Videodrome.

Review #2586: Videodrome.

Cast: 

James Woods (Max Renn), Debbie Harry (Nicki Brand), Sonja Smits (Bianca O'Blivion), Peter Dvorsky (Harlan), Leslie Carlson (Barry Convex), Jack Creley (Dr. Brian O'Blivion), Lynne Gorman (Masha), Julie Khaner (Bridey James), David Bolt (Raphael), and Reiner Schwarz (Moses) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986], #2132 - Crimes of the Future [2022], #2276 - Rabid [1977])

Review: 

 "I've always been interested in dark things and other people's fascinations with dark things. Plus, the idea of people locking themselves in a room and turning a key on a television set so that they can watch something extremely dark, and by doing that, allowing themselves to explore their fascinations."

We do love our technology, don't we? Now more than ever, the lines between reality and what we actually see for "entertainment" (television, phone, what have you) is blurred. The human body is the battlefield for what is "too far" and it probably goes without saying to consider how far the word "goon" has gone beyond its original meaning. People will believe what they see and hear from their screens, and you could figure that out in the time when people still used tapes (hell, in different future days, there were people who believed what they heard on the phone from alleged cops). One man's reality is another's delusion, and it goes doubly for how far things have moved from TV being reality and therefore reality being less than TV, as they say. Apparently, when David Cronenberg grew up in his native Toronto as a kid, he could tune into American TV signals from Buffalo in the States when the Canadian stations went off the air and the idea of maybe seeing something he shouldn't see lingered in his mind. The ideas gestated in his head (as one does when knowing about Marshall McLuhan, who taught at the University of Toronto when not being the one considered the "father of media studies") before getting a good chance to do the film with his particular growing reputation. With partial financing from Universal Pictures (it should be noted that this was the last film of his made in the Canadian "tax shelter" era) and filming in Toronto, Videodrome actually did get released to hundreds of theaters in February 1983 and promptly died in theaters, with Cronenberg once musing it wasn't an "exploitation sell [or]...an art sell." At any rate, it soon developed a cult following (various videos exist involving the making of the film, as seen here).

You get a shelter that has homeless people gather to watch television, people who communicate through a TV screen, a certain point where the lines between reality and fantasy blur, and, oh yeah, gooey body horror moments within the actual horror of what really does lurk beyond "special names" and manipulation of people's obsessions. It's not what you see that's important in terms of the "videodrome", it's the fact that reality can in fact be shattered by those who live on the screen that really matters in control. It all leads to Woods and his commanding presence in a cynic with no sense of philosophy beyond "there's an outlet somewhere" (wiser minds wondered if it was really the medium that was the message). There is a killer instinct within Woods to just make a role look so intense by the way you see him maneuver with his expressions more than anything that reaches to the heart of all with the perverse rot in one's soul (which, well, is the type that can be alluring to a certain type of stimulated person). His certain type of "soul" does go hand-in-hand with how Harry (the vocalist of Blondie who dabbled in acting such as Union City [1980], this and Hairspray) treats the world of over-stimulation and curiosity. Her awareness of craving pleasures and pain (for whatever you might read when seeing someone stuff a cigarette on their chest) is the type of alluring "question mark" (well, if you go with that from an interview with her); with so much time spent in a box, you almost could call it a virtual performance (compared to the v-tubers of the now, I suppose being told about the flesh is an improvement). In the battlefield of what airwaves are to be seen in the mind to take the bed with you, one sees the dueling sides with Smits & Creley and Carlson & Dvorsky to sobering effect, well, at least when you consider that both want to shape would-be users for a certain type of evolution. Sure, the plot of the movie is loose, particularly when it comes to really figuring just what is hallucination (full-scale, if you will) and what is the horrors of actually seeing a new type of hell (slits in the abdomen and appendages to the arm that might as well be a new type of sex organ). You just have to enjoy the ride of raveling and unravelling in stimulation to see that, yes, the video screen really can be a tool or weapon and you are living in that world right now. With an efficient pace of 89 minutes that rides the wave of grime and bleak nature of what it really means to see beyond the flesh, it's a pretty good way to unsettle oneself in the eyes of stimulation.

 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

It begins. We're going to try and get as many horror movies as we can, which will run the gamut from franchise stuff such as Saw V all the way down to anthology picks to the oldies to beyond while having time for spectacular fun in November. Stay spooked.

Blue Thunder.

Review #2536: Blue Thunder.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (LAPD Officer Frank Murphy), Warren Oates (LAPD Capt. Jack Braddock), Candy Clark (Kate), Daniel Stern (LAPD Officer Richard Lymangood), Malcolm McDowell (United States Army Colonel F.E. Cochrane), Paul Roebling (Icelan), David Sheiner (Fletcher), Joe Santos (Montoya), Jason Bernard (The Mayor), Robin Braxton (Councilwoman Diane McNeely), Ed Bernard (Sgt. Short James Murtaugh (Alf Hewitt), Jack Murdock (Kress), with Mario Machado (Himself), and Anthony James (Grundelius) Directed by John Badham (#088 - Short Circuit, #1293 - Dracula (1979), #1456 - Saturday Night Fever, #1610 - WarGames, #1805 - The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings)

Review: 

Okay, this one came about because it was on a movie-pack. Can you blame me? The impetus for the original script by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (an old friend of O'Bannon from film school*) apparently came from their experiences with low-flying police helicopters intruding on their surroundings in Los Angeles. The script was written in late 1978 with a deal by 1979. They envisioned a psychological thriller about the perils of a police state using surveillance such as helicopters for population control. For instance, Scheider's character was "truly mad" and ended up getting shot down. Eventually, it became what O'Bannon called "more of a fantasy cartoon". John Badham brought in Dean Riesner* to do a "couple of page one rewrite jobs" on the script (which namely saw the inclusion of Stern's character and a good deal of scenes involving Oates) but did not receive credit in favor of only O'Bannon and Jakoby (the two worked on a few more screenplays together with Lifeforce [1985] and Invaders from Mars [1986]). It was filmed in the summer of 1981 but not released until 1983. Produced by Rastar for Columbia Pictures for $22 million, the movie made almost two times its budget back with audiences. In 1984, ABC aired a television spinoff that featured James Farentino and Dana Carvey that ran for eleven episodes. On a probably unrelated note, Airwolf, a show with an "advanced prototype supersonic helicopter", premiered that same year on CBS that ran for four seasons.

You don't get too many movies going "The hardware, weaponry and surveillance systems depicted in this film are real and in use in the United States today." Admittedly, it is an offbeat kind of movie, relying on sheer adrenaline for its aerial action that provides a few delights to go along with a fairly game cast to ride the wave over a film that loves to seep into fantasy but doesn't become a big joke once you're done with its 109 minute runtime. So, what's the big thing for the film? A helicopter that basically is a flying fortress that can peer into conversations from a few miles away along with armor, guns, infrared scanners, a mode to fly silently and, well, you get the idea, it's the kind of thing that could be used to help curb discontent before the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles (1984...or 2028, you might ask). I'm not particularly sure the film is too prescient about actually saying something about the surveillance state, but at least it closes on a high note with what you probably want best: helicopter fighting and stumbling onto conspiracies without becoming a crackpot*. It helps that within the mix of air-action, composites and other various tricks (as seen here), you get a worthwhile looking experience for the time spent rather than feeling like it went for nothing.

Apparently, Scheider took the role because he wanted to make sure he couldn't be available for Jaws 3-D (1983). It isn't exactly a great role to really glom onto besides the usual "everyman" type with a few quirks (fiddling with a watch, namely), but he handles it with the usual gritted patience that you care for pretty early on without terming him as an old "wiseass". Being paired with Stern proves pretty vital for a couple of chuckles in seeing what goes on for work (at least when it isn't disrupted by say, a conspiracy or gawking at people). Or leisure time with Clark (at least this isn't a case of severe age difference between lovers, merely being, what 15 years?). McDowell may not have as much to do in say, bombastic menace, but he is capable enough to present a threat worth seeing getting to the end of the line (incidentally, McDowell has a fear of flying, so note the look on his face anytime he is in the air, although I will say that helicopters aren't exactly high on the list of favorable transport). This was the penultimate film appearance for Oates, who had passed away in April 1982 during post-production (his last film was released later with Tough Enough). He still has that edge of hard-lined humor that comes through with how he makes an impression on the viewer with a few good lines that get spread out (as a presence, his is surely missed then as now) for a delight. In general, the movie moves along with a comic book sensibility to throwing things onto the wall to see what sticks, whether that involves a test run of the helicopter to a group in a secluded place (whereupon the helicopter gets the terrorist dummy targets and also shoots a bunch of bystanders) or the climax where one gets to see a few tricks to avoid deadly heat-seeking missiles (emphasis on "heat"). As a whole, you get a bit of aerial jousting to go along with some residing charm to make for a solid enough movie to enjoy on a late night, preferably with no helicopters buzzing along in the sky.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Game 1 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals is today. Go Spurs Go, vanquish the (blue) Thunder.

*Fun fact: O'Bannon co-wrote the original story of Alien with Ronald Shusett and actually had a problem with the inclusion of Ash into the film. Are you kidding me, dude?

*Reisner was an interesting person in film. He appeared in films as a kid such as The Pilgrim and then became a writer with work on Code of the Secret Service (1939) before he was 25 years old and directed a movie that won an Honorary Academy Award with Bill and Coo (1948), a movie where birds were costumed as humans acting on one of the smallest film sets ever. Oh, and then he was a writer on a handful of television shows and co-writer of movies such as Dirty Harry (1971). He died of natural causes in 2002 at the age of 83.

*I'm not sure I've mentioned this before, but my conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy about the JFK assassination was spread by people too embhassased about failing to protect the president so they spread the most insane stuff to muddy the waters over it being just one guy shooting someone for his own reasons. The Jack Ruby factor, well, I guess he was just an idiot (look, why kill the assassin of the president? For clout?). That, and also I think they keep the theories alive because they are jealous of LBJ. See, I told you it would sound like a crackpot.  

The Deadly Spawn.

Review #2285: The Deadly Spawn.

Cast: 

Charles George Hildebrant (Charles), Tom DeFranco (Pete), Richard Lee Porter (Frankie), Jean Talfer (Ellen), Karen Tighe (Kathy), James L. Brewster (Sam), Elissa Neil (Barb), Ethel Michelson (Aunt Millie), John Schmerling (Uncle Herb), and Judith Mayes (Bunny) Directed by Douglas McKeown.

Review:

Sure, a low-budget movie made in New Jersey seems the perfect idea to spotlight. Ted A. Bohus came up with the idea for the film in 1979 due to an article in National Geographic about seed pods from the Arctic. John Dods and McKeown helped write the story for the film, while Tim Sullivan provided additional dialogue. This was the only film directed by McKeown, who actually was born in New York City and raised in Metuchen, New Jersey. He graduated from Emerson College after studying cinematography, theater, and English literature (a short film he made in 1966 is available here). He worked as a teacher along with a director for the stage in local theater before working at the Jean Cocteau Repertory in New York, where he did designs and staged productions. His one other film credit was doing work on the film recreations for The Watermelon Woman (1996). McKeown (who had a Facebook profile filled with some warm memories of the filmmaking) died at the age of 75 in 2022. It apparently was shot on 16mm film on a budget of around $25,000 in Gladstone and New Brunswick, New Jersey. John Dods was special effects director and associate producer, with its effects involving wire-controlled rubber puppets. Dods has worked on a variety of productions of films (such as Nightbeast) to television (most notably Monsters) to make up for the stage (such as Young Frankenstein and productions of Beauty and the Beast). Eventually the film found a distributor in 21st Century Film Corproation. Alternate titles for the film were "Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn" and "The Reurn of the Alien's Deadly Spawn" as an attempt to capitalize off the success of Alien [1977)] (an account of Bohus when it came to his experiences with 21st Century can be found here). One of the titles for Metamorphosis: The Alien Factor (1990) refers to it as a sequel to The Deadly Spawn, mainly because Bohus served as a producer on the film, complete with shooting in New Jersey, albeit one that only had a video release.

Really this is a movie for a certain kind of movie-lover in terms of a preference for seeing where interesting effects can come from (budget or otherwise) from people who clearly grew up with movies to study from. You've got your stuff from The Blob (1958) when it comes to its opening and in general with a monster that loves to grow the longer it sticks around. Most of its 78-minute runtime is around this one house (which actually was the property of one Tim Hildebrandt, an illustrator and producer on this film), for better or worse. This is the kind of movie you can have fun with in the same way that one had neat time with say, Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957). The best way to describe the acting is "giving it the old college try", which is to say that they play it pretty casual that does at least make sure to not distract or detract from what you came to see in terms of gooey curiosity, mainly because they aren't playing to the whole gamut of cliches. Hell, they even try dissecting one of the things at one point, that sure goes far better in making one curious to where they will go in housebound tension far more than study dates. I especially like that one person just casually gets thrown out the window because the actress apparently needed to get out of the film suddenly. Well, at least the young Hildebrandt has some spirited reactions to see the carnage around him (after having a silly discussion with someone about his favorite horror films to see his interest in the macabre), complete with quietly figuring out the whole deal with the monsters (they don't have eyes and have weird reactions to sound). The monster steals the show as you might expect, looking quite gooey and well-executed for the budget allotted to go along the spots used to really show just how much chaos can come from selective shots (remember that Dods wanted to do something different from just having a man in a suit and then look at those pincers). The ending is just as refreshing to see in offbeat closings, leading you on with one last shot of a monster that leaves the viewer satisfied. As a whole, it is a testament to having the right people at the right time to scrap together something worth watching in terms of interesting effects and a little bit of ingenuity for a worthwhile movie worth highlighting all these years later. With one shot to get it right, they sure got enough of the target for the people that love their creature features.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Suburbia (1983).

Review #2201: Suburbia.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: A Christmas Story.

Redux #020: A Christmas Story.

Cast: 

Peter Billingsley (Ralphie Parker), Jean Shepherd (Narrator), Ian Petrella (Randy Parker), Melinda Dillon (Mrs. Parker), Darren McGavin (Mr. Parker - The Old Man), Scott Schwartz (Flick), R. D. Robb (Schwartz), Zack Ward (Scut Farkus), Yano Anaya (Grover Dill), and Tedde Moore (Miss Shields) Directed by Bob Clark.

Review: 

From my review on December 25, 2010: 

This film, is a classic. it's a film that has decent acting (albeit with some overacting at points), a story that has many themes to go with it that connect into one (with some...fantasies by Ralphie) It's funny, but it can also be serious. It's a timeless classic that was once overlooked back in 1983, but it is now considered to be a classic in the Christmas spirit. Merry Christmas, and I hope you watch this film at least once this year, if not twice (as it's on a marathon right now...).

If you have not encountered this film on cable television or on the video shelves, it would be quite a curious achievement for a film that has grown in stature since its release in November of 1983, which is now forty years old. The making of the film was a long and lengthy process that really should start with Jean Shepherd and his unique place among the art of telling a narrative to others. Born in Chicago but raised in Hammond, Indiana, Shepherd had served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during the second World War before getting into radio that saw him move around various places such as Indiana and Ohio (there was also an attempt at late night television) before his most noted run came at WOR in the New York area, where he broadcasted for over two decades beginning in 1956. Somehow, with a timeslot of 1:00-5:30am, it all came together for those monologues (as opposed to playing music records). Probably his most notable stunt came with I, Libertine, a practical joke novel born in 1956 out of making fun of how bestseller lists were done (where people would just go to libraries and ask for it, complete with listing a publisher and a fake author name), which became such a noted phenomenon that an actual book was created (written by Theodore Sturgeon based on an outline by Shepherd). Shepherd kept busy even when not on radio all the time, whether that involved segment work, commentaries on other radio outlets / in magazine form / the college circuit, or, well, script work in television and this film. In 1966, Shepherd's novel In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash was published, which came about after Shel Silverstein had encouraged him to put his musings from tape into book form, which saw him help Shepherd with editing and developing. His musings were loosely inspired by experiences that aren't exactly autobiographical but are, well, ones that might seem real to you or me in the ways that matter - it was a hit book. A couple of Shepherd works had reached television (with him as narrator) before and after the release of this film, such as The Great American Fourth of July and Other Disasters (1982) for TV. Shepherd apparently envisioned the film as "Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge.” Shepherd, along with his wife Leigh Brown, wrote the film with Clark. The Louisiana native grew up in Alabama and Florida and had dabbled in philosophy and football before entering film in horror, such as with Black Christmas (1974). He had an interest in making a film of Shepherd's stories, but he couldn't get funding from MGM until the success of Porky's (1981). The film was done in Toronto for interiors and Cleveland for exteriors, but in that manner of low-budget films having to improvise, a lack of snow meant a variety of tricks used for snow, such as foam. You could watch the film in any one scene and feel right at home, whether that involves the reveal of that primal instinct coming out in going from tears to drawing blood in a fight or those imagined sequences of being a gunfighter or being blind from soap that isn't too different from the delusions one can find as an adult when it comes to assurances. 

The mundane things that make us who we are really do come into account for this film, one that runs for an efficient 94 minutes. Sure, it has the softening of nostalgia (as per Clark to the chagrin of Shepherd), but at the end of the day, we are weird little people every day of the year with our own little things to get hung up on, and such weirdness can be really funny to look at again and again. It was a modest success with audiences of the time, don't forget that part. But why do people like me come back to this film every now and then?  Shepherd once put it best: “Ah, life is like that. Sometimes at the height of our revelries, when our joy is at its zenith, when all is most right with the world, the most unthinkable disasters descend upon us.” One can be playing with their present and boom, something comes up to remind us that things will come and go the way you cannot control, holiday or not. Billingsley proves more than just a vessel for Shepherd to narrate the observations of memories past with his worthwhile timing that make for useful delight. It is a film for the kids and adults because it doesn't dawdle on BS'ing you about where things stand. There are no weak elements to the kid actors because they seep right into the story with no pretensions of being anything other than who they are: vessels to show us the weirdness of growing up in the pains and very few pleasures. Dillon and McGavin hold the film as the paragon of lovingly human people that hold it all together in that great connection of showing family in the clearest sense of making it work in spite of itself. Probably the best way to show that is in that fateful reveal of the last Christmas present where you see the faces of the two as Billingsley opens it (notice that through the previous parts of the film, McGavin's character never talks to Billingsley about a "Red Ryder BB Gun"). The film may seem like one all about the pursuit of an object, but really it is about who we are when it comes to the basic elements deep inside us, whether the calendar says December 25 or not. We lash out in those certain moments, we imagine others as witches or people to liberate with our perspective (hey, saving people with a "BB gun" or writing a theme isn't that too different), we try to do our job until we can start getting the shoes ready to head out, you get the picture. The film may be set in that time of the 1940s, but those desires and impulses are timeless and Clark knows what he can show in a film that doesn't stoop awkwardly in its perspectives. There are no dull moments shown here, and it is that tinge of bittersweet nostalgia that makes it all count in spite of whatever Shepherd may have thought of the whole thing. We connect with the material because there is a chunk of it in us more than we think it is. The films of the old in Christmas-flavoring like Miracle on 34th Street (1947) did their thing in holiday magic of belief, but this is a representation of holiday homespun honesty in the ideal way.

It was at the turn of the 1980s that Shepherd thought to drive an idea for a follow-up to this film. Perhaps it only made sense that he called it purely an exercise to try and make money, since he saw the following that was growing with rerun showings (i.e., royalties), which apparently saw a bunch of showings around the Thanksgiving season rather than just on Christmas Eve (1997 was when the whole tradition of Turner Broadcasting running it for 24 hours straight started, incidentally). My Summer Story (formerly referred to as It Runs in the Family) (1994) retained Clark as director and Shepherd as narrator, which is amusing considering that the two hadn't got along in the first film because of the incessant suggestions that Shepherd tried to give on set that led to Clark not allowing him to be there at all. The second Story film came and promptly died in little-run theaters. A Christmas Story Christmas, a film with a handful of returning cast members, was released in 2022 to a streaming service (gag). At any rate, the enduring element of the film that became more than just a low-budget sleeper is the everyday aspect that makes us chuckle in the holiday sense of the word. The item that one desires and the ways we toil in that wish (child or adult) is amusing when you really look at things, and it only makes sense that it has endured for generations as one to blare from the rooftops again and again. The inflections of mundane life and the odd nature of trying to look back at such things in life make for a great contradiction in the grand scheme of things that make an enduring winner that could only come from Clark and Shepherd in the best of ways.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Lonely Lady.

Review #2150: The Lonely Lady.

Cast: 

Pia Zadora (Jerilee Randall), Lloyd Bochner (Walter Thornton), Bibi Besch (Veronica Randall), Joseph Cali (Vincent Dacosta), Anthony Holland (Guy Jackson), Jared Martin (George Ballantine), Ray Liotta (Joe Heron), Kerry Shale (Walt Thornton, Jr), Sandra Dickinson (Nancy Day), Lou Hirsch (Bernie), Ed Bishop (Doctor Baker), and Shane Rimmer (Adolph Fannon) Directed by Peter Sasdy (#1159 - Taste the Blood of Dracula)

Review: 

I didn't have this film initially in mind for Turkey Week 4, you know. I thought to myself, hey, what was the next film adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's works after Valley of the Dolls (1967). Well, The Love Machine (1971) did seem like an idea, but I found my way to something that might as well be part of it all. The Lonely Lady was a novel released to stores in 1976 by the hands of Harold Robbins. He dedicated the book to Susann (who had died in 1974). Robbins was notable as a writer in his own right, of course; born and raised in New York to Jewish emigrants, he served in the U.S. Navy for a time before going on to work a variety of jobs that even included Universal Pictures. He started writing in 1948 and basically wrote melodramas for the rest of his life, which would see various film adaptations that went from King Creole (released in 1958, after changing the title from the book) to The Adventurers (1970) to The Betsy (1978). He was the kind of racy book writer that lived a life so colorful that had people such as Stephen King say didn't want to end up like him as a "nightmare". Needless to say, Robbins led a strange life that probably would've made for its own film, even if he liked to fib about his upbringing; he died at the age of 81 in 1997. And then there's Pia Zadora. Born in Hoboken, New Jersey to a violinist and wardrobe supervisor, she actually was an actor from a young age, which included what else but Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964). She later married Meshulam Riklis, who wanted to push her as an actress, complete with financing from his company. This would culminate in Butterfly (1982), a film that saw her get critical savaging and a "Newcomer" Golden Globe. Fake-Out (1982) isn't even remembered as the follow-up, because, well, the next one was this film. It all aligns together because Riklis helped out the logjam that Universal Pictures had when it came to doing a film based on that Robbins book that had stalled for years despite having Susan Blakely in mind to star. The eventual screenplay credit went to John Kershaw and Shawn Randall with a story credit for Ellen Shepard. Peter Sasdy never directed another theatrical film after this failure, which had the dubious honor of having an ad campaign lead by John J.B. Wilson, the guy behind the Golden Raspberry Awards who "liked" what he saw (Zadora apparently said that receiving a nomination but not winning would've been something she "hated" - take one guess how that worked out). Robbins called the film crap but liked the fact he received $600,000 before it opened.

I should mention that Zadora called the film a turkey upon release. She had one more star role in her with the B-flick sci-fi musical Voyage of the Rock Aliens (1984) and has since been more known for her musical career. It is kind of like watching a perverted cousin of The Oscar (1967), another film involving an awards ceremony setup (but that one had the actual Oscar statuette). It actually is a short film at 92 minutes, and if you avert your eyes as the ridiculous amount of sex scenes, it is even shorter, unless one really needed to see a guy shoot a pool ball at a naked woman on a table. I think the preening title song has the most life next to Zadora when it comes to such ridiculously lowkey acting around it all. Holland is probably the only "normal" person in the film, which includes plenty of perverts and lurid attempts at hard-hitting dialogue that has the impact of light cat scratching. Bochner and Cali might as well be mailing it in from downtown. Zadora may have been the target of criticism because, well, title character, but who could have helped this film? She really tries to show the trouble and toil that come with an industry that seems to value the body of a woman over a body of work and where it can lead someone to go down the road of shame. Of course, skin showing aside, there is nothing for anyone to grab on to because the dynamics of the film are skewed into lame soap opera with no sense of dignity or interest. For a "writer", you see exactly one line of dialogue that she suggests, which really can apply to dubious choices of any kind: "Why?". I can't tell what is most embarrassing in the opening sequence: Zadora supposed to be playing a high schooler among other near 30-somethings or, well, the garden hose moment. The fact that the particular sequence has Ray Liotta (a future member of being in even worse material than this) making his debut is probably a testament that if you can make it there, you can...escape to anywhere. The movie dives into the mud early, puts oil all over said mud and decides lighting a match would be better than the garden hose to top it off. Calling the film silly trash is actually a bigger joke than you think, because this is the kind of movie you show to someone who thought Valley of the Dolls lacked that cheesy factor. The closing sequence takes the cake for such empty dramatic heft that Zadora gamely tries to make stick, for better and certainly for worse. I especially like how she just leaves the ceremony to no one around, as if the film was about to hang itself in shame. The points that the film that stop one from going all "zero stars" is mostly on her shoulders, because the script and director failed her most of all. As a whole, it is a lurid and ridiculously terrible time to spend for all the reasons you would expect, but Zadora at least seems like she deserved better than the reviews of the time gave her. It isn't the worst of anything, but if you love some Hollywood trash, you have something to consider.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Once more on Turkey Week, let's consider some religion. The Left Behind (2014) kind.

Strange Brew.

Review #2088: Strange Brew.

Cast: 

Dave Thomas (Doug McKenzie), Rick Moranis (Bob McKenzie), Max von Sydow (Brewmeister Smith), Lynne Griffin (Pam Elsinore), Angus MacInnes (Jean "Rosie" LeRose), Paul Dooley (Uncle Claude), Brian McConnachie (Ted), Mel Blanc (Father McKenzie), Tom Harvey (The Inspector), and Douglas Campbell (Henry Green) Directed by Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis.

Review: 

There is something fascinating about watching an adaptation of TV material into a feature film, if you think about it. But there is something really fascinating about watching a film based on material that was originally created as a mockery that initially was a two-minute sketch. No, really. In 1980, Second City Television (SCTV), a TV show with a handful of members of the Toronto Second City troupe, was making its return to television for its third season after a momentary hiatus that saw it broadcast nationwide in Canada on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (with select syndication in America). In light of the fact that the Canadian rendition of the series would be two minutes longer due to less commercial content than the American rendition, the CBC requested that those two minutes be allocated to Canadian content material." When SCTV cast members Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis heard this, they asked, "Well what do you want us to do, put up a map of Canada and sit in front of it wearing toques and parkas and cook back-bacon and 'Talk like dis, eh'?" The answer was essentially, yes. As related by Thomas, these sketches would be done at the end of a production day with a minimal crew of three to basically try and get a couple of two-minute stuff they could improvise out of a filming hour, which they called "all very low key and stupid". To get a gauge on the segments, one of them involved "Twist-off Tops". Oddly enough, the segments first gained popularity within the American edition first, particularly when NBC picked up the show for network airing on Fridays in 1981. The result of "Bob and Doug" resulted in a comedy album (The Great White North) and this film, which essentially served as their finale. Of course, the two have reprised the roles for a handful of commercials (such as one against beer taxes in 2023), a "Two-Four Anniversary", and a loose inspiration (yes, in moose form) in the Brother Bear films (2003, 2006). Such is the popularity of the two is that they have their own statue in Edmonton (where a good chunk of SCTV was filmed).

The success of the album, combined with seeing John Candy get an offer to do a film (Going Berserk) inspired them to think about doing a film, which saw them hire Steve De Jarnatt to do a first draft, complete with asking him to use Hamlet as a "sort of springboard". The result was a script that went from agents to a deal with MGM in a flash despite the fact that Thomas and Moranis felt was going to need tinkering from them to make it more of their own voice. Jack Grossberg gave the two guidance as executive producer when the duo was unexpectedly asked to direct the film as well as star and write it. As a whole, you can see the efforts done by the two to make a goofy feature that seems just about at home with other films of its ilk in sketch-turned-films such as the earlier The Blues Brothers (1980) or the subsequent Wayne's World (1992). As someone who went on a lark to pick this one out for a spotlight (for a film that happened to turn 40 last month), I can say it is a lovingly silly feature that makes the most of two goofball leads packed into a story wrapped in the amount of foliage you would expect to hold up a number of gags that come around. Of course, I have to admit my surprise that Hamlet was the loose thread to build around, if only because we are talking about a film that involves mind control beer, heroic flying dogs, and ghosts that possess electrical outlets. The 90-minute runtime sees a good deal of rambling and entertainment from Moranis and Thomas, who seem to squeeze any and every trick in the book of bits to mine together for chuckles, which manages to give them both time to shine without seeing a crack in the jovially dense characterizations that stick in your head in inane interest. Of course, it helps to have a game supporting cast, for which von Sydow and Dooley make dependable heavies to go along with the proceedings that seemingly reward those already quite familiar with their presence (the former was a surprise recruitment because Thomas and Moranis didn't actually think MGM could get him and the latter is Paul Dooley, what more do you need?). Griffin and MacInnes round out the general cast with good balance to accompany the bumblers with mostly straight-man routine (of note is among the rest of the cast is one scene spent with the famed voice actor Mel Blanc). At any rate, the film holds its own with a jovial pace that has two distinct halves, one involving the duo showing a poorly received film before they come up with "this mouse was in my beer bottle" and the other one involving them stumbling onto a brewery going into the world domination business (and yes, a dead uncle intervention) that results in a good deal of offbeat amusement. It is a casually enjoyable Canadian film through and through for all the folks (and hosers) at home. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Review #2026: Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Cast: 

Opening sequence: Albert Brooks (the Driver), Dan Aykroyd (the Passenger), and Burgess Meredith (Narrator)

"Time Out": Vic Morrow (Bill Connor), Doug McGrath (Larry), and Charles Hallahan (Ray)

"Kick the Can": Scatman Crothers (Mr. Bloom), Bill Quinn (Leo Conroy), Martin Garner (Mr. Weinstein), Selma Diamond (Mrs. Weinstein), Helen Shaw (Mrs. Dempsey), and Murray Matheson (Mr. Agee)

"It's a Good Life": Kathleen Quinlan (Helen Foley), Jeremy Licht (Anthony), Kevin McCarthy (Uncle Walt), Patricia Barry (Mother), and William Schallert (Father)

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet": John Lithgow (John Valentine), Abbe Lane (Sr. Flight attendant), Donna Dixon (Jr. Flight attendant), John Dennis Johnston (Co-Pilot), and Larry Cedar (Gremlin)

Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, and #1718 - The Stupids), 

Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, and #2000 - Duel), 

Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch, #1744 - The Howling) 

and George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road)

Review:

The Twilight Zone, originally broadcast on CBS in 1959, is generally considered one of the best television shows of its time, if not one of the best ever. There were 156 episodes of the anthology series, with a good majority of them (92!) written by series creator (and presenter) Rod Serling. He had come up with the idea for an anthology series that would use its "science-fiction setting" to have more freedom to write what he felt. Technically, the show was not meant to be scary, but it just happened to have plenty of twists within a mostly consistent show. Providing a list of what episodes are the best seems futile, but here is a list of episodes that would be neat for one to check out if they want to see just what the show could do in its format (most are a half-hour long, minus the hour-long fourth season): "One for the Angels", "Walking Distance", "A Quality of Mercy", "Printer's Devil", and "One More Pallbearer" (one could also go for Serling's reported favorites in "The Invaders" and "Time Enough at Last"). Rod Serling had an interest in doing a Twilight Zone film for quite some time prior to his death in 1975. Various cast members that had appeared in an original episode appear in the film: Burgess Meredith, Patricia Barry, Peter Brocco, Murray Matheson, Kevin McCarthy, Bill Mumy, and William Schallert. The movie was marked by tragedy in the making of the first segment of the film due to an accident involving a helicopter crash during filming on July 23, 1982. Two children, Myca Dinh Le, Renee Shin-Yi Chen were hired to do a scene at night (under the table) that involved pyrotechnics and a helicopter. This resulted in an accident that saw the death of Morrow and the two children. Various people, which included Landis, were tried and ultimately acquitted on manslaughter charges in a trial that spanned 1986 and 1987. Of course, the tragedy as a whole sparked a movement for fire safety regulations and entertainment industry requirements, complete with a safety committee made by the Directors Guild of America about safety bulletins and a phone hotline. The film was released 40 years ago in June of 1983, and it was a mild success with audiences. It would inspire CBS (who had the rights to the show because Serling had sold it to them) to go forward with a second rendition of the show in 1985. After its end in 1989, two further shows came and went in the following decades (2002-2003 and 2019-2020). 

The opening segment (roughly eight minutes) features Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd in a car conversation that eventually talks about the show within the movie and the question of if one wants to see something "really scary"? It is, uh, a strange way to start a movie, mostly because when I think of Twilight Zone, I don't think, man suddenly finds a surprise in a car. But it is with two folks that I like, so there's that. Burgess Meredith, who appeared in classic episodes of the show such as "Time Enough at Last", introduces each story in narration, which is a nice tribute to Serling's previous method, although they do use Serling's voice for the ending as a whole. John Landis directed this sequence alongside the first segment in "Time Out". The segment, lasting roughly 18 minutes, involves a racist and resentful man that goes to a bar after being passed over for promotion that finds himself wrapped up in the past, more specifically places such as Nazi-occupied France, a racist Klan rally, or in Vietnam. Evidently, the segment is a mishmash of the classic stories "Back There" (namely the time travel) and "A Quality of Mercy", with the writer being none other than Landis.  The original scripted idea obviously couldn't be completed due to the tragedy that occurred, which apparently was meant to have a resolution that would've tried to find redemption for the racist that saw him try to help two children out of a helicopter attack in a Vietnamese swamp. Instead, it ends on him going through a frenzy of terrifying events before being sent off by a train despite yelling out to his friends that he can see out of the slats. As such, the story is mild because it requires a bit more bite than what is required to either reach a payoff of redemption...or the opposite, and a segment that doesn't even last the time of an actual TV episode isn't going to cut it. As such, Morrow is essentially trapped in a segment with an unavoidable pall over the entire thing, but you can see the glimmer in one part of the diner scene. There he is, blithering around with a dirty mouth, and for a moment you can see him for what he is beyond the epithets: a loser who really thought the world owed him one because of what he looks and sounds like "as an American". Intended redemption or not, there obviously was something that could've been done here beyond what you know.

"Kick the Can" (lasting roughly 21 minutes) is based on the third season episode of the same name originally written by George Clayton Johnson. The segment screenplay was written by Johnson, Richard Matheson, and Melissa Mathison. It was directed by Steven Spielberg. Apparently, he had plans for an ambitious segment before the helicopter tragedy led to him curtailing plans...for a remake of an episode that I honestly can't remember watching to begin with beyond the phrase "old people get young". It has been rumored that Spielberg, under contract but having lost the heart for the project due to the tragedy, made only a half-hearted effort here. All of this is meant to subside the actual thoughts of the story about "the day we stop playing is the day we start getting old", which I vaguely remember seeing in my neighborhood park when I was a kid. If the Landis segment could be thought of as perhaps a bit too short, the Spielberg segment can be best described as half-brained and half-effective. I can't tell what is more annoying, its cloying sense of "cheer" for such an average effort, or the very rumor of Spielberg half-assing a story just to get out of a dilemma. Crothers actually does provide a decent performance here, pulling some of the mysterious requirements necessary to make a story telegraphed to us in every step of the way not nearly as painful as it could be, and Quinn is at least a quality foil the basic arguments made involving the inevitability of age. By the time the segment gets to the ultimate decision made, the lesson put there is at least one that isn't sapped of hokum...and then of course Crothers does a fourth wall bit before leaving. As a whole, it's just an okay segment, one that makes you wonder if being the "light segment" of the film is really a compliment.

"It's a Good Life" (roughly 27 minutes long) is loosely based off the third season episode of the same name (as written by Serling that was based on a short story by Jerome Bixby). Matheson wrote the screenplay for this segment (which Serling had discussed prior to his death as writing a draft to make into a film), with Joe Dante serving as director. The story involves a lady schoolteacher finding the company of a young boy at a rural diner when she helps him after he is accosted only to then accidently back her car into his bike. She gives him a ride home and meets the rest of his family, who all seem nice. Heck, I like Kevin McCarthy, what could go wrong with his character presence? Despite having quite a hill to climb in trying to remake one of the most famous Zone episodes, Dante has provided something special here: an off-beat and weird segment that seems to take you on a trip of not just sight and sound but of mind. It is a delightful and deranged segment, headlined by a useful cast. I of course dig the presences around the supporting folks like McCarthy, ever the panicky one in trying to keep appearances as essentially the elder statesmen of character presences here, made clear when he tries to figure just how a magic trick with an imaginative boy is going to go. Quinlan and Lichy make quite an effective pairing in the realm of dealing with such a funhouse of creativity that invites a tragic quality not present in the earlier adaptation (of course, since this adaptation uses an eight-year-old rather than a six-year-old, why not?), which seems like a suitable twist. It's a neat story as a whole.

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (22 minutes) is a remake of the story of the same name (based on the short story by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the screenplay for this segment) that had premiered in the fifth season of the show, which I'm sure you remember had William Shatner as star. George Miller serves as director here. The key change is to the circumstances of the man in the predicament of seeing a gremlin on the plane he is flying in: the TV episode had him travel with his wife after just spending time in a sanitarium while the film features a man with a fear of flying traveling alone. The segment is all about the tension that comes with what you know of the person observing a nightmare right in front of their eyes that obviously could be just our nightmare too: what if you saw something that no one could see that could lead to your death? The gremlin costume is the biggest evident difference in adaptation, mainly because it actually looks quite spooky in the moments it is seen in the dark rainy night, which only add to the fear portrayed excellently by Lithgow. This segment is probably the one that hews closest to the original spirit of the TV episode, which either makes it the best segment of the film or a pretty close second and one can't go wrong there. The movie begins and ends with the same man asking if one wants to see something really scary. Friends of anthologies with varying quality such as O. Henry's Full House (1952) or Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965) will be just fine with this movie, one that will have enough peaks and lows to make the 101-minute runtime seem useful to perhaps step further into the realm of the Twilight Zone and see just how fun anthology can be in the right hands.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.

Warrior of the Lost World.

Review #1929: Warrior of the Lost World.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Sudden Impact.

Review #1757: Sudden Impact.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.