Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

Review #2523: Invasion U.S.A.

 

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (CIA Agent Matt Hunter), Richard Lynch (Mikhail Rostov), Melissa Prophet (Dahlia McGuire), Alexander Zale (Nikko Kador), Alex Colon (Tomas Montoya), Eddie Jones (FBI Agent-In-Charge Marvin Cassidy), Jon DeVries (FBI Agent Frank Johnston), James O'Sullivan (FBI Agent Fred Harper), Billy Drago (Mickey Seidman), Jaime Sánchez (Luis Castillo), and Dehl Berti (John Eagle) Directed by Joseph Zito (#2202 - Missing in Action)

Review: 

Admittedly, Chuck Norris and Cannon Films were a match made for the cheesy action fan in all of us. Oh sure, the Missing in Action movies (which started in 1984) didn't exactly rock the world in originality or general tone consistency, but they made some money so screw it, let's go all the way with a whole line of Norris movies with the company (in fairness, there were a few curious ones I haven't got to up to 1985, such as his work with Andrew Davis on Code of Silence). Apparently, Norris had the original idea for the film because he read an article in Reader's Digest that said hundreds of terrorists were around loose in America. Norris wrote the screenplay with James Bruner while his brother Aaron co-wrote the story with Bruner. According to Norris, he had Whoopi Goldberg (who at the time had a noted one-woman show) in mind to play the journalist role but he was overruled by Zito (Norris proceeded to never work with Zito ever again). With a budget of $12 million (which they used to do such scenes as going to the Everglades and blow-up actual neighborhoods scheduled for demolition), the movie was a solid enough hit for Cannon and company. The film at one point in time was among the highest-selling home video put out by MGM. Avenging Force (1986) was originally envisioned as a sequel before Norris turned it down, which opened the door for Michael Dudikoff to play a different "Matt Hunter". 

Well, if you can roll off the line around the same time as Rambo: First Blood Part II for Missing in Action, screw it, why not roll off the line from a different-but-totally not similar movie with Red Dawn (1984). But hey, I don't really care that much about movies that may or may not crib from adjacent movies as long as one is having fun with the material. Unfortunately, Zito hasn't really improved much, if any, from his attempts to garner drama with the aforementioned Missing film that resulted in hokey cheese, which is astounding when the film at least has the semblance of a worthy adversary this time around. The movie is the type of red meat for both people who love to see movies in the most good-vs-evil way possible and those who like to poke a few holes at the absurdity of action movies that take themselves so seriously. This is the kind of movie that shows neighborhoods in Christmastime getting blasted with rocket-launchers and people getting roughed up when trying to do cocaine only to soon get thrown into a window*. I wonder if people from Florida would regard it as "peak Florida experience" (okay the movie was also filmed in the greater Atlanta area, but still). Norris seems to only make an emotive gesture when there's a full moon, but even calling him a student of the "Clint Eastwood School of Acting" sounds a bit absurd when you consider that there aren't even that many kicks for him to do this time, mainly because he doesn't even bother with trying to have chemistry with anyone else in the film, he just maneuvers around with stunts and guns as if he really was the predecessor to Neil Breen. Lynch is charmingly hammy in a way that benefits the film more than if it was just lazy cardboard or understated, at least for a movie that has the guts to have a dream sequence of the lead characters in the first hour. You just need a bit of chaos, really. The rest of the folks (such as Prophet, who at least isn't written to try to have a romance with our wooden lead but mostly goes around with a camera saying wisecracks) are basically ho-hum for a movie that doesn't exactly present itself well in the whole "the streets are rioting because of the terrorists thing". If you know what you are getting into for 107 minutes in terms of sheer audacity, you might have a curious time with this movie. I can't give it a positive rating (that's the whole point of a 6/10), but I can't exactly hate its entertainment value in terms of what it thinks you want from action and, well, a battle of good vs. evil. What could go wrong?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*You gotta love the special thanks note in the credits, which lists the ones you might expect, like the Georgia Army National Guard or Nissan Motors (I guess getting blown up is good business for a car company), and, um, Phyillis Diller and Merv Griffin Enterprises.

Silver Bullet.

Review #2451: Silver Bullet.

Cast: 

Gary Busey (Uncle Red), Everett McGill (Reverend Lester Lowe), Corey Haim (Marty Coslaw), Megan Follows (Jane Coslaw), Terry O'Quinn (Sheriff Joe Haller), Bill Smitrovich (Andy Fairton), Robin Groves (Nan Coslaw), Leon Russom (Bob Coslaw), Lawrence Tierney (Owen Knopfler), Kent Broadhurst (Herb Kincaid), Heather Simmons (Tammy Sturmfuller), James A. Baffico (Milt Sturmfuller), James Gammon (Arnie Westrum), and Tovah Feldshuh (Narrator) Directed by Dan Attias.

Review:

It does seem prudent to cover a movie based on a Stephen King work for the holiday season. The movie is based on the horror novella Cycle of the Werewolf, which had been published in 1983 because the original intent of doing a calendar (as illustrated by Bernie Wrightston) with vignettes by King just didn't seem feasible. Making a movie apparently was a quick decision for none other than Dino De Laurentiis for Paramount distribution that was filmed in North Carolina over the span of a few months in late 1984; this was the second of two screenplays King wrote for adaptations of his work that were released in 1985, with Cat's Eye being the other one. Apparently, the design of the werewolf was contentious in production between King, who wanted it to be plain for Carlo Rambaldi (known for his award-winning work on King Kong [1976], Alien [1979], and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial [1982]) to design, and de Laurentiis, who wanted a change, apparently because it looked like a bear. Then they had debate over the performance of the stunts between the hired dance actor...and just having McGill do it. This was the first and so far, only film directed by Dan Attias, who apparently took over the film from a departing Don Coscarelli. He has continued to direct, however, doing episodes for countless TV shows ranging from Miami Vice to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Released in October of 1985 with a budget of $7 million, the movie was not a big success at the time with audiences*.

Apparently, some people took the movie as a comedy (Roger Ebert called it "either the worst movie ever made from a Stephen King story, or the funniest"), because it apparently wasn't exactly a scary yarn. But I thought it was just a neat yarn anyway, engaging in the weird bits that come around in "ordinary" life, namely that really anybody can be a jerk. The movie is narrated by the older version of a sister (this takes place in 1976 so either the narrator [37-year old Feldshuh] is telling this from a very distant future or she aged really badly) that can't help but be annoyed at her brother (the title is two-fold: the silver bullet is both the weapon of choice at the end and the name of the high-powered wheelchair/motorcycle and no I'm not joking). Eventually, the movie gets interesting because of Gary Busey showing up, particularly when he makes an actual wheelchair/motorcycle (when your movie is 95 minutes long, damn the torpedoes, bring up the chair). Of course, this is after the townspeople get themselves into a mob to try and attack the creature that ends up with them being fogged out (including one guy who thought bringing a bat from his bar was going to be the problem-solver). Apparently, Busey was allowed to ad-lib his lines at times because the filmmakers liked what they heard from a guy who, well, was being played by Gary Busey (before the accident, and, well, yea). And he pretty much saves the movie from what could've easily been a family mush-fest because of his entertaining qualities that arise in eccentric nature built on love for the family he cares about the most that could've easily just have been an oaf (besides, I think we know alcoholics in real life that are just straight losers* as opposed to the lovable one presented here). He wants to do right by his nephew and niece and damn it, he makes me smile when he tries to play skeptic to the whole wolf thing. The eccentric-turned-reluctant hero could've easily been the whole movie at the hands of Busey, if you think about it. That's not to say that Haim and Follows aren't great, because they do at least sell the troubles that arise in being a youth in a world that looks stranger and stranger as the years get older, particularly when a wolf happens to be around (to say nothing of their first idea together in what to do about the wolf: send letters that basically say "sir, we know who you are, kill yourself!" - okay maybe that was meant to be funny on purpose). You don't exactly get the most prominent supporting cast beyond a scene or two, but they prove serviceable, mostly with McGill and his pained attempts to justify just who he is (okay maybe the movie could make it a little less obvious who the wolf is, but hey). I don't see the problem with the werewolf design. It's a mythological creature that goes around tearing people apart, the bar is not exactly that high for me to think "oh, a beast". Sure, there are better-looking wolves in other movies (An American Werewolf in London), but calling it a werebear doesn't really tell the whole story, and besides, I kind of like looking at it, particularly since a good chunk of the time is spent seeing it with one eye. Admittedly, the climax does stretch itself a bit to really justify everything that happens (i.e. housebound with, well, one bullet to use), but I think it works itself out in that strangely sweet type of way that reminds you that in the ordinary things of life, you can find weird things to box you in or find ways to connect with people to confront said thing. Or something, because this was a strange movie to ultimately see play out, but I was never bored with it, so I'd call it a win. Maybe it wasn't a scary movie, but older movies got away with the same amount of stuff anyway. As a whole, it is a goofy but earnest little film to seek out for those who like strange execution in family-bound stories or wolf movies beyond the usual suspects, and a movie that has just turned four decades old seems like a good place to start.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*At least Attias was willing to be interviewed about the movie. Didn't have the time to check it out, but I'm sure it has some insight - Silver Bullet! Interview with movie Director Dan Attias #stephenking #silverbullet

*There are alcoholics out there, I imagine, that are annoying as hell when not drunk.

Fright Night (1985).

Review #2446: Fright Night.

Cast: 

Chris Sarandon (Jerry Dandrige), William Ragsdale (Charley Brewster), Roddy McDowall (Peter Vincent), Amanda Bearse (Amy Peterson), Stephen Geoffreys (Edward "Evil Ed" Thompson), Jonathan Stark (Billy Cole), Dorothy Fielding (Judy Brewster), Art Evans (Detective Lennox), Stewart Stern (Cook), Robert Corff (Jonathan), and Pamela Brown (Miss Nina) Written and Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner, #1003 - Child's Play)

Review: 

“The story of Fright Night was very specific. It’s about a teenage horror movie fan who becomes convinced the neighbor next door is a vampire. OK? That was me. And I was writing about the movies that I loved when I was 15, 16, 17, and they were the AIP and Hammer Horror films, which starred Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price... that’s how you get Peter Vincent, the horror movie host. And so I was writing about myself and my growing up. And I thought the story was so strong and had such human values, especially in the person of Peter Vincent, the Roddy McDowall character... the story was strong, and the vampires were right for that.”

Sure, let's feature a Tom Holland movie. As one might wonder, the Poughkeepsie native attended Northwestern University for theater before going to and later graduating from UCLA. He wasn't too keen on acting but took the time to train at the Actors Studio and appeared in a handful of guest roles on TV and film. Around that time, he became friends with Stewart Stern, who influenced him to try writing. He went back to UCLA to study law but found the itch from writing to be too much to bear. His first screenwriting credit was the TV film "The Initiation of Sarah" in 1978 before becoming a film writer with the adaptation of The Beast Within in 1982. Other scripts followed, such as the story for Class of 1984 (1982), which was then followed with being hired to write Psycho II (1983), and lastly was Cloak & Dagger (1984)*. The premise that became Fright Night arose during the writer of Cloak that became tempting to direct himself when he saw the results of Michael Winner's direction for his script Scream for Help (1984). Despite not having a completely wide release from Columbia Pictures in August 1985, the movie was a qualified success with audiences. In total, Holland directed five further movies as a director, although because he was busy with Child's Play (1988), he could not be involved with Fright Night Part 2 (1988), which had Ragsdale and McDowall return to their roles. A remake of Fright Night (which relocated it to Las Vegas with a stage magician that may be an expert on vampires) came around in 2011.

There was a sea of vampire movies in its era that ranged from The Hunger (1983) to Lifeforce (1985) to, well, The Lost Boys (1987), but Fright Night does manage to stick out for itself pretty well because of its enthusiasm. Sure, the slasher was making the rounds for what audiences were going with in its time, but it didn't mean you were going to be lacking at least one movie to cut straight from the heart in playing to familiar comforts. The playful rendition of "Boy Who Played Wolf", combined with some worthwhile effects, does make for a pretty good time for those in the mood for it. You get vampires that can deal in wolf form and/or mist to go with the general tone of menace in baring fangs but in the suburbs to go along with having a vampire killer that actually isn't just the usual authority on the matter. It takes time for Ragsdale to get comfortable in the role, but he does spring a few bits of humor in what comes from actually being right in what his eyes see rather than just cloying, although it helps to have chuckles when paired with Bearse or Geoffreys. It is interesting that the part played by McDowell was basically a homage to the great Vincent Price, mostly because I would assume there was tiny bit of influence in Boris Karloff (okay well the character is also named after Peter Cushing, the vampire hunter actor for all time), who actually did host a TV show about horror (specifically, Thriller back in 1960-62)*. But McDowall aimed to played it as if the character was an old ham actor rather than just being a pastiche of Price (who while approached for the role was winding down from taking horror roles). He basically becomes the heart of the movie with the humor that comes from playing it to the ego required of flipping the usual authority with engaging conviction. Sarandon does make for a solid adversary though, managing to draw the power necessary in icy charm that could swoop in and out from sight in a suburb without becoming a hammy threat to wash away. The sequence near the climax involving him, Ragsdale and Bearse has a special curiosity to it in just seeing how seriously Holland wants to make the plight of someone being correct about vampires being among people and being powerless in that moment. The effects (as led by the team that had just done Ghostbusters [1984]) benefit the film particularly well in reminding one of just how entertaining it can be to look at vampires out in the open. As a whole, the movie eventually finds its footing by the time its 106-minute runtime is over due to its various charms that come off as affectionate rather than just being a failed homage. To put it mildly, it has the vibes worth watching for the spooky season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, Cloak and Dagger was inspired by the short story "The Boy Cried Murder", which had been adapted into a film a few times over.

*I wonder if there is a tiny bit of inspiration that was cribbed from Targets (1968), a movie where Karloff plays a disillusioned horror actor who actually gets confronted with real terror and, well, strikes it down.

The Bride (1985).

Review #2439: The Bride (1985)

Cast: 

Sting (Baron Charles Frankenstein), David Rappaport (Rinaldo), Jennifer Beals (Eva), Clancy Brown (Viktor, the Monster), Geraldine Page (Mrs. Baumann), Anthony Higgins (Clerval), Alexei Sayle (Magar), Veruschka von Lehndorff (Countess), Quentin Crisp (Dr. Zalhus), Cary Elwes (Captain Josef Schoden), Phil Daniels (Bela), and Timothy Spall (Paulus) Directed by Franc Roddam.

Review: 

Admittedly, this movie had been on the ledger for quite a few months, mostly because one can only look over a Frankenstein film once in a while. The 1980s though, were not exactly a great time for movies with Frankenstein being an inspiration, as evidenced by Frankenstein Island (1981), The Vindicator (1986), or, well, The Monster Squad (1987). And then you have The Bride. The movie was directed by Franc Roddam, who went from London Film School to film directing with Quadrophenia (1979). Sting, best known at the time for his work with, well, The Police, had made his debut as an actor with the Quadrophenia film. Beals was best known for Flashdance (1983), which she filmed as a student at Yale University (The Bride was done on summer break and she graduated in 1987).  The movie was written by Lloyd Fonvielle, who had co-written the adaptation of The Lords of Discipline (1983), which Roddam directed. Interestingly, Roddam later created the worldwide sensation MasterChef. No, really.

The movie practically nosedives once you realize that yes, it is going to keep jumping between the narratives of Beals/Sting and Rappaport/Brown. Yes, the movie called "The Bride" really could've just been called "Frankenstein and the Circus", particularly since it becomes apparent that Beals is playing the title character but barely moves forward in terms of "interesting developments". Sure, you can say there is supposed to be something interesting in viewing what happens when you try to tell the story of a woman who learns to think for herself beyond just being groomed by a man to be in his image (remember that he tells folks she got found after an accident). Instead, it just comes off as something to chuckle at when you see a scene of her trying to be in respectable company and she starts hissing at a cat. The "psychic connection" that is suggested to be with Beals/Brown doesn't exactly help matters, coming off as someone having a bit too many shots of whiskey. If the Beals scenes are a drywall version of Pygmalion, the Brown sequences might as well have come from the land of Dumbo. At any rate, there is just something about Sting's performance that seems to desire a more experienced actor despite his decent attempt at playing a grand old hypocrite (or basically, an Internet "male feminist"). Even when one knows he is playing "Henry" Frankenstein, it still feels like one is chasing down Peter Cushing in a futile effort (incidentally, Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), the only one of the Hammer films involving creatures and women, was better). It is a hell of a thing to look like you are about to do a music video when trying to aim for "strange genius". There is an odd feeling one gets when watching Beals because you almost feel there is something really worthwhile to say about a woman created from lightning that finds more to life than what a "creator" says. Instead, she just gets lost in the shuffle, she doesn't really get her own highlight to be anything other than the lady who hisses at cats and gets cut off for the circus (don't even get me started on the brief sequence of nudity, what the hell is that all about?). This was one of the early roles for Elwes, and he just wanders in and out of the film with little damage to credibility (seriously, he wanders out of the movie just...because). 

Rappaport* does have a smarmy charm to make what probably could've been its own interesting tragedy or something else when you consider the bond that comes with misfits of all shapes and sizes. Brown gets a bit lost in the makeup, but he makes a quality imposing presence that you almost wish he was the one getting key billing. You wish there was a movie of Beals and Brown there, because the damn movie just ends abruptly (complete with a voiceover about following one's heart, as if this was an advertisement for coffee). There are a few supporting names that might be familiar, such as a 76-year-old "raconteur" in Crisp or a youthful Spall, who naturally are killed off in the opening lab sequence, which at least seemed like a scene worth highlighting for having lights and lightning that seem cool to think about before the inevitable. There just isn't passion to be found, it all feels like dinner theater Gothic horror, particularly when you grimace at the fact that 119 minutes can in fact feel like nothing has actually happened in the film beyond reminding you that even a scene throwing a dude off a building can make you roll your eyes. I'm not mad at the movie, just disappointed even with such low expectations (imagine how it must have felt in 1985, and this was for a movie that made less than $4 million*). A 6/10 implies a nearly-there experience, a 5/10 is the proper rating for a middle-of-the-road movie that is too lame to be a near-miss. As a whole, the movie is a failure in the parts that matter most: sure, it looks nice at times and it has a few interesting chuckles with Rappaport and Brown, but the film never has conviction in making you care about Beals or where the movie will end up and it has the tone of a Hallmark greeting card rather than actual Gothic horror. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*It was made for roughly $14 million. God, could you imagine if The Bride! (made for reportedly $80 million scheduled for release 2026) is bad? If it is good, sure, cool. The trailer did not do many favors but I would desire a tiny trainwreck if possible.

*This actually was Rappaport's penultimate film appearance, having appeared in ten total movies from 1973 to 1989, most notably with Time Bandits (1981). He committed suicide in 1990, dying at the age of 38.

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.

Missing in Action 2: The Beginning.

Review #2389: Missing in Action 2: The Beginning.

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (Colonel James Thomas Braddock), Soon-Tek Oh (Colonel Yin), Steven Williams (Captain David Nester), Bennett Ohta (Captain Ho), Cosie Costa (Lieutenant Anthony Mazilli), Joe Michael Terry (Corporal Lawrence Opelka), Christopher Cary (Emerson), John Wesley (Master Sergeant Ernest Franklin), David Chung (Dou Chou), and Professor Toru Tanaka (Lao) Directed by Lance Hool.

Review: 

You might remember that with Missing in Action (1984), there were two movies done back-to-back about a man trapped in a North Vietnamese POW camp that eventually broke out from there and years later traveled with an investigation team wondering if there was any US soldier still out there. Well, the movie about the man going back to the jungle somehow seemed more commercially appealing than the movie about being in a POW camp, so with the planned first movie, they simply just named it "The Beginning". The script for this film (made for roughly over $2 million) was written by Arthur Silver, Larry Levinson, and Steve Bing. This actually was the directorial debut of Lance Hool, who had served as producer on films such as Wolf Lake (1979) and The Evil That Men Do (1984) while spending many years in the Mexican film industry. Hool has sticked mostly to producing movies, but he has directed three other movies as well, with the latest one being 2 Hearts [2020]. Chuck Norris once stated that his films "do deal with certain positive things", believing that people went to see them because of the feel-good endings and stating that one great thrill of his life was hearing people applaud at the end of Missing in Action (1984); he participated in those movies as a tribute to his brother Wieland and also remarked that Vietnam "was a tragic mistake. If you don't want to win the battle, don't get involved.'' Four years later, with a script written by James Bruner and Chuck Norris with direction by his brother Aaron, Braddock: Missing in Action III came out from Cannon Films, complete with yet another different supporting cast around its star.

You would think a movie where Norris has to at least sell the perils of being trapped in a POW camp (with a 95-minute runtime) would be an interesting prospect to set up a tense experience before the inevitable climax. But all you get here is just a movie too wrapped in flat routines. It's not enough for a POW camp to have a guy leading the way in sadistic torture, complete with an actual (dead) rat used in one scene with a bag, no he also grows opium for a side hustle in drugs too. You might say that a good deal of action movies has routines they have to live by, but some of them at least have the energy to back up any audacious moments. Here, you have a movie that is probably only truly interesting with a scene involving, well, a rat. John Wayne impersonation or not, Norris is just too stoic here, somehow having as little personality as possible. Oh may have some of the smug and sadistic qualities needed for an adversary this film desperately requires, but there is still something so hollow in the writing beyond what you might see from the old-fashioned exploitation films of yesteryear. Hell, probably the one thing that sticks out from him is that he and the villain have a fistfight at the end because they share the same rationale of "nah, I can't just shoot him, I must beat him head-on" before the ending decides that, wait, you gotta blow him up too just for good measure. Williams probably is the highlight among most (if not all) of the cast*, mainly because his struggle with his own surroundings as one with the illusion of freedom, but it can only go so far with such few scenes (one being a fistfight, naturally) that it almost seems pointless. The time spent in captivity might be interesting to those who probably thought The Deer Hunter (1978) was too subtle. The movie may believe it has the energy and commitment to have its first half of misery follow with the action-packed climax mesh well together, but it really just comes off as a puddle. I called the other Missing in Action "an action cheese fest", but at least it had gall to set forth on that goal. In general, the movie is probably best serviceable for those who cared about the first film, whether that is the dull sense of the word or not, but this is a movie made on the cheap that really needed fleshing out, because the end result is just too cardboard in its one-sided goals to rise above D-grade entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*Tanaka (Charles J. Kalani Jr) was actually a boxer-turned-wrestler-turned-actor and he barely has anything to do besides be the heavy. Incidentally, four of the main ten cast members of the film don't even have Wikipedia pages.

Legend (1985).

Review #2385: Legend (1985).

Cast:  

Tom Cruise (Jack), Mia Sara (Lili), Tim Curry (Darkness), David Bennent (Honeythorn Gump; voiced by Alice Playten), Alice Playten (Blix), Billy Barty (Screwball), Cork Hubbert (Brown Tom), Peter O'Farrell (Pox), Kiran Shah (Blunder), Tina Martin (Nell), Robert Picardo (Meg Mucklebones), and Annabelle Lanyon (Oona) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, #1076 - Thelma & Louise, #1524 - Gladiator, #1879 - The Last Duel)

Review: 

"I could have taken this script and gone two ways. One would have been dark and Celtic, which would have limited it. The other was the Disney route, and as I made Legend primarily for children, my children to be precise, that’s the avenue I pursued. Having visual references to Snow White, Fantasia and especially Pinocchio were clear cut decisions by me."

Once upon a time, you really could just flop around with a fantasy movie. Ridley Scott's fourth feature film was a dark fantasy movie that he had been cultivating for years. He actually conceived the idea when filming The Duellists (1977) because his plans to do a movie on the medieval legend Tristan & Isolde fell through. However, he went with doing Alien (1979) because of his belief in a lack of audience appeal for Legend. After his time spent developing Dune saw him drop out, Scott went back to that fairy tale project that took inspirations from the Brothers Grimm. Scott met American novelist William Hjortsberg (writer of books such as Falling Angel [1978] and one other screenplay with Thunder and Lightning [1977]). and interested him into writing a fairy tale. Their shared appreciation of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946) based their working relationship. The script was worked out from a rough storyline by 1981 into further revisions over the years before shooting began in 1984. There exist three cuts (complete with modified endings) of the movie because of audience perceptions. The first cut was 125 minutes long before Scott trimmed it to 113 minutes long for testing in America....that was apparently too long for folks to be entertained by, which saw over 20 minutes trimmed (such as the clockmaker's cottage sequence) to go with replacing the music score by Jerry Goldsmith for music by Tangerine Dream, Jon Anderson, and Bryan Ferry. International audiences in 1985 saw a 93-minute film while American audiences in 1986 saw an 89-minute film that was a flop with audiences, but at least Rob Bottin got an Academy Award nomination for his makeup on the film. In 2002, home video saw the release of a 113-minute Director's Cut that restored cut sequences and the Goldsmith score (which is what I saw; also, for whatever reason, there is a site detailing the road to getting the DVD there). Scott never has returned to the world of fantasy since, although obviously he continued directing, with his next movie being Someone to Watch Over Me (1987).

Part of me can't help but wonder why I found this to be a very, very, very average movie to experience despite the visual interest. For what it's worth, you are reading words from someone who had to look back to recall that I seemed to like Krull (1983) a bit better than Willow (1988). With Legend, you get a bit of a fever dream. It takes a hell of time to really get going but is at least held up with one notable presence to make its strange whims worth a trip, mainly because I can't find myself hating where it all ended up. It goes to the inevitable places that come with big red creatures and attempts at showing an adventure of light and darkness that may very well be fascinating for all of the right and wrong reasons possible, whether one finds themselves in the cult classic argument or not. Is it too murky? Maybe, but I go with murky. It's funny to cast two actors on dueling sides of getting to be known better. You've got Cruise just two years removed from Risky Business [1983] while Sara (five years younger than Cruise, I might add) made her debut before appearing in Ferris Bueller's Day Off [1986]...and then there's Curry being cast because of his film and theatrical experience.* Cruise is probably a bit too green to really make this role anything more than a middling hero (apparently it inspired him to suggest input for his next project with Top Gun [1986]), but his shakiness is somewhat palatable to watch. Sara fares better, mostly because she gets to play with the definition of innocence with the whole other getup worn around the climax. Sure, the chemistry between the two leads is shaky, but we are talking about folks in a strange unnamed land that go around throwing rings in water. I cannot imagine the time spent wearing makeup and iron frame lifts for Curry. But it sure seemed worth it with such a tremendous presence captured here. He oozes a certain type of devilish curiosity that really does seduce one into finding solace in shadows that makes the best type of threat: booming and a great threat in the eyes of eternity. It is kind of curious to have one person voice two characters (Bennent was dubbed over because of his accent), but I like the distinct levels of mischief played in voice/physical performance anyways, so I guess they got me there to accept that one talks in a handful of rhymes. Well, at least the movie is sometimes funny with people such as Barty and Picardo, at least. Its buildup to the big finish (well, a finish, because light, darkness, yeah, get it?) proves to be worth the journey in fun, and saying "oh but the cliche of good vs. evil" seems easy to then say "hey, I like some of those good defeating evil movies". In the end, it basically is the kind of movie you either "hum" with or you just let go by the wayside, but it has a sort of energy to me that I liked enough to accept on its own terms and find worthy to recommend with an open mind, at least.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, at least one good thing came from the overrated The Rocky Horror Picture Show, because Scott watched the movie in thinking about casting Richard O'Brien to play the role later played by Robert Picardo. Also, did I miss anything in the last three weeks?

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Review #2215: Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Cast: 

Mel Gibson (Mad Max), Tina Turner (Aunty Entity), Bruce Spence (Jedediah), Adam Cockburn (Jedediah Jr), Frank Thring (The Collector), Angelo Rossitto (The Master), Paul Larsson (The Blaster), Angry Anderson (Ironbar), Robert Grubb (Pig Killer), George Spartels (Blackfinger), Edwin Hodgeman (Dr. Dealgood), and Bob Hornery (Waterseller) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) and George Ogilvie.

Review: 

"It, in a way of all the films, it’s the one I have most affection for of the three films. Even though most people wouldn’t agree. I realise looking back on it that we almost took on too much story. We told about three, two or three different worlds, trying to struggle … juggle all those things together. So that’s what led to the third story. It’s just … the third film. It’s just the story came along."

In 1979, Mad Max came out with such visceral power that could only come from someone with a dedicated eye to make an involving film, as set out by director/co-writer George Miller and producer Byron Kennedy (who also served as a co-writer with James McCausland). He had studied and had served as a doctor in his native Australia before he was a director, you know. It probably won't surprise you to know that the original idea for what became the third film was actually sprung out of a suggestion made when it was just an offshoot post-apocalyptic film about a tribe of children found by an adult that, well, is what you see in the second half of the film (naturally those familiar with the Lord of the Flies novel would know what I mean); Miller and Terry Hayes, who wrote the last film together, wrote for this one. This was the first of the series made without Kennedy involved, as he died in a helicopter accident in 1983. Miller, already in the ideas of making the third film, decided to move past his reluctance and made it basically as a way to "just to get over the shock and grief of all of that", which in turn saw him bring in George Ogilvie as a co-director. For the most part, Miller and Ogilvie were together during production, as opposed to say, directing separately. This was the feature film debut for Ogilvie, who had worked as both actor and director in the theatre and television since growing up in New South Wales in Australia. He directed three further feature films but was busier with television (such as miniseries) before he died in 2020 at the age of 89. The film was the last Mad Max film (Miller never thought of it as a franchise or envisioned it as such) for three decades, although the idea behind what became Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) had been first thought about since 1987 as "almost a continuous chase".

I wish I liked the film better, I really do. It has a good deal of worthwhile production value of 107 minutes that has a pretty interesting first half involving "Bartertown" when it comes to the ever-shifting mores of where wasteland society (read: place that happens to look like Australia); incidentally, the film is apparently set 15 years after the second film. The performances with its main two of Gibson and Turner is probably the most curious interaction of wanderer and non-wanderer in the last features when it comes to a place that tries to value for trade and, well, an arena that could only be called Thunderdome that has a pretty harrowing battle sequence and decision to come with a mass calling for blood. And then of course there is the part of the film that deals with an oasis of "Planet Erf" and a tribe of children that see our lead as their possible hero. It might not be fair to say it reminds me a bit of Return of the Jedi (1983) when it comes to its place when compared to the first two films of a series, but I digress. Gibson and Turner equally have something worth watching when together in a manner that is distinct from what we saw in the past two films in terms of dueling interests that sees a mix of vitality and one coming to terms with their sense of self (easy to do that when confronting the use of pigs and methane as a potential road forward). This was one of two films with the noted singer Turner in a main role, with the other being Tommy (1975), and she makes the most of it in enterprising stature that she clearly is enjoying going with Gibson and the general self-sufficient nature that comes in the odyssey of a man in sand. He wanders the earth with an odyssey that he commits to in the way you would expect from a pro like him. The chase that arises from that does make for an interesting resolution, at least. This was the last major role for dwarf actor Rossitto, who had a lengthy career prior to his death in 1991, and he lends a few chuckles here and there. The rest of the cast is fine, but somehow, it just feels strange to deal with the fact that one is basically watching two films trying to play as one with a softer sense of the apocalyptic wasteland that is just...okay. I'm not really sure how to put it succinctly, but somehow, having children take ahold of the attention makes the action that come from the climax (plane included) seem more safe than the chaos that made the last two all the more interesting. Besides, having read Lord of the Flies long ago, one can say that the folks here aren't exactly as compelling in that attempt of trying to make do on their own. It is always possible that a re-watch in the next few years could make things seem different, but even calling it the lesser of the Mad Max films is still a compliment when it comes to a film that is pretty efficient in the entertainment value when it comes to that rip-roaring foundation set in the beginning that sticks the eventual landing that stands on its own regardless of what ended up coming later on.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Desperately Seeking Susan.

Review #2186: Desperately Seeking Susan.

Cast: 

Rosanna Arquette (Roberta Glass), Aidan Quinn (Dez), Madonna (Susan Thomas), Robert Joy (Jim Dandy), Mark Blum (Gary Glass), Laurie Metcalf (Leslie Glass), Will Patton (Wayne Nolan), Anna Levine (Crystal), Peter Maloney (Ian), Steven Wright (Larry Stillman D.D.S.), John Turturro (Ray), Anne Carlisle (Victoria), José Angel Santana (Boutique Owner), Richard Portnow (Party Guest), and Giancarlo Esposito (Street Vendor) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens)

Review: 

“The city was falling apart and downtown there were aspiring artists because rent was so cheap. So I wanted to populate the film with people who were authentic to that time. I didn’t care whether someone in Kansas would recognize them, but New Yorkers would know they were New Yorkers.” 

Okay, maybe the biggest curiosity isn't the fact that this is the film that followed Susan Seidelman's Smithereens (1982). But I like the films that come after an electrifying debut feature, particularly one that is, well, packed with a few names to recognize from somewhere or another. The film was written by Leora Barish, who had been inspired by the film Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974), which in of itself had references to classic novels such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It was a script that languished for a few years before Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford found it as producers with a new company in tow. After a good deal spent in turnaround trying to get a studio to get behind it (ultimately being Orion Pictures) and a few names tossed around, the "clear visual style” shown by Seidelman with Smithereens was the one that worked to her advantaged. It was Seidelman that had decided on who would be cast as "Susan", which led her to steer away from actresses such as: Ellen Barkin, Melanie Griffith, and Jennifer Jason Leigh (it wasn't the only role with others in the running - more on that later). Instead, she went for a certain presence that lived near her at the time. Madonna had exactly two sorts of experience in film: an indie underground drama A Certain Sacrifice (which had been filmed in the late 1970s) and a cameo appearance in Vision Quest...with each not being released until 1985. As if the stars aligned perfectly, her popularity as a singer (editor note: understatement) was at a fever pitch by the time the film was finished shooting because of the commercial success of her second music album (Like a Virgin). Not surprisingly, "Into the Groove" is heard for the credits, which, well, I dig songs like this. As a whole, the film was a modest hit with audiences upon release and was even turned into a musical a couple of years later. 

Oh sure, the film is a film for Madonna to shine through from time to time, but Arquette is just as adept in proving key to a movie that is a warm tribute to the screwball comedy: mistaken identity and the ever-growing sense of amusement. It touches upon familiar aspects that come through with the experience of someone who craves adventure and finds way more than what they bargained for. Arquette (best known for the TV film The Executioner's Song [1982]) is ideal in that entertaining sense of wonder and befuddlement for antics because the frustration of being a listless housewife that (in the age of newspapers with personal ads that people looked at) we can relate with. That timing is on point through and through for a crisply amusing experience. Quinn was cast after attempts to get a few actors named Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner to read for the role fell to deaf ears. Go figure, it is probably the best relief the film has going for it, because Quinn and his sardonic charm roll right off with Arquette. And then of course there is Madonna, who practically rolls every little movement and sentence as if it was just a flick of the wrist, one for which Seidelman said was a "variation of herself...bringing her attitude to it". She exudes a certain type of aura that has that rightful sense of fun in the pleasures of charades and half-truths in the ideal apex of one acting without the weight of too much superstar status to handle playing some sort of variation of themselves, which goes hand-in-hand in chuckles when paired with that goofy (but totally believable) Joy. Blum is that ideal sense of the doofus too good for Arquette to set up the inevitable when it comes to screwball mismatches. The film manages to be patient enough for its 104-minute runtime to grant each lead their time to shine in a breezy and fairly engaging trip through a certain lens that goes to its location along with the fashion that makes it practically impossible to forget for its time. It is ultimately a solid second effort for Seidelman, packed with enough fair charm to make for a New York-style delight in screwy entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lifeforce.

Review #2134: Lifeforce.

Cast: 

Steve Railsback (Col. Tom Carlsen), Peter Firth (Col. Colin Caine), Frank Finlay (Dr. Hans Fallada), Mathilda May (Space Girl), Patrick Stewart (Dr. Armstrong), Michael Gothard (Dr. Leonard Bukovsky), Nicholas Ball (Roger Derebridge), Aubrey Morris (Sir Percy Heseltine), Nancy Paul (Ellen), Sidney Livingstone (Ned Price), and John Hallam (Lamson) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2)

Review: 

"Lifeforce had a great look but lacked a screenplay. There wasn't a hell of a lot that could be done about that except to change it completely. The film started off as Space Vampires, and that's actually what it should've been called. With that title you'd look at that picture with a completely different set of sunglasses!"

I know that beating the drum for Tobe Hooper seems a bit futile once I get to some of his later films, but damn it, the director made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Poltergeist (1982 - anyone who calls it some sort of "Spielberg" effort is not worth their salt as a film viewer). Anybody who directs two pretty good horror films (and directs a TV adaptation of a Stephen King book that I can't even fathom watching because it was made for TV) can't really have failed to live to their potential. The film is based on the 1976 book The Space Vampires, as written by Colin Wilson, a writer who specialized in the genres of true crime, mysticism and paranormal. He apparently was influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft for this story, which deal with energy vampires. Of course, the film is set around the time of the flyby of Hailey's Comet (which occurred in 1986, as opposed to the future in the book) due to suggestion by Hooper to the screenplay writers in Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (they weren't big on the Comet thing, but who cares?). Apparently, Wilson thought little of the film, once saying, "John Fowles had once told me that the film of The Magus was the worst movie ever made. After seeing Lifeforce I sent him a postcard telling him that I had got one better." There exist two cuts: a theatrical cut that lasted 101 minutes and an "international cut" that lasted 116, with most of the edits involving less time with the spaceship. I was fortunate enough to see the international cut, which basically means lines for a handful of actors that were basically cut out of the theatrical version. Michael Winner apparently was considered for the film as director before Hooper got into it, which is one produced by none other than Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan as the first of three that Hooper did for The Cannon Group, who apparently influenced the idea to call it "Lifeforce" because they thought calling it after the book's title would make it sound like one of their low-budget exploitation films. Who the hell did they think was going to see this film, esteemed members of culture that would give Hooper or the Cannon folks credit?

Admittedly, the reputation of the film is more of a "maybe it could be a cult thing" than anything, because it really verges on what one gets from having an international version to compare things to. Well, that, and it is basically a pastiche of stuff you would've seen in those Quatermass films from a few years back along with a bit of O'Bannon's previous work in Alien (1979). The key to the film in the end is in just going with the flow of its strange bubble of energy that has some frights within vampires of energy, ghost ships, a climax set upon St. Paul's Cathedral, vampires that apparently love to wear as little clothes as possible. You've got the British with their own space program to go with spaceships that was apparently modeled after an artichoke, how could you not see this coming? I wonder what the result for Hooper would have been if this film had come out after, say, Invaders from Mars (released in 1986, which had O'Bannon and Jakoby write for it as well), rather than his big effort directing Poltergeist (1982). I suppose people really didn't think Hooper had a spry tribute to Hammer in his cards, and that's too bad for those folks, because the film is pretty enjoyable. May (in her second film role that happens to be her most notable one) makes a suitable presence in hypnotic form that invites mayhem in a manner that is not just an excuse for skin gawking. Railsback and Firth are curious observers to have for leads, particularly since one is meant to have a "psychic connection" to the vampire. They seem about on par with the general attention one would have spent with a Hammer film when it comes to looking at some weird creatures and fun that don't make them seem embarrassed to be there. Okay, maybe Stewart seems a bit miffed to be here, but you would be too if you take all the time necessary to show up for a predictable fate when compared to say, Finlay. The climax is the kind of one where you just throw your hands up and go with it if you like it or just thank the one above that it means its all over. I enjoyed the weird way it crashes all down, because at least the threat is at least presented with some sort of threat levels beyond just saying "huh?". As a whole, it is a frenzied little mystery with a few curious effects and some evident enthusiasm for making a pastiche of the old horror films of the Hammer stuff that is pretty entertaining even in its hurried strangeness to make a film you could at least see once without too much trouble. I can't call it a pretty good one, but Hooper made his efforts count at any rate.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It is Halloween: The Week After, Year Five. As per tradition, the horror invasion from October continues from November 1st until November 7th, which has seen 22 reviews of all the things you would expect, from the very first in Dracula (1979) to last year's stuff such as 3 From Hell (2021). Let's set the tone differently with The Last House on the Left (1972).

Re-Animator.

Review #2127: Re-Animator.

Cast: 

Jeffrey Combs (Herbert West), Bruce Abbott (Daniel Cain), Barbara Crampton (Megan Halsey), David Gale (Dr. Carl Hill), Robert Sampson (Dean Alan Halsey), Al Berry (Dr. Hans Gruber), Carolyn Purdy-Gordon (Dr. Harrod), and Ian Patrick Williams (the Swiss Professor) Directed by Stuart Gordon.

Review: 

"We all knew that this was the scene. Because, before we started making the movie, we said among ourselves: look, there are all these horror movies that have been made in the last few years—we have to find a way to set Re-Animator apart. And if we wanted to get people’s attention, we had to show them something that they hadn’t seen before. This was that scene."

Oh sure, there are so many films that could be thought of as "cult classic" that it almost seems useful to have skepticism over it just as much as for films that the general folks think are just classics (like, say, The Rocky Horror Picture Show). The film is based on the short story "Herbert West-Reanimator" by H.P. Lovecraft, which was originally serialized in Home Brew magazine from February to July 1922 (there were six parts, one of which involved a boxer with the arm of a child in their mouth). Lovecraft was reported to have disliked the experience of writing Reanimator, since not only did it require him to write a cliffhanger at the end of every part, it also was one he did solely for the money ($5 for each part!) for what was basically a parody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; in general, Lovecraft would not be the well-known name as an author for decades after his death, but the aforementioned West story is thought to be one of his worst. Relating to this, Stuart Gordon had a discussion over how many Dracula films there was compared to the seemingly small count of Frankenstein films. Gordon was a Chicago native and a graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison that majored in theater. He started doing productions in the late 1960s that went all the way to the 1980s in directing and producing plays, such as a naked stage version of Peter Pan (which saw him face charges of obscenity) and Warp!, a 1973 sci-fi play. Spurred to read the Lovecraft story, Gordon got the idea to do an adaptation, which would have Dennis Paoli and William J. Norris serve as co-writers. They first thought to do it for the stage and then to do it for television before a suggestion led them to try and do a feature film, which led them to producer Brian Yuzna. It was only during production that the script gained comedic elements, with the result being one that Gordon stated had influence from films such as The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958). Gordon would direct another Lovecraft story with From Beyond (1986). Two sequels to Re-Animator followed: Bride of Re-Animator (released in 1990 that retained Combs, Abbott, and Gale) and Beyond Re-Animator (released in 2003 that retained Combs), with Yuzna serving as director for both films. A Re-Animator: The Musical would come about in 2011, with Gordon having served as a producer; Gordon died in 2020 at the age of 72.

There exists a number of versions: The R-rated version lasted 93 minutes, while the unrated version lasts 86 minutes. The R-rated version is an edit done because originally, the filmmakers opted to not submit the film to the MPAA for a rating because they thought it would get an X. At any rate, this R-rated version just cuts a good chunk of the gore and replaces it with scenes cut for pacing (such as hypnotism from Hill). Okay, I wasn't actually worried this was going to be just "good" rather than a cult classic, but, well, going into it with as less knowledge is part of the fun. It is a delightfully gooey little film, one that proves worthy in its elements of gore with conviction and dark humor that is well-paced to go with being an interesting riff on Frankenstein in the Hammer method of the best way, complete with action of re-animated corpses coming around and around. This was the first big film role for Combs, who had done a number of stage plays and hadn't known of Lovecraft when he was approached for the role (he also didn't expect it to break through the way it did). His manic energy is hypnotically captivating from the very first time we see him in the opening, where he is frantically attempting to deal with a screaming man thrust with life. Of course, his interactions with Gale when it comes to just who knows what about science (complete with snapping pencils) or with Abbott & Crampton with living conditions is the real attraction. He just has a way of communicating this amorality that comes in obsession and arrogance in the most delectably entertaining of ways (those familiar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine already know how good he is already, naturally). Abbott and Crampton make suitable straights getting sucked into such strange times without being played as just the folks to ignore or counter Combs in some sort of "do-gooder"-ness. With that in mind, Gale is ideal in odious qualities for the best of results, which is likely exemplified by a sequence involving a leering head interacting with a naked body. Trust me, it's a pretty good disturbing sequence in a film that has a steady chunk of body gore effects already present in buckets of blood - yes, it really is one fit for the non-squeamish. The closing delivers a good little stake in the grave in the best way possible for both a show in effects along with a note on just how far one could go in desperation. Bottom line, this is the kind of films fit for viewer of mad scientist films or body gore flicks in the best way possible. It is easy to see how the film became a cult favorite in all of the best ways possible. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: George A. Romero becomes part of a double-header to start the backstretch of closing out October in the right way.

Flesh and Blood.

Review #2046: Flesh and Blood.

Cast: 

Rutger Hauer (Martin), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Agnes), Tom Burlinson (Steven), Jack Thompson (Hawkwood), Fernando Hilbeck (Arnolfini), Susan Tyrrell (Celine), Ronald Lacey (Cardinal), Brion James (Karsthans), Bruno Kirby (Orbec), Simon Andreu (Miel), John Dennis Johnston (Summer), Marina Saura (Polly), Kitty Courbois (Anna), Jake Wood (Little John), and Nancy Cartwright (Kathleen) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers)

Review: 

"The triangular relationship [of] Martin–Agnes–Steven is now the main story line, but in retrospect I think we should have stuck with Hawkwood and Martin. The failure of Flesh and Blood was a lesson for me: never again compromise on the main story line of a script."

Admittedly, it is probably easy to forget that the second phase of Paul Verhoeven's career that saw him leave his native Netherlands started with Flesh and Blood (1985). He started making films in the 1960s, with only a spell in the Royal Dutch Navy in between this, and it was his efforts in directing the television series Floris (featuring Rutger Hauer as the star) in 1969 that was set in the early 16th century during the country's Guelders Wars that took inspiration from earlier TV programs such as Ivanhoe. Business is Business (1971), his first feature, wasn't successful, but Turkish Delight (1973), featuring Hauer, still ranks among one of the most famous films made in the country. Hauer and Verhoeven would work together for three of the next four films that the latter made in the Netherlands, which included another famous film with Soldier of Orange (1977). Anyway, after 1984, Verhoeven had received offers from Hollywood to direct but was debating whether it was necessary to leave his native country. As such, he described this film as a "compromise", one that was shot in Europe that was a multi-country production with primary funding by Orion Pictures. Originally, the film was to be about the gradual disintegration of the friendship between the characters ultimately played by Hauer and Thompson. However, the producers pushed introducing a love interest within the character of Leigh that would create a love triangle (Hauer-Leigh-Burlinson), which he went with, much to later regret, although the ensuing troubled production did not help matters. Gerard Soeteman, who had developed the aforementioned Floris and had written a handful of scripts such as Turkish Delight, co-wrote the film with Verhoeven. Made on a budget of $6.5 million, an absolute shoddy promotion effort by Orion led to the film being a flop with audiences.

Wait a minute, people didn't go for this kind of film? A film set in the Middle Ages (1501) that is thrust with plenty of unwieldly characters involving swordplay and wonderful design? It might not have the most conventional of leads to follow, but who the hell cares? Granted, medieval fantasy can be one to favor in entertainment with good ol' swordplay, but with the right execution, you can lend a dose of reality to that hodgepodge, especially with Verhoeven and his approach to violence. In other words: death will happen in the Middle Ages, and it will rarely happen naturally. Well, that, and folks love God. This was the fifth and final film collaboration between Verhoeven and Hauer. During production, the two had such a disagreement with how the lead was supposed to be played that it led to a rift in which they never worked together again, because the former favored moral ambiguity while Hauer did not wish to play such a scoundrel given that he was just breaking into more mainstream features (such as The Osterman Weekend (1983), for example). While I can certainly see Hauer's point, time has clearly favored Verhoeven. The moral ambiguity that Verhoeven aims for when making a Middle Ages tale of such odd people is especially right for Hauer and his rough exterior to make a useful rogue rather than if he had tried to play it with any sort of heroic bent. He is supposed to lead this band of undesirables, and he leans into it with great conviction that is a brute through and through to the worthiest endgame. Verhoeven obviously had an interest in showing a confident woman with convictions that want to go anywhere to get their goal, as represented by Leigh. Consider how she handles her first scene where she consults her maid-in-waiting (Cartwright) about how one, well, has sex. She watches for a bit and then goes to hit her to put it to a stop. The way she deals with both Hauer and Burlinson is exquisite in its cat-and-mouse game of who ends up playing who, one who sells the act as more than a mere observer. Burlinson is undoubtedly the lesser of such a lofty triangle, but being warped by the mesh of trying to seek reason in a world that desires swift retribution does at least make for some sort of interest. I can't imagine the disappointment that could come from Thompson in going from a potential lead to basically support, but he at least makes a worthy character presence that obviously merits curiosity (I should mention his name happens to be the same as a 14th century mercenary leader). I enjoy the atmosphere of the film, because it never betrays the ambition in 126 minutes to make a suitable tale of, well, flesh and blood mixing for craven desires that deserved better marketing. The film doesn't skimp on the brutality that obviously had to happen in a time like this, and it reflects well that one enjoys the supporting cast for as long as they can. The real adversary is the ambition for the flesh to draw blood and not have it be their own, regardless of if the rich person happened to be sending someone off to do their battles for them or not. As a whole, it is a triumph of a movie in excruciating grit, one that dares to show the flesh and blood of the Middle Ages with wonderful design and devastating consistency for a brutally good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Pulgasari.

Review #1956: Pulgasari.

Cast: 

Chang Son Hui (Ami), Ham Gi Sop (Inde), Jong-uk Ri (Ana), Gwon Ri (Takse), Gyong-ae Yu (Inde's Mother), Hye-chol Ro (Inde's Brother), Sang-hun Tae (Rebel Forces), Gi-chon Kim (Rebel Forces), In-chol Ri (Rebel Forces), Riyonun Ri (General Fuan), Yong-hok Pak (The King), Pong-ilk Pak (The Governor), and Kenpachiro Satsuma (Pulgasari) Directed by Shin Sang-ok.

Review: 

Admittedly, this is a film that seems quite simple to cover, because all it is a film involving a monster based on the legend of the Bulgasari. After all, it is a remake of Bulgasari (1962), a film from South Korea known for being the first Korean film with special effects along with being lost to viewing; incidentally, this film was remade as Galgameth (1996) in America. This is a film directed by Shin Sang-ok, a director born in 1926 in the city of Chongjin, the third-largest city of what is now part of North Korea (since the Empire Japan had occupied the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945). The son of a Korean doctor of medicine, he studied at the Tokyo Fine Arts School before becoming involved in film with Viva Freedom! (1946), which was the first Korean film made after the end of Japan's rule over Korea. Long story short, Korea was separated into two republics that each claimed sovereignty over the Korean peninsula, and Shin made films within the South. He would later be referred to as the "Prince of South Korean Cinema", complete with his own production company, with Shin's wife Choi Eun-hee being a star in various films in the 1960s and 1970s. Shin would direct various films beginning in 1952, which resulted in films such as The Houseguest and My Mother (1961), Red Scarf (1964), Salt (1985), and Mayumi (1990) before he died in 2006 at the age of 79. The film was written by Kim Se Ryun and produced by Shin and Kim Jong-il. 

Yes, you heard that correctly. In the late 1970s, Shin saw his film company collapse. In 1978, Choi, recently divorced from her husband due to infidelity, was visiting Hong Kong when she was kidnapped. Six months later, Shin was kidnapped while visiting Hong Kong in an attempt to do film business, although he was not told about Choi until much later. He spent time in prison after failing to escape, with the result being that the two would not reunite until 1983. Enter Kim Jong-il, the future head dictator of communist bloc North Korea. He had a film library of over 15,000 and wanted to see better films come out of the country, as he saw the inherent flaws within his county's film industry (under the belief that since the actors were going to be fed no matter what, they were not pulling their biggest effort). An Emissary of No Return (1984), Love, Love, My Love (1984), Runaway (1984), Salt (1985), The Tale of Shim Chong (1985), and Pulgasari (1985). In 1984, they had done a news conference in Yugoslavia to say they left South Korea "voluntarily" to escape harassment from the country. In March of 1986, they were granted to travel to Vienna in an attempt to find funding for Kim to make a movie about Genghis Khan. The result of their visit with a journalist ended with them running off successfully to seek asylum the United States embassy. Well, that sure is one way for Kim to try and change the world's perception of his country, by talking about kidnapping a filmmaker to make movies for him and being caught on tape saying those words.

Yes, this is a monster movie with effects provided by a crew (Toho!) that apparently was tricked into making it for what they thought was a Chinese film. I know it seems odd to cover a film that was made in North Korea and was made under duress, but well, here we are, with a Korean monster movie more baffling than Yongary, Monster from the Deep (1967). If you didn't know the backstory of the film, you would probably just call it a mediocre mash of cliches that looks bizarrely like a film made two decades earlier rather than 1985. It was apparently supposed to be a metaphor of propaganda for "unchecked capitalism" and the "power of the collective". Hell, the Soviets knew how to make films that were supposed to be propaganda than this, because one really could see this as a movie about the dangers of an unchecked liberator or they could have fun with dubbing it as a silly movie about a baby Godzilla telling the power of an iron diet. My favorite moment is the various attempts to take down this mythical being, one of which involves digging a large pit and tricking it into falling down there before the evil royalty starts digging over the beast. None of the actors particularly stand out when it comes to trying to draw even an ounce of properly ripping off Godzilla (specifically The Return of Godzilla, since it was released one year prior). It is mostly just comprised of medieval battle sequences that were probably thought of as almost passé years ago and a slightly amusing effect when trying to portray growing monster that has horns. Hell, the way the monster dies feels like cheating, since it eats a person hidden in a bell (the same one who gave it life in a sense by putting blood on the thing when it was the size of a doll). Goofiness is the only thing to think about in a movie that was thought by its producer as a "masterpiece" (when Shin left the country and told the truth, the film was then shuttered away for years) - let that be a standing mark about having a large film library doesn't necessarily mean one knows how to make a quality film. 

As a whole, it is far too amusing to be considered anything other than schlock, but its curiosity value will depend on just how much the backstory matters to understanding what the hell is up with a monster movie made in a dictatorship. It is about as amusing as seeing a poorly-made car run through the traffic cones, for what it is worth. Shin Sang-ok might not have had his best effort here, but he sure made an impression as a filmmaker in all of Korea nonetheless. He gets the credit far more than his kidnappers do, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.