Redux: Aliens.

Redux Review #574: Aliens.

Cast: 

Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Ripley), Michael Biehn (Dwayne Hicks), Paul Reiser (Carter J. Burke), Lance Henriksen (Bishop), Carrie Henn (Rebecca "Newt" Jorden), Bill Paxton (Private Hudson), William Hope (Lieutenant Gorman), Jenette Goldstein (Private Vasquez), Al Matthews (Sergeant Apone), Mark Rolston (Private Drake), Ricco Ross (Private Frost), Colette Hiller (Corporal Ferro), Daniel Kash (Private Spunkmeyer), Cynthia Dale Scott (Corporal Dietrich), Tip Tipping (Private Crowe), Trevor Steedman (Private Wierzbowski), and Paul Maxwell (Van Leuwen) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar)

Review: 

“What I remember about that night is not my reaction to the movie [Alien] but my reaction to the audience. I thought to myself, ‘If I can do that, if I can even come close to doing that,,," - James Cameron (1986)

You might remember that Alien (1979) was originally devised by Dan O'Bannon into subsequent collaboration with Ronald Shusett (pitched as "Jaws in space") that had further influence from David Giler and Walter Hill (it was they who came up with the android character of Ash) and, well, all the folks leading right down to Ridley Scott (and, well, maybe a little bit of positive executive influence, because they groused at Scott's original ending idea). Between the inspiration of films such as The Thing from Another World [1951] in O'Bannon and Shusett's screenplay, the creature design by H. R. Giger* to Scott's drive to make "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre of science fiction" resulted in a movie where terror inflicted the average Joes in space and, well, was pretty damn cool. After years of 20th Century Fox refusing to go along with actually making a sequel (which namely involved trying to screw over the producers in declaring the movie a financial loss), it eventually started development around 1983, and a search for writers led to curiosity over James Cameron's The Terminator script. Cameron (who once described the original as "almost the perfect movie") was hired to do a treatment that had advice from David Giler and Walter Hill that basically honed down to "Ripley and soldiers", which he submitted after three days of writing in the fall of 1983, although it didn't generate true interest (the studio thought it was just filled with horror) until after the release of The Terminator (in turn, Cameron, who didn't expect the movie to be a hit, had worked on an Alien script in his free time*²). Cameron, Giler, and Hill were each credited for the story.  The movie was released at 137 minutes due to an array of cuts that actually could've been a bit more substantial if Fox had gotten their way to make it barely over two hours. Nowadays, you can see the Director's Cut, which is 157 minutes long (with differences being noted here alongside cut scenes that aren't in either version). On July 18, 1986, the movie was released in theaters to tremendous success (plus, Scott seemed to have liked it). The movie was such a hit that 20th Century Fox was really interested in doing a third movie with no hesitation, although delays (namely in not being able to actually settle on a finished script*) resulted in it being released in 1992 that was thought to be considerably inferior to the previous two films and hated by its own director.

If the first film was akin to a fright house, the second film really does merit the comparison (made by Cameron) of aiming to be a roller-coaster ride, and yes, I did this re-review mainly to assert how damn great it is, mainly because the first time I reviewed it, I barely gave any type of insight the first time around in 2014, which basically saw wonderful interactions, a mood shift from "bravado to outright fear" and really good effects. But honestly, the obvious shining point of what basically became the be-all and end-all of the series is with Weaver. Cameron and company wanted Weaver from the jump, with no studio reluctance getting in the way (yes, the studio that was sued by producers into financing the development of the film thought saving money on a cheaper star was a good idea). The first film saw her slowly but surely take charge in the presence of all-encompassing terror that we all could see in ourselves. After confronting the terror of people breaking down in front of them (figuratively or literally) and being trapped in nothingness only to find a world colder than when she left it, Weaver proves up to the challenge of making this character a true wonder in take-charge charm with vulnerability that we still hold up as an icon that Weaver described as an "everyperson". She is trapped in the hell of what she experienced and the idea that of being right in the present of the worst possible thing: being on another crew considered expendable. With the director's cut reminding you of just what she lost the first time around (because again, you only see that photo in that version), it makes the journey back from isolation with Henn all the more rewarding. And then of course there is the wonderful interactions with such a confident supporting cast that view themselves as on the road to conquest with such gallantry only to find themselves in a mirroring of the Vietnam War. Sure, Biehn is tremendously entertaining (cast after James Remar backed out), but it really is the credit of Paxton and Goldstein* to really sell the journey through hell and back (to a point, anyway) with kickass enthusiasm. Rounding out as the odd-man is with Reiser, who actually does prove exquisite in showing that comedians really can play a scummy toad and make it look so easy. Doubly so for Henn and her brave performance filled with soulful qualities (incidentally, she became a teacher) and Henriksen as an android that really is just one of the guys (which he once said basically meant playing him as an innocent). Yes, the movie looks great with what is seen and what isn't seen from the miniatures/wires, and yes, the James Horner music is worthwhile to hear*, but it really does all come down to how much we end up loving to see these characters go through the ride with us (this can be as something as small as seeing Hope's pencil-neck character try to tell the squad to not use a particular weapon - that's an easy one to say "been there, done that") in chaos. If Alien strikes at the terror of being trapped in a place with little escape, Aliens strikes at the terror of actually having something to lose besides the soul. 

 

It's interesting to compare this film to say, the "crowd-pleaser" aim from the most modern film of the series with Alien: Romulus (2024), which aimed to go for "wonder and terror" feel in being set between the two great movies that mostly reminded me of how hard it is to really make a worthwhile ride that isn't merely derivative (to say nothing of one particular reference from Aliens that comes out in Romulus). Jokingly or not, I said that Aliens was better than Alien by a "Xenomorph egg". I have to believe in my heart of hearts that this statement holds water today, but I do admit that I have made it a habit to watch Alien each night of May 25. It's interesting that both movies basically end in the same manner: expelling the final creature into space before Ripley enters stasis for a return to Earth. At any rate, Alien, Aliens, you can't go wrong with the entertainment presented in the terrors of beasts that comes from dark corridors, beasts of acid, and the showing of what it really means to be alive. It was timeless before being a 40-year-old movie, that much is for sure. It is self-contained show of excellence from Cameron and company that stands on its own. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Theme of the day

*I should give full credit to the list of people who won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for Alien: H. R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder, and Dennis Ayling. There are further inspirations listed that would clog up the opening paragraph: Planet of the Vampires (1965) - specifically the giant skeleton, It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958), Clifford D. Simak's short story "Junkyard", Star Wars (1977) specifically in Scott's aim to be its "antithesis", the aesthetic of illustrator Moebius and possibly even H. P. Lovecraft (Giger found the initial storyline to be in the vein of the famed writer and listed him as one of his greatest sources of inspiration.). By the way, did you know that Scott...wanted Ridley to die at the end of Alien? No, really.

*² It should be noted that Cameron had done a spec script in 1980 (as seen with the link here: The Risk Always Lives: Words to Live by On the Set of James Cameron’s ‘Aliens’ • Cinephilia & Beyond) that dealt with trying to keep a young creature alive that dealt with a mother queen type creature and a climax with a power-loader. Incidentally, Cameron wrote a draft for Rambo: First Blood Part II around the same time as the Alien II script.

*See, I should see Alien 3 again, mainly to bring up that Fox and company went through a litany of ideas such as: a two-part story where Biehn would be the protagonist for the third film before an epic battle for a fourth movie (no chance of getting Ridley Scott, he was busy), a William Gibson script that he once jokingly described as "Space commies hijack alien eggs—big problem in Mallworld" (this was later adapted into an audio drama), a "wooden planet" with all-male monks...before settling on a cobbled together script that wasn't even finished when filming started. Don't get me started on what happens in the introductory scene of Alien 3. What the fuck? Game over, man! Game over! Yes, even in a notes section, I managed to get that reference in.

  

*Is it really good acting if you don't recognize that Goldstein isn't actually Mexican? (enjoy an interview detailing experiences making the film - Interview with Jenette Goldstein, 1987 | Strange Shapes). Incidentally, she actually owns a bra chain store company.

*Sure, the James Horner soundtrack has a few parts that sound like, say, his stuff from Star Trek II. But who cares? Incidentally, an un-used part of the soundtrack was later used in the climax of Die Hard.

Iron Eagle.

Review #2537: Iron Eagle.

Cast: 

Louis Gossett Jr (Colonel Charles "Chappy" Sinclair), Jason Gedrick (Doug Masters), David Suchet (Ministry of Defense Colonel Akir Nakesh), Shawnee Smith (Joanie), Melora Hardin (Katie), Larry B. Scott (Reggie), Lance LeGault (General Edwards), Tim Thomerson (Colonel Ted Masters), Caroline Lagerfelt (Elizabeth Masters), Robert Jayne (Matt Masters), Jerry Levine (Tony), Robbie Rist (Milo Bazen), and Michael Bowen (Knotcher) Directed by Sidney J. Furie (#787 - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, #2256 - The Ipcress File)

Review: 

“We knew we wanted to make a movie in which the audience could feel involved. And this seemed the right kind of story. I admit I consciously set out to make a mass-entertainment kind of picture; I did think, ‘Will millions go for this?’ But there’s no alternative these days. Nothing else works. And there’s nothing sadder than an empty theater.”

Apparently, the inspiration for the script for the film came around the time of the 1984 Summer Olympics. No, really, Sidney J. Furie and Kevin Alyn Elders started their work during the games that they found "very inspiring" and had arrived back from filming Purple Hearts (1984), where Elders had been production supervisor. They wanted to do "the kind of movie we used to sneak in to see on Saturday afternoons." After bouncing around different studios, it found its way to a guy who liked it because it resembled the Westerns with John Wayne. Filming was done in California and Israel (probably obvious, but the US Air Force does not co-operate with movie about stealing jets - this also involves renting out jets and putting on covers). Distributed by Tri-Star Pictures with a budget of $10 million to a release of January 1986 to avoid competition with Top Gun, (which was about naval aviators, as opposed to the Air Force guys here), the movie was a mild success with audiences (making double its budget) and it inspired two theatrical sequels with Iron Eagle II (1988) and Aces: Iron Eagle III (1992) along with a direct-to-video film (all but the latter were written by Elders*, while Furie co-directed the second and fourth film), all of which had Gossett Jr serve as the star.

Imagine making a movie that actually makes you appreciate the subtle qualities of Top Gun despite coming out first. There was a sliver of curiosity that this might be an interesting gem as opposed to just believing that it is the equivalent of Missing in Action being compared to Rambo: First Blood Part II. But it just doesn't cut the mustard for a well-rounded movie. Honestly, this probably would've been better as a comedy, because it almost sounds like a test run for Hot Shots! [1991] (just to throw a grenade into the discussion, I always thought Hot Shots! was less corny than Top Gun). And I'm sure folks had fun making the movie or fiddling with what songs needed to be played (an obscure Queen song! a Dio song that isn't "Holy Diver"! That one Twisted Singer song you know! And, in an indicator of my biases, George Clinton?*). And I'm sure it worked well for those who were still pumped up from Red Dawn [1984]. But good god the movie is a slog, one with dialogue that really does live up to the word "drivel" that just goes on and on for 117 minutes with not nearly enough charm to get away with all of the stuff it tries to pull. Sure, let's have a fake-out character death. Sure, let's have a character who loves playing tapes to do better in the air and also plays a tape of a thought-to-be-dead character. Sure, let's wave the "we have the balls unlike the government" flag. Sure, let's have a race between a plane and a bike (oh but it's not a normal race, it's a special race with special modifications!). Sure, let's have hijinks that are about as believable as the lies you tell your friends in middle school (Hardin and Smith went on to better things and good for them, because they get nothing to do here, and no, the hijinks don't count). And sure, let's have an incident that not only will result in no pushback from a foreign country but also will just be forgotten by America. All of this for a movie where I don't care for any of the characters, particularly with Gedrick, who just comes off as a prissy dweeb that doesn't really make me feel for the plight of this totally tense and not predictable film. To say nothing of Gossett Jr and a performance that sounds like a riff of his Academy Award turn in An Officer and a Gentleman from a few years prior (with little to really motivate anyone) or Suchet (future star of Agatha Christie's Poirot) and a laughable characterization as a villain that exudes little threat. Sometimes the movie looks neat in the air (even with its selections of imagery of what happens when say, firing weapons), but you know damn well where it is going at a certain point in wish fulfillment (blowing up oilfields of what totally isn't meant to be Libya, shooting stuff with dad, or referring to the current president and being confident that they'll help out - which doesn't happen anyway!*). As a whole, Iron Eagle was made to try and give audiences a crowd-pleasing adventure. For those who got to see it before a certain other film involving aerial action, I'm sure it was quite a time. Maybe it's the kind of dumbass movie you watch with a group of friends late at night*. For me, I just didn't care for this movie, as it doesn't manage to come off as anything other than day-old cheese, whether that involves being in the air or being on the ground with these people. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Elders wrote two other films: Simon Sez (1999), which he also directed...and Echelon Conspiracy (2009) Unrelatedly, you might recognize that Family Guy did a whole bit about Brian writing a book that cribbed from the Iron Eagle movies.

*What? By the way, check out Electric Light Orchestra.

*Gotta love the line about referring to Jimmy Carter as a peanut. Gee, real sick burn there. 

*Those days of friends ended years ago, and my patience probably grew exponentially back then - I had to once sit through an unrated version of Sex Drive, for god's sake. Now, with a support network of basically zero, I can stomach anything.

King Kong Lives.

Review #2474: King Kong Lives.

Cast: 

Brian Kerwin (Hank Mitchell), Linda Hamilton (Dr. Amy Franklin), John Ashton (Lt. Col. Archie Nevitt), Frank Maraden (Dr Benson Hughes), Peter Michael Goetz (Dr. Andrew Ingersoll), Jimmie Ray Weeks (Major Peete), with Peter Elliott (King Kong), George Yiasoumi (Lady Kong), and Benjamin Kechley (Baby Kong) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong [1976], #1231 - Shaft in Africa, #1447 - The Towering Inferno, #2044 - Never Let Go)

Review: 

Do you remember when they did a remake of King Kong the first time around? The 1976 film of King Kong was the one with the poster that called it "The most exciting original motion picture event of all time." Dino De Laurentiis spearheaded the venture after buying the film rights from RKO-General (whether he did so on the basis of seeing a poster in his daughter's room or because he was brought in to it by Paramount after Michael Eisner suggested the idea of a remake is debatable). The fiery John Guillermin (Laurentiis called him a "talent guy" and also a "strange character" while Guillermin aimed to do a remake that could balance jokes and the "danger of bathos" with obvious sincerity) directed a movie laced with a few hiccups. A Lorenzo Semple Jr-penned script aimed for a light amusing touch for a supposed more sophisticated audience while having the balls to have a lead character named Dwan and had to do a man in a suit because of failed attempts to do a full-scale animatronic Kong*. Even though it may not have been the megahit Laurentiis thought it would be (he actually thought it could rival Jaws [1975]), it did make some money. I watched the movie back in 2015 and thought it was painfully average, especially with its human stars, because when I watch a King Kong movie, clearly, I want to focus on the love story. So, anyway, ten years later. Laurentiis wanted to make another movie for years but couldn't get a good script going, with ideas being floated about Kong going to Russia or even being involved with kids for goofiness. But Ronald Shusett (the co-writer of Alien) and Steven Pressfield pitched an idea of an artificial heart that apparently won him over. As for Guillermin, he had made three flops (Death on the Nile [1978], Crossover/Mr. Patman [1980], Sheena [1984]), but here he was, back for what ended up being his last theatrical film as a director; he died in 2015 at the age of 89. Evidently, documentary filmmaker Charles McCracken did uncredited work on the film in directing the film. 

Apparently, when it came to reviews, they tried to strong-arm Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert in to only showing snippets of the film on TV for their show if they were positive about the film. The movie did make money (most notably in the Soviet Union), but the marketing costs evidently did not help matters for Laurentiis in a movie that has not exactly had many admirers over the years. It's easy to see why. At least the effects for the two Kongs look fine at times. It helps when the rest of the movie is so damn silly that even the 1960s Godzilla movies would tell it to relax. You might remember that Kong was bloodied and fell down the World Trade Center in the last film. Don't worry, the film will tell you that with its reprisal of the ending of the film that is included here...and that Kong actually is in a coma. I think it actually makes me want to check out King Kong Escapes (1967), the one where Toho did a mechanized King Kong. Here we have a movie with half of a good premise: Kong in the backwoods rather than in a big city...or just have it be about the two Kongs. Instead, it tries to play every card on the table with a lack of interest in really given Kerwin & Hamilton meaningful lines. Kerwin apparently was in on the idea that it was an adult fairy tale that would have humor and basically be more a film to show Kong, and, well, I can't blame him there. The two are just stuck in autopilot, even when trying to spruce up the bare minimum in "he's the cocksure dude and she's the smart one". Ashton and the others that deal with Kong result in little to really care for besides calling them disposable, which is a shame, since one could have fun with an adversary that cares about taking down the beast. It just lacks drama or even corny fun, somehow managing the impossible of just appealing to nobody. At the end of the day, this is overblown 10-pound schlock in a five-pound bag of crap that is semi-enjoyable when one knows that the 1976 film was already pretty lame to begin with. For a film that pretty much nobody wanted, you could probably do worse.

Overall, I give 4 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: Fantastic Four (2015)

*Carlo Rambaldi, Glen Robinson and Frank Van der Veer won a special Academy Award for the visual effects. Also, unrelatedly, Pauline Kael called the 1976 movie a "romantic adventure fantasy". Ridiculous.

Steven Pressfield wrote in his book The War Of Art : Steven Pressfield : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive that he thought the script was going to turn out a hit film. While it wasn't, it at least meant he was an actual pro and he went on to do scripts such as Above the Law and novels such as The Legend of Bagger Vance and Gates of Fire.

Chopping Mall.

Review #2435: Chopping Mall.

Cast: 

Kelli Maroney (Allison Parks). Tony O'Dell (Ferdy Meisel), Russell Todd (Rick Stanton), Karrie Emerson (Linda Stanton), Barbara Crampton (Suzie Lynn), Nick Segal (Greg Williams), Suzee Slater (Leslie Todd), John Terlesky (Mike Brennan), Paul Bartel (Paul Bland), Mary Woronov (Mary Bland), Angela Aames (Miss Vanders), and Dick Miller (Walter Paisley) Directed by Jim Wynorski.

Review: 

You have to know that the movie was going to be called "Killbots". Apparently, Vestron Video had a deal with Julie Corman (working with Roger with Concorde Pictures) to do a movie set in a mall. Who better to make a pitch but Jim Wynorski, who already had done writing work for the Cormans in writing and publicity before debuting as a director with The Lost Empire (1984). Wynorski and Steve Mitchell took inspiration taken from the 1954 movie Gog. With the setting in mind, they actually first came up with a "Phantom of the Mall" type of idea before Wynorski came up with just doing it with robots; they wrote the idea in about 24 hours that was soon approved. The effects for the robots (as envisoned by Robert Short) are interesting as the things (all five of them, as one does when preparing for an emergency) had construction from wheelchair frames and conveyor belt pieces, complete with remote control operation or using cables to move them around (you can read more about it here). The movie was shot at the Sherman Oaks Galleria in Los Angeles (with exterior shots being of the Beverly Center), and it only makes sense that it was done when the mall was closed at night; you can recognize the Galleria from its use in Commando (1985) and uh, Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982). The film was shot over the course of roughly three weeks. Apparently, the movie had a regional release with the Killbots title in Spring of 1986 and tested poorly* but was later reissued months later as Chopping Mall, complete with nearly 20 minutes cut out that resulted in the 76-minute runtime (there apparently is a bit of extra footage that was included on TV, but its not easy to find it). While the movie was a mild hit on release, it found a better life with release on VHS and cable. Wynorski made a litany of movies (some for the video market) that ranged from parodies to "erotic" ones, but Chopping Mall is likely the one people know best. 

Admittedly, it is a bubblegum type of horror movie, one that delivers most of the goods in having a neat adversary and a few interesting moments in mayhem (coincidentally, this was the other 1986 movie about robots being changed due to lightning strikes next to Short Circuit). Admittedly, the ensemble presented here is mostly just fine*, serving more as fodder for strangely paired death after death (seriously, most of the body count is delivered like that, because if your significant other dies, logic goes out the window I guess). They go around doing the type of thing you expect in lounging around in a mall by oneself (so a notch around Dawn of the Dead [1978]) for the setup that at least makes these folks useful enough to go with the ever-changing flow from partying to running (honestly it almost feels more favorable to try and hide in the store for several hours rather than trying to attack the three killbots, since even blowing it up with propane isn't favorable). The killbots look cool and even prove to be equal opportunity killers, whether in staging head explosions (okay maybe the effect isn't the most accurate thing ever but just look at it) or stabbing folks or, uh, throwing people off of railings that make them formidable and interesting to see play out. While I wish the excised material was available to compare the two movies, you could at least say the version we have today is serviceable in pacing and mayhem. As a whole, Chopping Mall is the kind of movie you encounter in the middle of the night (for the horror season, ideally*) and put on for a pretty refreshing time, mostly because of the mayhem you get to see from the bots that leads to a few bits of humor within the effects. It is a neat average little gem.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Honestly, Killbots is the better title. Pun or no pun, the bots don't chop anybody up in the movie. What, did someone think it was a Transformers thing with the old title?

*It was nice to see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov from Eating Raoul for about three minutes, admittedly, most to remind me of that movie for a tiny bit. Or Dick Miller, mostly because he really could just pop up in a horror movie again and again.

*Honestly, the horror season is what, 38 days for me? It seems far better than encountering horror movies in the winter or spring, that's for sure.

Cobra (1986).

Review #2392: Cobra (1986).

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Marion "Cobra" Cobretti), Brigitte Nielsen (Ingrid Knudsen), Reni Santoni (Sergeant Tony Gonzales), Andrew Robinson (Detective Monte), Brian Thompson ("Night Slasher"), John Herzfeld (Cho), Lee Garlington (Officer Nancy Stalk), Art LaFleur (Captain Sears), Marco Rodriguez (Supermarket Killer), Ross St. Phillip (Security Guard), and Val Avery (Chief Halliwell) Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II, #1177 - Tombstone)

Review: 

Sure, it is loosely adapted from a book. But the real curiosity might be from the fact that the script for the movie was inspired by a failed idea. You might remember that Sylvester Stallone was the serious candidate to star in 1984's Beverly Hills Cop (after the attached actor in Mickey Rourke dropped out) at least before he made his script revisions. Apparently, he was once quoted as saying "Somehow, me trying to comically terrorize Beverly Hills is not the stuff that great yuk-festivals are made from. So I re-wrote the script to suit what I do best, and by the time I was done, it looked like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan on the beaches of Normandy." The bottom line is that Stallone's revisions were just not suitable to film (particularly in the budget) and, well, you know the rest. Stallone was credited writing the screenplay while the "based off" material was the 1974 novel A Running Duck, as written by Paula Gosling. Interestingly, the novel was later published under a different name in Fair Game and Andrew Sipes filmed an adaptation of the book under that title in 1995 with William Baldwin as star. The finished version of Cobra runs at 89 minutes after extensive battles with editing, since the MPAA originally rated it as an X, and it probably didn't help that it was released in the wake of Top Gun (1986). Deleted sequences from the film do exist online, if one is curious to search for it, anyway (one small scene for example, has a kid delivering a present to the police that is stated to be a hand). This was actually a co-production between The Cannon Group and Warner Bros. (only the logo of the latter is seen, naturally), and Stallone would be involved with the two again with Over the Top (1987).

It's very amusing to make a Dirty Harry pastiche with two of the actors from the first film (Robinson and Santoni) in it, don't you think? There might be some who believe the film would serve as a comedy to lampoon the over-the-top nature of the movie, what with its view of a character taking extrajudicial measures to get things done and the occasional one liner (those people probably think MacGruber is just as funny as Cobra or go on Reddit). Well, I take that back, he starts the film by listing crime statistics of burglaries happening every 11 seconds and violent crimes happening every 25 seconds and so on. It is a pretty terse 89-minute movie, but I think you can see how someone could enjoy the proceedings, particularly with the curious observation that Stallone saw the lead character as "Bruce Springsteen with a badge." Even in its average qualities that mark it as roughly equivalent to Cosmatos & Stallone's previous collaboration with Rambo: First Blood Part II (as released one year prior), there is something curious to watch with a movie that basically comes off as a supercut of all the cliches possible for strange delight: villains with understated motives? attempts at levity for romance in the middle of mayhem? A secondary character exchanging quips with our lead that gets setup for getting wounded in an ensuing firefight? A grisly finish to close out the proceedings? All that and more is present here, and it goes to show that you can include plenty of familiar aspects of an action movie and seem pretty enjoyable anyways. Edits aside, there is an energetic presence to the film that comes out quite clearly even if it wasn't going to a series of movies. Stallone might've had a bit of an ego present with being part of filming, but there is still something worth watching him engage with the proceedings, which might as well be blueprint for further smart-ass heroes going against free-wheeling bad guys in the future with Stone Cold (1991). It doesn't really mean great chemistry with Nielsen (Stallone's wife at the time), but I can imagine worse. Thompson may not exactly get much to really do as the heavy (okay, there's a cult that likes playing with axes, I expected less anyway), but I like it anyway, he just has a ferocious energy that inherently watchable, particularly when it comes to the climax (okay, it ends with him on a hook, but still). You get the "heh, that's nice to see" with folks such as Santoni and LaFleur, suffice to say, mainly because it's hard to make an unenjoyable wiseass accidentally in an action movie. Robinson* and character apparently was meant to be the real bad guy of the movie, complete with a planned sequence involving a tattoo at the end. Even here there is still a wiseass energy that I can't help but like from Robinson, cliches be damned. The supermarket sequence and the climax are fair enough highlights in mayhem, at least for those who know that what they get here is mainly stuff that wouldn't be too removed from a Dirty Harry offshoot (the ones who don't hesitate to label those movies as "fascist" would probably get more blubbery in criticizing it, but, well, the eyes only roll so much). Cobra might be thought as the litmus test for seeing one's taste in the same way in the same way that one can tell if someone is prevaricating you in explaining things as evasively as possible**. You either get with it or don't, as Cobra is a lubricious but worthwhile piece of entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, I don't hate Reddit, here's a source from there, as Robinson was quoted on there as calling Cobra: "The worst movie I was ever in... well, there are a few that qualify, but on another level Cobra was one of the best things I've ever done because it gave me the down payment on our house of 30 years."

**I heard that one word earlier, so why not use it?

The Karate Kid Part II.

Review #2203: The Karate Kid Part II.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Night of the Creeps.

Review #2104: Night of the Creeps.

Cast: 

Jason Lively (Chris Romero), Steve Marshall (James Carpenter "J.C." Hooper), Tom Atkins (Det. Ray Cameron), Jill Whitlow (Cynthia Cronenberg), Allan Kayser (Brad), Wally Taylor (Det. Landis), Bruce Solomon (Sgt. Raimi), David Paymer (Hollister), David Oliver (Steve), Dick Miller (Walt), Ken Heron (Johnny), and Alice Cadogan (Pam) Written and Directed by Fred Dekker (#006 - RoboCop 3)

Review: 

 “It’s an odd movie. Nobody ever sets out to make a cult movie, but there are movies a wide audience will immediately take to, and there’s NIGHT OF THE CREEPS which is a strange mish-mash of detective story, horror movie, romance, science fiction and comedy. But that’s what special about it. At the end of the day, I’m pleased with it. I pulled it off.“

Admittedly, B-movie tributes or pastiches are perhaps a dime a dozen. Apparently, Dekker came up with the script for the film in less than four weeks. He stated an aim for a "1950s sorority movie", complete with a handful of B-movie cliches, whether that involves nerds, corny characters or monsters. Dekker's first credit was House (1986), which was directed by Steve Miner. Dekker had written scripts for films that hadn't come to fruition (such as one for an America version of Godzilla), but one he did helped get him an agent. When it came to Creeps, the agent gave the script to a number of producers, and Charles Gordon happened to show interest, which eventually led to a production at TriStar for six million dollars (this was the first production for Gordon, who would go on to produce for films such as Die Hard). Aside from a few reshoots (such as a sequence involving a toolshed) and a different ending, the film went off mostly without a hitch, but a limited release of less than a thousand theaters meant that the film was not a hit on release, but it has endured as a cult favorite in some circles. Dekker went on to see two of his scripts turned into films the year after the release of this one with The Monster Squad (which he directed) and House II: The Second Story. If you were wondering about the ending, what is different is that the studio mandated what Dekker called a "cheap scare", as opposed to his idea of an ending that involves a burnt character collapsing to the ground while the zombie slugs move away to the cemetery, where a spaceship is above it (of course the film starts with a spaceship experiment, so I think you can see how that makes sense).

For those familiar with films of its ilk with weird creatures and one-note characters to go with one distinct performances, you will be just fine here. I figured it would be a neat little average film when I first heard of it years ago ("hearing" and "getting off my butt to see it" are different things), and that assessment seems about right here. It is a microwaved dinner prepared with the right instructions and most of the patience required to make it, which involves a few decent effects and a second half that picks up the slack left by the sorority stuff (and a black-and-white opening set in the 1950s) for what you would expect. In theory, the character played by Atkins could've just been a flippant cliché that would've been just fine as the authority figure against the zombie slugs (for whatever reason, there's an axe murderer around at times, dead and alive). Oddly enough though, the performance by Atkins is the best of the whole film (go figure, Dekker recognized it from the audition), because, well, there is a tragic energy to it that is endearing and entertaining from the very get-go. Atkins apparently rates this as one of his key favorites, and it damn well makes sense ; the sequence where he explains being there on the night of finding the axe murderer is probably his highlight scene. Honestly, if you cut down on the teenagers faster and dwell right in on this oddball of fire, the movie would probably be even better, even though Marshall and Lively aren't exactly just chopped liver. Once you get someone going from talking about girls to getting things going with a flamethrower, that's almost all you need. The pursuit of figuring out what's going on is more fun when you have familiarity with the material rather than snide jokes, and for the most part, the film is engaging in grimy gore that is made by someone with spirit of passion rather than huckster spirit. In the end, those who know the machinations of the B-movie will like what they see here. It is the kind of thing you put on late at night and move along with (maybe a light chuckle at the name references because it isn't so ridiculous), one that makes quality entertainment fit for a first timer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Killer Klowns from Outer Space.

She's Gotta Have It.

Review #1976: She's Gotta Have It.

Cast: 

Tracy Camilla Johns (Nola Darling), Tommy Redmond Hicks (Jamie Overstreet), John Canada Terrell (Greer Childs), Spike Lee (Mars Blackmon), Raye Dowell (Opal Gilstrap), Joie Lee (Clorinda Bradford), Dennis Karika (The Trainer), S. Epatha Merkerson (Dr. Jamison), and Bill Lee (Sonny Darling) Directed, Written, and Produced by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing, #1543 - Inside Man, and #1643 - Malcolm X)

Review: 

"I'm a filmmaker. I know what I want to do. I'm not making movies to become famous or become filthy rich or to have 10 million beautiful women...I just want to present Black people as I know them-as I know they haven't been portrayed in Hollywood."

You know, for all of the attention I gave Spike Lee for classics such as Do the Right Thing (1989) and Malcolm X (1992), I do wish I actually started at the beginning with his career, if only because it is far more interesting to go from point A to point B with seeing how a filmmaker evolves (or gets better) over time. Well, that, and because without She's Gotta Have It, who knows if one gets the films that came later from Lee? Of course, the real beginning (as probably mentioned before) is Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (1983), as it was his master's degree thesis at the Tisch School of the Arts, which attracted attention. However, he couldn't find a major studio that wanted to work with him and his ideas on his terms, so when he did She's Gotta Have It, his first feature-length film, he did all on his own with funding from various sources (grants, deferred payments, and personal favors). It was shot over a dozen days on a budget of $175,000 in Brooklyn (which is where Lee grew up after his family moved from Atlanta). Of course, it only took screening the film at places such as New York University of a rough cut that pushed the film to completion (with Lee pitching himself at these screenings, obviously). The movie was a fair hit for the independent circuit, which helped set the stage for Lee doing further films in consecutive years such as School Daze (1988), Do the Right Thing (1989), Mo' Better Blues (1990), Jungle Fever (1991), and Malcolm X (1992). Three decades later, a television adaptation of the movie was developed by Lee, who directed every episode of the two-season series that ran on Netflix.

Lee wanted to challenge sexual stereotypes that looked upon both African American men and women with frank honesty, which results in a distinct feature film debut. He took inspiration from seeing male friends of his boast about how many female friends they had and basically reversed it (while taking inspiration also from Rashomon (1950)). In fact, he came up with a questionnaire on the sexual habits of young women and asked women he knew about what answers made sense. In that sense, I think the movie works just fine as an indie comedy-drama that makes some steps forward in presenting distinct viewpoints in sexuality for a mostly compelling curiosity. With its black-and-white photography (except for one scene) and its habit of characters talking to the screen for 84 minutes, the movie is a lament for one's freedom to make choices on their own happiness, regardless of what the perception might be from others. This is the one defining role for Johns, a stage actress who had to be convinced over the course of months by Lee that he could make a compelling character. She does a reasonable job in portraying the dilemmas that come with one perspective of youth with hang-ups, a free spirit with agency. Terrell, Hicks, and Lee play the three suitors of distinct types: the high-class vain one, the "sensitive" one, and a joker.  Terrell amuses me the most in vanity, a stuck-up snob that has the timing required in showing just how much one really can (and in some ways, should) love themselves. Hicks and his vulnerable sensitivity is probably the one most relatable when it comes to seeing what really lurks behind the spoken and unspoken phrases, while Lee is fairly amusing. Probably the only scene that strikes a different chord from the rest is the rape scene, which Lee has expressed regret over, since he felt it made light of rape that he wishes he could take back. The movie is what Lee called a "free style" film, one that is a hybrid of narrative and documentary, one shot by future director Ernest Dickerson and edited by Lee. As a whole, the movie comes and go in trying to establish compelling points about true desires and expectations that will challenge the viewer the slightest bit, whether that involves them nodding their head or rolling their eyes the slightest bit (so yes, one either rolls with these folks or treats them amusingly). Lee wanted to present a compelling Black tale and I would say he succeeded in that respect considering what would come afterwards, which helps to shape plenty of reasons to give this a curious glance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Tongues Untied.

Ruthless People.

Review #1938: Ruthless People.

Cast: 

Danny DeVito (Sam Stone), Bette Midler (Barbara Stone), Judge Reinhold (Ken Kessler), Helen Slater (Sandy Kessler), Anita Morris (Carol Dodsworth), Bill Pullman (Earl Mott), William G. Schilling (Police Chief Henry Benton), Art Evans (Lt. Bender), Clarence Felder (Lt. Walters), and J. E. Freeman (Bedroom Killer) Directed by David Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #699 - The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, #821: The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear), Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!, #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux, #585, #664), Jerry Zucker (#585, #664, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost, #1714 - Rat Race)

Review: 

This is an interesting film to cover. Oh sure, the filmmaking trio of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker brothers (Jerry and David) did plenty of comedy material back to their days with their own small theater in their native Wisconsin, but this one was certainly interesting to consider among the rest. For one, it is the only time that the trio directed a film together that they did not write themselves. The film was written by Dale Launer, who took inspiration from the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst; when asked about the similarities between the film and "The Ransom of Red Chief" (a story about a kid so annoying his kidnappers to where they pay the father to take him back), he said it was just a coincidence. He later wrote for films such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) and My Cousin Vinny (1992). This was the third of three films that the trio directed together (after Airplane! and Top Secret), as from that point on, they would direct their own solo projects. The reason for their split was because they simply were ready to move in different directions alongside the fact that they did not see as much financial success as they believed they would from this (due to studio accounting, since the directing salary was split three ways with them). So yes, David Zucker would direct the first two Naked Gun films while also writing it with his brother and Abrahams, and each respective director went their own way in comedy.

So yes, here is a comedy with a premise built on a kidnapping that spirals into silliness when the hostage situation is really a one-way street, complete with mistaken identities, an unrelated serial killer, and a climax on a pier. It may be the odd film in their features, but it is a still a pretty good experience, one with plenty of amusement as a farce with fun misanthropes, complete with a look and style perfectly decadent for the era of the 1980s. With such a cheery dark premise, the key to making it all work is to have folks with enough energy to carry the material with the edge required. What we have is a key quartet ready to handle it together: DeVito, Midler, Reinhold, and Slater. DeVito shows great passion within a role designed with slime in mind: who else but him could play such an earnest villain? He has such confidence in the role, one that can sell the opening monologue with gusto, whereas a lesser actor would make it sound like an exposition-dump. Comeuppance or not, it is satisfying to see him engage as the master of the shit-eating grin in ways that other actors could only dream to get down the way he does. Midler (an actor when not singing on a regular basis) is the perfect type of abrasive: confident in her abilities and roaringly amusing, one who gets on the nerves with righteous timing and no sense of inordinate irritation. Reinhold and Slater play the kidnapping duo with resourceful timing as the nicest folks of the whole film (playing to the irony of them being the only folks we see commit a crime) as beleaguered and shy folks that we like just as much as the folks designed as being ones loved in hating. Morris and Pullman (in his first film role) are the other key group to the puzzle, with the former being good in the conniving side-person to the over-the-top hilarity and the latter being quite amusing as the dimwit. Probably the best representation of the film in its dark glee is an exchange between DeVito and Reinhold in which the latter is trying to lower the price down in the hostage giveaway only to find that the former is practically daring them to send the hostage to the morgue (they would know, because they just came from there!). As a comedy of misunderstandings filled with odd little people, it works out pretty well for 94 minutes, presenting its ever-growing odd situations with useful execution by pros in a useful curiosity: a dynamite script without their intervention that they handle just as well as their other films. Crude but unapologetic, Ruthless People is a neat little gem worth looking into.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Review #1909: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Review: 

"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.

The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate. 

If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role. 

As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Better Tomorrow.

Review #1875: A Better Tomorrow.

Cast: 

Ti Lung (Sung Tse-ho), Chow Yun-fat (Mark Lee), Leslie Cheung (Sung Tse-kit), Emily Chu (Jackie), Waise Lee (Shing), Tien Feng (Father Sung), John Woo (Inspector Wu), Yanzi Shi (Mr. Yiu), Kenneth Tsang (Ken), and Fui-On Shing (Shing's right hand man) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), and #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2, and #1855 - Hard Target)

Review: 

Ever hear of a movie that inspires a nickname for a genre? On release, A Better Tomorrow (1986) would set the stage for what is known as the "heroic bloodshed" genre in Hong Kong cinema. In other words: films with some sort of good-willed criminal to go with elements of loyalty or strong brotherhood before action is conveyed through stylized gun battles that is known as either "ballistic ballet" or more specifically, gun fu. This was the first prominent film of John Woo, who had been inspired by seeing Bruce Lee in The Big Boss (1971) that saw him do a mix of martial art films and comedies. The film was written by Woo, Chan Hing-Kai, and Leung Suk-wah, with producer credit going to Tsui Hark, who had directed film such as All the Wrong Clues for the Right Solution (1981) and Zu Warriors from the Magic Mountain (1983) before co-founding his own production company Film Workshop in 1984. The movie was done on a tight budget and proved a huge success. Tsui and Woo would work together again in A Better Tomorrow II (released in 1987 that saw the return of Ti, Chow, Cheung, Chu, and Tsang)), but their disagreements meant that only the former returned to direct the last of the series with the prequel A Better Tomorrow III: Love & Death in Saigon (1989). A Better Tomorrow had a number of inspirations that included two Hong Kong films: The Story of a Discharged Prisoner (1967) and The Brothers (1979), which was actually a remake of an Indian movie named Deewaar (1975). Three remakes have followed: Aatish: Feel the Fire (1994, made in India), A Better Tomorrow (2010, made in South Korea), and A Better Tomorrow 2018 (made in China).

The power of the film is not so much just the array of action sequences with weapons but instead the characters around it that make it a generally absorbing experience. Told primarily in Cantonese with some English and Mandarin as well, A Better Tomorrow utilizes its 95-minute runtime to righteous execution and timing. Squabbles over just who one is as an individual trying to get out of the muck of the underworld has never felt so bittersweet in fun. The material may be familiar, even seeming like a touch from Old Hollywood at times, but it is a patient movie that never seems at odds with its audience, instead leading them to the payoff they think they want rather than playing for phoniness; of course, Chow's attire in particular inspired an array of copy cats across Hong Kong, so folks really did just dig the movie and wanted to look like it rather than just absorb it like product. Ti was elevated to star status in the 1970s with Chang Cheh as his primary director before leaving Shaw Brothers Studios lessened his power in the 1980s. Pushing forty with a role that was basically part of a three pronged attack of actors, Ti pulls it all together with the regrets required from such a role with solemn force. Cheung had started a career in show business as a teenager that eventually found success within Cantopop music, although he would appear in a number of films from time to time. Chow and Ti may overshadow him, but Cheung does make a fair impression when it comes to trying to play stubborn impulse in the shadow of crime (his onscreen chemistry with Chu isnt as lucky, since Tsang manages to overshadow her in outright presence). Chow was a television presence for a number of years prior to this film that had mixed results in trying to enter film (to the point where there were doubts over the success of a film with him in it). The success of the film would lead to a handful more collaborations with Woo alongside both of the follow-ups to A Better Tomorrow. He does an exquisite job here, straddling the line of loyalty and lack of fear that makes for a confident presence. The sequence where he convinces a character to get their head together and fight is probably the highlight scene, although obviously the climax would be a good one to highlight Chow too. Lee makes a quality villain, conniving in all the right ways for those cold moments required with either lesd presence, right down to the vicious beating sequence. As a whole, the movie runs smoothly in its bravado of action and tinges of drama that come together for riveting quality for involved, one with a closing sequence that caps itself off in rewarding fashion to make it all quite worth the time spent to get there. Helping to make a specific nickname for a genre is certainly worth all of the things said after 35 years later, in my book.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

Manhunter.

Review #1713: Manhunter.

Cast: 

William Petersen (Will Graham), Kim Greist (Molly Graham), Joan Allen (Reba McClane), Brian Cox (Dr. Hannibal Lecktor), Dennis Farina (Jack Crawford), Tom Noonan (Francis Dollarhyde), Stephen Lang (Freddy Lounds), David Seaman (Kevin Graham), Benjamin Hendrickson (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Michael Talbott (Geehan), and Dan Butler (Jimmy Price) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali and #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans)

Review: 

It is odd to think that this film has only just reached its 35th anniversary today. The movie is an adaptation of Red Dragon, which was written by Thomas Harris in 1981 as his second novel (Black Sunday (1975) was his first, and that book was turned into a film two years later). He took a good deal of research into the novel that meant classes with the FBI Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Stephen King, when asked about the book, gave notice to Harris for his "clean eye for prose and his impeccable choice of detail" alongside the great deal of suspense packed into the narrative. Of course, when one thinks of a producer to bring something big into theaters, you probably think of Dino De Laurentiis (and his wife Martha, who both would own the rights to the character of Lecter on film). Since he had experienced failure with Year of the Dragon (1985), this somehow meant that the title of this movie had to be Manhunter (no points as to who came up with adding a K to Lector's name). Of course, we all know what came to follow after the release of the book and the film adaptation. Harris wrote a second book involving Hannibal Lecter with The Silence of the Lambs in 1988 that was turned into a film three years later to near unanimous praise (featuring Anthony Hopkins as Lector over Cox); amusingly enough, the De Laurentiis couple allowed Orion Pictures to produce the film without their involvement, and obviously they were eager to find a way to see a new novel by Harris to adapt. One sequel book/film adaptation later, a second adaptation of Red Dragon followed in 2002 (with the De Laurentiis couple back as producers again, in probably one of the most befuddling distinctions ever in being behind two adaptations of the same book), which was directed by Brett Ratner with Edward Norton as Graham and Hopkins as Lector one more time.

Oddly enough, I am reminded of Mann's other most noted work in the decade with the television show Miami Vice, which he served as executive producer (mostly with the color palate, which had distinct touches in the early years) Granted, Manhunter is generally more consistent, but that detail of style seems apparent when talking about the film when it is paired with the intensity of the grim pursuit for a solid thriller. Undeniably, there is a good amount of folks that will encounter this after seeing the more famous Lector movie, and the differences between the two might surprise folks. It eschews attempts at going for levels of squeamishness that keep the manhunt at the forefront that makes one at least have some sort of shiver at what it takes to try and come back into getting into the the mindset of thinking like a killer with a distinct sense of voyeurism that keeps one on their toes. It makes sense to have Petersen there as your lead if only because one knows he already excelled with stuff like To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), which Mann saw footage of and liked enough to cast Petersen (he also had a small role in Mann's debut film Thief in 1981); as a whole, he proves quite curious, whether that means he is shown talking to home movies in pursuit of the mind or when trying to justify why he does the things he does.  It should be noted that Farina was a police officer for the Chicago Police Department for eighteen years before a chance role as a police consultant for Thief (1981) helped get him into moonlighting for Chicago-based movies and shows; incidentally, he would star in Crime Story (1986-88, which Mann served as executive producer and occasional writer/director) a month after this film premiered in theaters. Farina seems exactly at home here with solid procedural material, wrapped with tough energy that makes one at least wonder why they didn't keep him over Scott Glenn when it came time for the aforementioned next film. Greist has a few moments here and there with Petersen that go over okay, while Allen eventually gets to be paired with Noonan that ends up quite cursory. This was actually one of Lang's earliest roles, and while he may not have much to do besides play a pest, he does alright with generating a smarmy chuckle to what needs to happen. Cox is quite restrained here, but it makes sense for what happens here for a movie adaptation focused on the hunt of a different killer anyway. Hopkins would have more "meat" to chew on a few years later, but Cox sets his own stage nicely enough with a calm ooze. One doesn't need to really see him out of those bars to know that there is something dark lurking within a supposedly pathetic state. Besides, one knows the power that comes in making a fearful beast. He proves the highlight of the film, and he doesn't ever show up until nearly an hour in for a two-hour movie. Honestly, while it may be a bit too glossy for its own good at certain times, one can't say that it is a forgettable experience. It manages to keep you roped in to what is going to happen next with its pursuit with a fairly game cast and workable tension that still proves useful even after 35 years as a solid work from Mann.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.