you think it is making all the "right moves" and yet somehow just doesn't click every box you want for a really good time rather than just "fine time for a rental"? Was the bar so low for a Fantastic Four movie that didn't suck (in a way, the best family-led group of superheroes for a film...is still The Incredibles [2004])? But let's at least start with positives: it does have a neat quartet of characters, mainly thriving on the qualities of Quinn and Moss-Bachrach in interactions that protrude worthwhile confidence (as one does for a hothead and a guy that happens to be a rock-man) to make the Pascal and Kirby seem just as interesting to contrast in "staid" nature. I like the look of the movie quite a bit, right down to the hero costumes that protrude confidence in actually wanting to stick out for a period piece. Garner makes a quality Surfer in  The showing of powers (mostly with the Invisible Woman) do look pretty good and actually give credence to the idea of this family being a formidable, nay, fantastic group to possibly see further (not exactly in "Avengers", I mean a good ol' Fantastic Four sequel). 

My quibbles may probably ironic: in its attempts to feature a different main adversary (i.e. no Doom) and different "hook" (i.e. a baby Franklin), there is a mish-mash of ideas that are begging to taken to bigger levels that somehow feel short of greatness. I don't care what folks say about comic book logic, "Earth-insert number here" does undercut things a tiny bit ("oh, the Earth is in trouble! Not our Earth, some other Earth that happens to have different names and people that look like us, but an Earth!") in tension, but my real complaint is that I don't find the idea of tying the movie around Franklin to be particularly refreshing. It just seems like something cribbed from the second or third movie of a rejected pitch more than what is meant to be high tension because it (to me, anyway) undercuts the fact that I want to see the core four that one saw in the opening that dealt with, well, villains. I like seeing Hauser as a Mole Man, what was wrong with that as a main villain? Don't tell me that the Fantastic Four only has two villains (look, we can talk about the next Doom antoher time) man, sometimes you want a small plate before you get to the main course (Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), a better example of the "let's not do the whole origin thing", didn't choose friggin Doctor Octopus or the Goblin in the first movie, they went with the Vulture). Galactus (you might remember in the 2007 film resembled a cloud where here he towers a bit over the Statue of Liberty) only has, what, three whole scenes? I like Ineson fine, but this is ridiculous. Hell, maybe the movie would've been better if he actually won in consuming the Earth, what else is the point of having a "Earth-whatever" if you're just going to swing the Four onto a different place anyway? Multiverses and different timelines should be for animated material or maybe, just maybe, we just have a group of heroes that just go with the flow of being a tight-knit group. The movie looks and sounds nice and has some entertainment (i.e. pacing out its effects sequences for patience that I'm fine with, albeit with quibbles for the climax*) that may just be neat for you. As a whole, it may not hit as many of the marks you would want in for a truly spectacular movie (or even a cosmic soap opera), but it has enough to ultimately carry it to the finish line of general entertainment to inquire further with these folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You might wonder what exactly the theme is for August: What better way to whip up another month of Season 15 than to also celebrate five years of trying to have an interesting theme for August than to just throw any theme imaginable for the month. Yes, for All-In-One August, you'll see a few movies reviewed for their "Anniversary in August", or as "Action in August" or "Around the World in August or "Acknowledged in August", or, well "2025". 

*Incidentally, the main four of that movie actually have cameo appearances in this movie, which just raises questions over why they hadn't been given their due years ago.

*SPOILER (in lighter text): it feels ridiculous to have a character die and make their sacrifice...only to be resurrected. By a baby. Blah blah blah Franklin is this in comics, again, I feel like they really wanted to do a family angle just so they had the trick of killing someone off only to see them revived right in hand. I assumed, with the Thunderbolts* "credits scene", that the Fantastic Four were going to escape their world after either Galactus won or something happened to make them go into our Earth. Instead, you get a bullshit revival of Invisible Woman, who you know wasn't going to die anyway! Really, only guys with barely a name or ones picked out of a hat (i.e. not Hawkeye, who was never cool) die in these movies! Or am I just insane?