El Mariachi.

Review #2377: El Mariachi.

Cast: 

Carlos Gallardo ("El Mariachi"), Consuelo Gómez (Dominó), Peter Marquardt (Mauricio "Moco"), Reinol Martínez ("Azul"), Jaime de Hoyos ("Bigotón"), Ramiro Gómez (The Waiter), Jesús López Viejo (The Clerk), Luis Baro (Dominó's Assistant), Óscar Fabila (The Boy) Written and Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel and #1903 - From Dusk till Dawn)

Review: 

"Mariachi wasn’t supposed to work out that well. I hadn’t really set a firm plan down. I didn’t expect that to be the movie to get out and make everything. It was in Spanish, it was very low-budget, it was designed to teach me how to make a movie. I had planned to make three of them at the same budget level, that’s why the movie ended the way it did. I was just going to make three in one year. I was hoping maybe the third one would be good enough to get me work on a real film, not be the one that went all over the world. I never expected that to be released, much less for people to see it. It’s good to map out a really decent plan that actually makes sense, that has opportunity for you to learn, because if it takes off from the start like Mariachi did, then that’s good too, but if not, you have to realize it was a learning experience. You have to keep learning and keep making movies."

Admittedly, it never hurts to pick a success story. This was a movie that was made on a budget of $7,000 that served as the feature film debut of its director Robert Rodriguez. The San Antonio native actually was interested in film when his salesman father got him a VCR (with accompanying camera) as a kid. He couldn't attend the film program at the University of Texas at Austin, but he made short films on the side of studying at the College of Communication. It was in 1991 that he made the 16mm short Bedhead (1991) that attracted him to the idea of making a filmmaking career, complete with funds raised from participating in medical testing studies. The movie was shot Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila right near the border in Mexico. If you watch the DVD extras, you get a bit of just how one can really make a movie with little to no film crew: he shot it silent and had actors who weren't in the shot to help out while being quoted as only using "24 rolls of film". Moving shots were done...via wheelchair. This is the kind of movie that hears critics about its production and decides, yes, let us cast them in small parts (specifically, the hotel owner and bartender were played by local newscasters). The movie was aimed for the Spanish-language home video market but the interest was not particularly big there. Instead, through a round of looking around in certain agencies and distributors, it wound up at Columbia Pictures acquiring the movie for a release that took money to spiff up (so about over ten times the amount to make the movie in the first place). In 1995, Rodriguez wrote both a book about the making of the movie (called Rebel Without a Crew*) and followed El Mariachi up with Desperado, which had Antonio Banderas take over as "El Mariachi"; in 2003, the "Mexico Trilogy" concluded with Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Sure, it could be pegged as one of various genres and still feel familiar, whether that is in action, neo-noir, or, well, a Western. But it is a particularly familiar movie that still proves an efficient one with a committed director who made a fun movie with that shows its playfulness with a type of scrappy grit that money can't buy, at least for 81 minutes at least. It has enough time to have a song and some general interest in making worthwhile entertainment out of what could've just been goofy meandering. Gallardo mostly is a producer nowadays, but he clearly was a key to making El Mariachi more than just a demo reel, mostly because he makes for a solid everyman. He isn't just mugging it for goofs or stoic boredom, he sells it in a certain type of dignity that is shaken with riveting interest, where even the bumbling for the chases (they kept outtakes in the movie, watch how the first chase goes) is part of the charm, right next to the bathroom sequence at least, where the tension is handled with worthwhile skill in both song and, well, squirming. Curiously, you have a group of unknowns with Gomez, de Hoyos, Marquant, and Martinez, who each appeared in Desperado but have not appeared in a name role since. Marquant happened to be involved in the same drug testing that Rodriguez was involved in. He could not actually speak Spanish (fine by Rodriguez, judging by this), so you get a performance on cue cards that is certainly interesting. Marquardt reprised his role for Desperado but he was mostly busy in video game producing (specifically for Ion Storm) before he died in 2014 at the age of 50. Marquardt may be on the phone for a chunk of his lines, but I do think it is a curiosity more than just a gimmick to see a certain type of stilted lines from this type of adversary, one who believes he has the objects he deserves. When you think about it, every character might as well be playing pretend with themselves, whether that involves how we see the character of Martinez in terms of "hiding out" or with Gomez in "assertive freedom". The climax is swift in its simplicity that I respect for just closing things out and shattering the dream that comes in new cities and new people. As a whole, El Mariachi is a neat accomplishment for its director, riding a rough road of budgetary limitations to strengths in gritty commitment that will be right up one's alley in raw curiosity that you just have to respect.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*In 2019, Rodriguez made Red 11, which was inspired by his experiences in being a guinea pig for drug testing.

Braindead.

Review #2303: Braindead.

Cast: 

Timothy Balme (Lionel Cosgrove), Diana Peñalver (Paquita María Sánchez), Elizabeth Moody (Vera Cosgrove; Elizabeth Brimilcombe as Zombie Vera), Ian Watkin (Uncle Les), Brenda Kendall (Nurse McTavish), Stuart Devenie (Father McGruder; Stephen Papps as Zombie McGruder), Jed Brophy (Void), Murray Keane (Scroat), and Glenis Levestam (Nora Matheson) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste, #1507 - Heavenly Creatures, #1540 - King Kong (2005), #2259 - Meet the Feebles)

Review: 

"The film is basically like a theatrical farce in many ways. Lionel ends up with a problem of having all these zombies in his house, without wanting anyone else to find out about it ...every possible thing that could go wrong, does go wrong."

Well, one needs guts or laughs every now and then. Peter Jackson had actually met Fran Walsh and Stephen Sinclair while in the midst of preparing the short-film-turned-feature debut Bad Taste (1987). Eventually, after the release of his next film Meet the Feebles (as co-written by the group for release in 1989), it finally came to pass with the three doing a script together. Jackson stated his goal of making "a splatter film that non splatter fans can go see", one that freely aimed for cheap laughs because of his liking for comedy and a general interest to entertain people. Made for roughly $3 million over the course of eleven weeks, the movie wasn't an initial hit with audiences (New Zealand is not exactly a populous place), but it eventually grew a reputation for its gore while keeping Jackson on the steady path of filmmaking, as evidenced by his next feature being the biodrama Heavenly Creatures just two years later (Walsh co-wrote that film while Sinclair went on to write, uh, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [2002] and Russian Snark [2010]). The film runs at 104 minutes, although in its original release it had a few cuts away from its native New Zealand (due to its similarity in title to a film called Brain Dead, the States called it "Dead Alive" for release). 

What, a horror movie that is funny even with plenty of gore? You don't say. This is a warmhearted solid movie that happens to involve a "Sumatran" rat monkey and zombie descendants. You've got an embalmer that shows up for one scene for us to find out he wears a swastika underneath his stuff. You've got a reverend that kicks ass for the Lord. You've got a special-effects laden baby of disgusting nature. And most of all, you've got a climax that ends with plenty of blood and a big mother of a final confrontation that just lets the film end right then and there. It basically runs as a soap opera (set in 1957 complete with an old shot of the New Zealand flag right then and there) and plays everything over-the-top to eager worthiness. The effects were crafted by Bob McCarron and Richard Taylor to go with some miniature work by Jackson, and the blood apparently came from maple syrup, red food coloring and some other strange substance. This was the first film appearance for Balme, who still goes around talking about how enjoyable the experience was in filmmaking. He is tasked with making for a goofy dork that we can follow along with even in the madcap hilarity that arises in a silly performance that in some ways would've been right at home with the familiar slapstick times that happens to handle a heavy lawnmower, although most might also say the baby sequence is just as peak in amusement (you just have to see it to get it). Peñalver plays well in goofy warmth that plays to some of the expectations imposed in reactive timing when the situation requires it, whether that involves the meet-cute (after "foreshadowing" in fortune telling) or the eventual reunion that might as well be a scream-union. Moody is delightful in caustic timing that is quite amusing to play off Balme even when it comes to just being a voice (hence Brimilcombe) after a while, with the lunch sequence being particularly gnarly to play out in casual gutty timing. In a sea of movies with attempts at trying to top each other in effects or films they believe are the genre-savvy film for its generation, sometimes you need something to remind you of what real craftsmanship looks like. As a whole, it is the splatter movie for the entertainer at heart, clearly moving on its own terms in manic energy and glee in entrapping its viewer for a movie that straddles itself onto farce with worthwhile commitment and execution in every scene. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Closing up the October part of the schedule with Phantom of the Paradise.

Army of Darkness.

Review #2141: Army of Darkness.

Cast: 

Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams / "Evil Ash"), Embeth Davidtz (Sheila), Marcus Gilbert (Lord Arthur), Ian Abercrombie (Wise Man), Richard Grove (Duke Henry the Red), Timothy Patrick Quill (Blacksmith), Michael Earl Reid (Gold Tooth), Bridget Fonda (Linda), Bill Moseley (Deadite captain), Patricia Tallman (Possessed witch), and Ted Raimi (Cowardly warrior/Second supportive villager/Anthony, the S-Mart clerk/Skeleton voices) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3, and #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness)

Review: 

Sure, it is easy to say that the third film of a series just can't compare to the first two films. And you would be right in a variety of those scenarios, even with something as curious as the Evil Dead series, which retained the same director in Sam Raimi and lead presence in Bruce Campbell for each of them that had a sense of evolution from film to film. The gory mayhem of the original film (1981) that was shot for a low budget in a cabin in Tennessee, combined with the efforts of producer Irvin Shapiro, resulted in a cult classic. Six years later, Evil Dead II, basically a "re-quel", came under the hands of Dino De Laurentiis to a cult hit that may or may not be better than the previous film within its comedy-horror aspects. Now, in 1992, here we have a medieval-themed film that actually was proposed and rejected for the second film due to cost. There were various influences that came into the script as done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, such as A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Jason and the Argonauts. The film was made in a deal that saw De Laurentiis fund the film while Universal Pictures serve as distributor.  This is the kind of film that somehow has more than two versions: the original theatrical cut runs at 81 minutes (those studio yokels actually thought they could get a cut for PG-13 and failed anyway), while Raimi's preferred version, with the original intended ending, runs at 96. Other versions were done to go with International audiences and television viewers that each went 88 minutes. The four-disc Blu-ray I purchased included three of these versions, but I went with the director's cut for the sole reason that edits are no fun. A "re-imagining" feature of the series that shared the name of the original came out in 2013 before a continuation series of the third film came out with Ash vs. Evil Dead in 2015.

Sure, it's easy to say that the first two films shine more than this one when it comes to horror. But so what? I actually found this one to be a pretty good movie on its own goal of injecting action comedy into the mix to make a distinct venture that is quite entertaining. We are talking about a film following the lead of the last one in a lead character who had a chainsaw for a right hand, nothing surprises me here. Why would I be mad that the film goes in its own direction with Ash when it is evident the filmmakers want to go this way? (okay, maybe the theatrical cut might not have been coherently focused but screw the editor). This is basically the Return of the Jedi of the series, are you surprised by this? Of course, it's such a funny time with this oddball lead character that has to run the gamut of growth as a hero even when confronting the horrors of being stuck in the Dark Ages (with Deadites and other odd things, no less). When it comes to quips and goofy humor, I think Campbell handles it with good gusto that is interesting for those who like some slapstick humor. The lines of parody and spectacle are enjoyable in his hands because, well, that is what I am here for, particularly with the little Ashes sequence. Having to do cues and fight beings that would be added in as stop motion is no small feat. The other actors play it mostly to form (you've got some Deadite goofiness, of course), but again, the films are lifted mostly with Campbell up there first. If one is to go out with a bang, going out with stop motion and gusto is ideal. Personally, I'm fine with either ending of the film (after checking the obvious choice of the director's cut, I looked over the other disc for a moment). You either get a darkly amusing punchline or a heroically amusing punchline, it really is up to you. As a whole, the last two Evil Dead films are like sides of the same coin in horror misery that would've made it hard for any follow-up to top, but Army of Darkness, now with the passage of time and the availability of a director's cut, proves that even a third-best effort can still be a really good time anyway.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This ends Halloween The Week After, Year Five. Over the course of October 1 to today, a grand total of 48 horror films (and one other exception) were covered by Movie Night. It only seemed funny to close November 7th the same way that I ended the first of the Week Afters with an Evil Dead film, much in the same way that a Ring film has been there the last three years. There were a handful of films that just missed the cut for timing or other reasons, such as: I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Return of the Vampire, Trog, The Old Dark House (1963), Color Out of Space, The Student of Prague (1926), The Monster, Quartermass 2, Frankenstein 1970, Misery, Beau is Afraid, The Fog, The Fly II, you get the idea. Next year probably won't be all-out like this year, but one never knows where the Month of Horror takes you. Now then, onto other things.

Man Bites Dog.

Review #2077: Man Bites Dog.

Cast: 

Benoît Poelvoorde (Ben), Valérie Parent (Valerie), Rémy Belvaux (Remy - Reporter), André Bonzel (Andre - Cameraman), Jean-Marc Chenut (Patrick - Sound Man #1), Alain Oppezzi (Franco - Sound Man #2), and Vincent Tavier (Vincent - Sound Man #3) Produced and Directed by Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde.

Review: 

Admittedly, Belgium has never gotten a fair shake (with one exception) from Movie Night despite the fact that it has a distinct identity within three official languages of Dutch, French, and German. So why not feature a French-language film done with the goal of doing so in cheap effectiveness? Belvaux, Bonzel, and Poelvoorde first worked together with "Pas de C4 pour Daniel Daniel" (1987), a mock trailer about a secret agent named Daniel Daniel (the trio had attended film school together in Belgium). At any rate, when it came to this film for collaboration, they wrote it with Vincent Tavier, although Belvaux was solely responsible for the story; the trio also produced the film and starred in it, as I'm sure you are aware. You might not be aware though, that the relatives depicted in the film are actually relatives of Poelvoorde, who didn't know what the subject matter was beyond just a documentary on him. In the decades since release, it has served as a great peak for its key directors/stars. Poelvoorde has been a regular presence in Belgian filmmaking as an actor. Belvaux never directed another feature film, instead becoming a director for commercials on television before he committed suicide in 2006. Bonzel returned to feature film directing with Flickering Ghosts of Loves Gone By in 2021.Incidentally, this is actually a found footage film on the basis of one certain scene, which amuses me because of the fact that it means that it is a superior found footage movie than subsequent films that are thought to be more of a part of the classification of (overrated) stuff such as The Blair Witch Project (1999). Of course, as a film detailing documentary filmmaking, a couple of films could to spring to mind, such as Real Life (1979), with the muddling of filmmaker and subject. Actually, when the filmmakers were interviewed upon release of the film, they stated that the subject of the film was being a critique on the very nature of documentary filmmaking as opposed to being about the violence. Naturally, this film generated a tiny bit of controversy due to its subject matter of a serial killer making their rounds with rampant violence (well, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, was only released six years earlier). An edited version of the film (done for release in certain markets that wouldn't let stuff considered too much or "NC-17" play in rentals or otherwise) took out a sequence involving a gang-rape. The film is known in its native country as "C'est arrivé près de chez vous", which translates to "It Happened Near Your Home", but "man bites dog" is a journalism term that involves what kind of story would get the best chance of reporting between a man biting a dog or a dog biting a man.

Evidently, one big lover of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who loved the film so much when he saw it at the Cannes Film Festival that he took a swing at a security guard when he couldn't get past him for the second screening. I mention this due to the coincidence of him having later written a script that became Natural Born Killers (1994) that dealt with a cameraman looking upon the perspective of charismatic killers that wasn't a mockumentary. I think you can agree that this is a technical triumph when it comes to overcoming a low budget to make a damn good experience. Forget the subject matter for two seconds, it really is a useful film to look at in the art of mixing guerilla filmmaking with limited casting and a wonderful use of black-and-white photography to make a vibrantly disturbing feature. It is the pitch-black kind of comedy that goes hand in hand with showing a great joke on voyeuristic viewing of people in film. Is it the darkest thing you'll ever see? Experience says no, but, well, you really have to see it for yourselves in gauging the line between appalling and curious, since this is a film with a rape and then coming back to film the after-effects of participating with a serial killer. This goes hand in hand with seeing various methods of murder, whether that is a grab-bag of gunshots, murder in conversation, or, well, scaring someone to death. Poelvoorde is tasked to talk however he likes when being seen on camera for the film as much as one would expect from playing a serial killer that indulges in various opinions that revolve around red bricks, flat-out racism, or conversation with relatives. I think he really does pull a worthy performance in that strange sense of a being that one can only barely call a man, one where the soul is laid bare for all to see in basically being ordinary casual horror that does make for quite a sick joke that appeals to my sensibilities more than anything. Hell, actual serial killers probably have nothing on his odd attracting power of persuasion, and he basically is just an amateur philosopher "Everyman". The people behind him in camera (most of the time, aside from little moments to detail soundmen that die more often than drummers in This Is Spinal Tap) prove more than observers in a way that proves fascinating (again, if they were documenting a plumber, well, the message would mostly be the same about observer becoming participant, minus the little part of death). They just assume that they will get some sort of insight from a subject that goes from focus to financier, to the point where they are at one point looking at a scene (in slo-mo) they filmed of an attack on a policeman by their subject. Hell, the group encounters another documentary crew about killers, because, well, what's one good killer story without someone else doing their own rendition? So yes, with enough time, one could build a tolerance to violence to where they don't look away despite the evident shame...and to the satire of the film, "it is what it is", because no matter how much one says they want to look away from something, they really don't look away. The lines of objectivity become blurred much in the same way that we should expect from any folks that try to play the role of observer only to find themselves in the puddle. I especially like the ending, because it shows that among the illusions of trying to play observer or amateur philosopher, there is also an illusion to shatter in the idea that things will go exactly the way you planned, killer or not. I found it to be a really curious film, one that leaves its viewer to have a certain pit grow in their stomach while being a useful experiment in low-budget filmmaking and crafting a killer satire. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Sweden and Bergman. 

The Bodyguard (1992).

Review #1940: The Bodyguard.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Frank Farmer), Whitney Houston (Rachel Marron), Gary Kemp (Sy Spector), Bill Cobbs (Bill Devaney), Ralph Waite (Herb Farmer), Tomas Arana (Greg Portman), Michele Lamar Richards (Nicki Marron), Mike Starr (Tony Scipelli), Christopher Birt (Henry Adams), DeVaughn Nixon (Fletcher Marron), and Gerry Bamman (Ray Court) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano and #1630 - L.A. Story)

Review: 

Well, even the popular entertainment has a shelf life worth looking into. Three decades have only kept the attention for the second-biggest hit of the year in the discussion, if only because of the even more popular soundtrack with Whitney Houston. The Newark native was after all a major singer with a string of hits since the late 1980s, and her performance and production made the best selling album for a soundtrack...ever. All of this happened for a film that had seeds of creation first planted a decade earlier. It probably should surprise you that the film was originally written with Steve McQueen and Diana Ross in mind. Yes, in the mid 1970s, this was pitched as a film, and yes, it was apparently rejected for being "too controversial". An attempt to do the film a few years later with Ryan O'Neal as the lead stalled because of strained relations between O'Neal and Ross. The film was written by Lawrence Kasdan (who had written the initial script in 1975), who you might recognize as writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and director of films such as The Big Chill (1983). Attempted revisions to the script apparently made it dark enough to where Mick Jackson insisted on just returning to the original concept. This was the third feature film for British native Mick Jackson, who was fresh off his success in directing L.A. Story (1991).

This is a confused movie, one that somehow is too silly and contrived to be taken seriously for anybody thinking this might be a thriller along with being too stoic in the art of going beyond first gear for what is meant to be called romance. It is also way too ordinary to run for 129 minutes. The only thing the movie has going for it is the songs, because yea, who can resist "I Will Always Love You" (sung by Houston as a cover, since the original song was done by Dolly Parton). It isn't even a case of being paint-by-the-numbers, because even other movies would know when to get on with the show. Costner probably was quite proud of himself for getting do a film where he also served as producer (just like previous efforts in Dances with Wolves) and could cut his hair like McQueen to try and hone his presence. He certainly acts like a bored McQueen would have likely been if this had been done in the 1970s, that much is sure. If you want to watch the film to make fun of it, you might have a ball looking at how understated his performance ends up being, as if he was replaced by discount Costner. The only scene that has any impact is one where he has a scuffle with Starr which ends with him throwing a knife right near him to close out a silent fight where he shows just how good he is. Houston had never acted in a film before this one, and, well, that is pretty evident early on, which results in a very mild case of "well, natural acting is technically a thing" that is then followed with "she can sing, just get her better material". She acted in three further films before her death in 2012. The movie doesn't even bother to have a middling attempt at a threat, since there is never one moment where the tension rises to any sort of interesting level. You would think a movie that has its climax during an Academy Awards ceremony would bring out some sort of curiosity to things. Nope. Kemp was one of the musicians for Spandau Ballet. That is pretty much all one can say about his performance. Cobbs and Waite are practically standing there begging for more substantial lines, but nope, this patchy romance is totally stable enough.

I kid you not, there was almost a sequel to this film. Apparently, Costner wanted to do another film with a different famous name, one who was a friend of his. The friend was Diana, Princess of Wales, but her death in 1997 put an end to it in predevelopment. A musical adaptation was done in London in 2012, and there are apparently plans for a film remake (heaven forbid they make a film that might actually show some depth - well, a man can dream, can't he?). As a whole, the best way to approach the film is to close one's eyes and just think really hard about what the hell they are watching. It might be the only movie where shutting everything but the music off might be a better experience than this overlong average movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sneakers (1992).

Review #1886: Sneakers.

Cast: 

Robert Redford (Martin Bishop / Martin Brice), Ben Kingsley (Cosmo), Sidney Poitier (Donald Crease), David Strathairn (Irwin 'Whistler' Emery), Dan Aykroyd (Darren 'Mother' Roskow), River Phoenix (Carl Arbogast), Mary McDonnell (Liz Ogilvy), Stephen Tobolowsky (Werner Brandes), Timothy Busfield (Dick Gordon), Eddie Jones (Buddy Wallace), George Hearn (Gregor "Greg" Ivanovich), Donal Logue (Dr. Gunter Janek), Lee Garlington (Dr. Elena Rhyzkov), and James Earl Jones (NSA Agent Bernard Abbott) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson (#488 - Field of Dreams)

Review: 

Ensemble movies need their appreciation too, if you think about it. Do you remember WarGames (1983)? In the process of writing the script for that film, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes discovered the existence of "sneakers", which refers to hackers that well, sneak into a computer system somewhere (in this case, the hackers here are hired by banks to break in and test the security system). A number of drafts eventually attracted the attention of Phil Alden Robinson, and he ended up spending nine years trying to get the film going. Getting the attention of Robert Redford (cast in a role originally intended with a star in their mid-40s as written by people in their 40s) helped the process and eventually led to a film with a cadre of actors that went from veteran stars to younger names such as River Phoenix (this was the penultimate movie released before his death the following year) while squeezing James Earl Jones in for one scene. Lasker and Parkes also produced the film, which was their fourth venture together (one of them was Awakenings (1990)). Clearly, the movie is really more of a take on the caper movies of yesteryear with its distinct characters in its ensemble, although the message about a world run by "little ones and zeroes" probably still seems quite true after three decades. You probably remember Robinson as the director of Field of Dreams (1989), his second effort; Sneakers is his third feature effort, and his next feature film ended up being Freedom Song eight years later.

Admittedly, it is a nice little movie when it comes to seeing familiar faces in an attempt at a techno-thriller/heist movie. Oh sure, it is a movie that does extoll a little bit about the quirks of a new age where having control of the information might be more important than having the fastest gun. Sneakers does so with a grasp of a number of cliches you have probably seen in countless heist movies with how you can describe the supporting characters in two-word phrases or how the climax is operated (besides the literal slow-motion sequence), right down to needing to acquire a box. In that sense, it can either prove as a comfort movie with plenty of enjoyment from an age like the 1990s or just an average ensemble, and I think it works out more often than not to make a quiet winner. Redford does well with what is needed in general charm, a uniter of misfits with what you've seen a few times from him (perhaps playing a bit of The Sting but without looking like a copy). Poitier, in his penultimate appearance in a feature film, still has the knack for steely timing to contrast the semi-whimsical others, mostly against Aykroyd (amusingly, when approached for the film, he actually was more interested in playing the Cosmo role before being told that Kingsley was signed for it). Kingsley doesn't have as much to really do as the adversary, but in a movie with just a fraction of action and more about the general chase, this works out okay in general familiarity (better him than a ham or a nonentity, perhaps). Strathairn lends a few chuckles to go along with a wiry Phoenix that make the most of those little moments to shuffle the plot. McDonnell makes a quality deadpan middleperson, one who does share a few interesting moments with Redford alongside some chuckles with Tobolowsky, who seems to be having a ball with his moments on screen. 126 minutes is admittedly a big ask for thrillers to enjoy, but I think it does pull enough out of the bag of enjoyment to work at the expectation required from its cast and crew. It's a movie about a couple of scraps who just want to untangle themselves from a weirdo conspiracy involving uncertainties that is dealt with in wry patience that makes a solid little three-decade gem. If fun-loving ensembles trying to play caper is up your alley, go right ahead with this one, where the game of concerns of privacy still holds true now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Under Siege.

Review #1877: Under Siege.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Chief Petty Officer Casey Ryback), Tommy Lee Jones (William Strannix), Gary Busey (Commander Peter Krill), Erika Eleniak (Jordan Tate), Colm Meaney (Daumer), Patrick O'Neal (Captain J.T. Adams), Andy Romano (Admiral Bates), Dale Dye (Captain Nick Garza), Nick Mancuso (Tom Breaker), Damian Chapa (Tackman), Tom Wood (Private Nash), Troy Evans (Granger), Dennis Lipscomb (Trenton), Bernie Casey (Commander Harris), Glenn Morshower (Ensign Taylor), and Raymond Cruz (Ramirez) Directed by Andrew Davis (#176 - The Fugitive and #187 - Holes)

Review: 

“Most people are surprised that the film is as sophisticated as it is. It appeals to people who have a point of view about nuclear weapons and the story thrusts you into an incredible situation that is not far-fetched.” - Andrew Davis

Admittedly, the sentence "A movie considered to be one of the best with Steven Seagal" is not exactly a big selling phrase in the realm of picking out action movies. This was the fifth film for an actor that in some ways looks and sounds like what would happen if a Soldier of Fortune ad came to life, one that you may remember had gone from stunt coordinator to starring in Above the Law (1988), which had been directed by Andrew Davis, who had only been known as an action director because of Code of Silence (1985). Davis would get to work with Jones again after their collaboration on The Package (1989). The writer for Under Siege was J. F. Lawton (a former member of the Coast Guard Reserve), who wrote it as a spec script named Dreadnought, which evidently was written with a big budget in mind before it got scaled down (Lawton would also serve as an executive producer, and like a number of his films, Seagal also produced the movie) to be made for roughly $35 million. Seagal actually turned the film down a couple of times, apparently because he was resistant to the character played by Eleniak, calling the character as a "bimbo", but revisions were done that pleased him, with him calling the film "an adventure, not an action movie" with human moments and humor (he has since claimed it was his idea to have the character in the film for humor, but can you really take that seriously?). At any rate, Seagal got to be director and star for On Deadly Ground (1994) in exchange for participating in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (with Romano, Mancuso and Dye returning), which takes place on a train. As for Davis, he got the job for The Fugitive (1993) because of how Harrison Ford liked what he saw from this film.

The strange thing is that the film only features Seagal sparingly if you really think about it, since he is basically present for about 40 minutes of a 103-minute film (this fact was apparently presented to Davis by a Warner Bros. executive as to why he should direct). The ship (USS Alabama, which was docked in Alabama) is basically the most important presence of the film anyways, given the scenario of the film (basically Die Hard on a battleship). It moves along full speed with execution being at the forefront in terms of action staging and (let's just say) quirky characters to carry the movie, complete with playing on an actual real-world development of US Navy surface ships having their nuclear weapons removed in 1991. To be generous to Seagal, he does well with the material given to him in part because he seems relaxed here, one who can play on the silly parts of the script (the cook who happens to be a former Navy SEAL being teamed up with a Playboy playmate) without coming off as wooden or out-of-touch. In other words: if you let him kick and try not to say too much, he does fine. Besides, with Busey and Jones on the other side of the coin, how can you go wrong? Man is it fun to see these two get to play adversary, particularly from Jones. Busey can chew on scenery like it was a solid piece of steak, let's get that out of the way, since he gets to grit his teeth in brazen intensity, complete with doing mayhem in a dress for a few moments. Jones still manages to be the key attraction, doing so with manic chaos in all the enjoyable over-the-top ways. Naturally, he gets the best ending sequence, because of course he does, as him and Seagal get to make faces in hand-to-hand combat before he gets taken down with the art of overkill: his eye gets gouged, then he gets stabbed in the head before he is pushed into an electrical radar screen (this plays right into my theory that one could cut Seagal films into a horror movie, since one other guy gets pushed into a band saw). Eleniak (an TV actress and model with one obvious showstopper scene) is okay, mainly there to add a few chuckles in the attempts at making Seagal and her look like a normal tandem despite both a considerable height difference (basically a head), which does work out for a few neat moments. Meaney may be playing just an Irish heavy but being a Star Trek alum makes one smile anyways, while O'Neal (in his final film role) makes a decent character presence/sacrificial lamb. The film makes for a solid thriller, mostly because one gets a collection of good action beats without sacrificing much in the plot stakes. For some odd reason, there are plans for a reboot of this film, which confuses me in part because how can you improve on what was? The accomplishment of the film is not so much the plot but the maneuvering of spectacle and familiar actors to the right places for fun, and that is more suited for original filmmaking rather than drawing from the well. At any rate, it is the direction of Davis in making a suitable thriller in confined space that helps to bring Under Siege into winning material even as it reaches three decades of age.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Patriot Games.

Review #1847: Patriot Games.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Jack Ryan), Anne Archer (Cathy Ryan), Patrick Bergin (Kevin O'Donnell), Sean Bean (Sean Miller), Thora Birch (Sally Ryan), James Fox (Lord William Holmes), Ellen Geer (Rose), Samuel L. Jackson (Lt. Commander Robby Jackson), Polly Walker (Annette), J. E. Freeman (Marty Cantor), James Earl Jones (Admiral James Greer), Richard Harris (Paddy O'Neil), Alex Norton (Dennis Cooley), Hugh Fraser (Geoffrey Watkins), Alun Armstrong (Sergeant Owens), and David Threlfall (Inspector Robert Highland) Directed by Phillip Noyce.

Review: 

In 1984, Tom Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October, the first novel in what became his most notable line of books with the character of Jack Ryan, one that saw him take a "play by the rules" approach to showing and getting certain details correctly that he felt was a moral obligation to his readers that made him one of the noted espionage writers of his time. Up until his death, he wrote sixteen further novels in what is referred to as the "Ryanverse" (Patriot Games, published in 1987, happens to serve as a "prequel", oddly enough); the book series has been continued by further writers with the support of the Clancy estate. That first book was adapted into a film in 1990 with Alec Baldwin as the lead character and John McTiernan as director that was most noted for its other main star in Sean Connery. At any rate, the success of the film meant that the filmmakers (producer Mace Neufeld, who optioned the first novel after reading proofs in 1985) wanted to make another feature quickly. However, Baldwin elected to star in a Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire rather than reprise the title role (which he did not regret, as Paramount producer David Kirkpatrick forced him to pick between the two, for which Baldwin later described him as a "beady-eyed, untalented fool"). Phillip Noyce was recruited to direct the film to replace McTiernan, who wanted to adapt Clear and Present Danger with a script by John Milius; he apparently felt uncomfortable as an Irish American directing a movie with IRA characters (he proceeded to direct Medicine Man instead). He was known for films such as Newsfront (1978) and Dead Calm (1989), but Ford's appreciation of seeing the former film is what got him to endorse Noyce. W. Peter Iliff and Donald E. Stewart (who had wrote the screenplay of the first film) wrote the film, with later un-credited rewrites done by Steven Zaillian. A cursory reading will reveal gradual differences: for one, the assassination attempt involved the Prince and Princess of Wales rather than a fictional lord (complete with Ryan getting a knighthood) that sees him deal not only with a splinter group of the Provisional Irish Republican Army but also "the Movement" (a black domestic terrorist group). I guess having a climax involving Ryan and company (including the Prince!) fighting a kidnap attempt at his house that sees the authorities round up the remaining terrorists for arrest seemed just a tad much (the earlier movie was mostly faithful despite considerable technical changes). 

Before release, Clancy denounced the changes made from adapting his book to film but seeing a rough cut had him say that there was “some good things in the movie"; on June 5, 1992, the movie came out to considerable box office success, which meant that Noyce and Ford would return for Clear and Present Danger (1994). Whether one has watched The Hunt for Red October or not doesn't really matter much, as one would hope from a film series with a sense of calmness and tension about international affairs (a professor and analyst played by Ford? No sweat). For a 117-minute trip, it generally works out for the best with a useful cast and semi-solid plot foundation. If you didn't know, the character of Jack Ryan in his appeal is the fact that he is an everyman kind of lead focus, an analyst rather than an action hero who only gets involved because his family is involved (the assassination attempt in the beginning of the film happens to occur when Ryan is with his wife and kid, for example). In that sense, Ford (approaching the age of fifty at the time of production) is appropriate here, because he gets to play family man alongside the occasional action beat without seeming hamstrung by boredom, while Archer and Birch make for fair contributors to a solid family triangle. Bean makes a decent adversary to go alongside him, filled with fanatical energy that (intentional or not) overshadows anything done by his adversary partner in Bergin or with Geer. Others are there for cursory moments here and there, whether that involves a young Jackson or Jones returning from the previous 1990 film or Harris, a bewildering choice. The use of technology with survey satellites and heat-sensitive photography when scouting the camp is fairly interesting to see play out among other scenes of "analysis" and thriller parts (the assassination scene along with the rescue of Bean from a van are noteworthy, even if the latter might be privy to realism). Of course, the climax is a bit forced, because the studio had them change the original intended climax of an underwater fight near rocks to what became a boat chase, which is only slightly easier to see when one is fighting someone in a rainstorm. Really it just reminds me that even Thunderball (1965) knew better than to have a boat-fight be in the dark. At any rate, the movie doesn't lose its footing when sticking the general landing, setting the stage for other possible peeks into the Ryan window without begging for anything.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Candyman (1992).

Review #1746: Candyman.

Cast: 

Virginia Madsen (Helen Lyle), Tony Todd (Candyman), Xander Berkeley (Trevor Lyle), Vanessa Estelle Williams (Anne-Marie McCoy), Kasi Lemmons (Bernadette "Bernie" Walsh), DeJuan Guy (Jake), Gilbert Lewis (Det. Frank Valento), Carolyn Lowery (Stacey), Stanley DeSantis (Dr. Burke), and Michael Culkin (Phillip Purcell) Directed and Written by Bernard Rose.

Review: 

"One of the things I like about making horror films is that there's a certain amount of freedom about them - people don't have to hug and kiss each other at the end, and say 'I love you Mom', it doesn't have to have a positive message. You hear people saying movies should be responsible; I think they should be irresponsible. It's always seemed to me monstrous arrogance that people are going to see your movie and come out the better for it. I'd rather they came out worse."

As Bernard Rose stated, one just has the freedom to do what they can when it comes to horror, mostly because it seems to be the easiest genre that one can make a captivating and eerie experience that doesn't have to be cornered into one spot for everyone. It is strange to consider that this is the film most might know Rose best for, since he has had a lengthy career in his native England in filmmaking, which started from a young age in super 8 mm before working in television and music videos; he made his debut with Smart Money (1986), but his third effort in Paperhouse (1988) gave him his first bits of notice. At any rate, he has continued to direct (while occasionally writing and serving as his own editor and cinematographer). It was a chance meeting with fellow Brit Clive Barker, fresh off trying to direct an adaptation of his own work with Nightbreed (1990) that would lead to Candyman, since Rose had an interest in one of Barker's stories to make into a film. Barker agreed to license the rights to that story: "The Forbidden", which was set in his native Liverpool. There are a few differences from turning a narrative published in an anthology collection into a feature film, such as the fact that the only details about the title character that are told involve the hook, bees, and a few skin details (such as wild glittering eyes), and Rose allowed Todd and Madsen to flesh out their character stories with a bit of free rein for the creative process. The film was a mild success upon release, making a bit over three times its $8 million budget. As such, it was followed by two sequels in the decade: Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995) and Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999) featured Todd as the key lead (with only Culkin returning for one of the films), although neither were as successful. After failed attempts  in the early 21st century to make another film, a new one finally was released in 2021 (titled...Candyman, because we have moved into an illogical era of sequels using the same title as before), which featured a handful of returning actors from the first film.

What we have here is a film at the epicenter of myths and creeping dread, one that re-invents the romantic monster. Think about it: Rose intended the title character as more of a romantic figure rather than a terrifying villain, one that while being a boogeyman is also one with elegance to spare in terror that has his own gothic design in a lair made by folks that believe in the legend (each of these examples could spring to mind works such as Dracula or The Phantom of the Opera, although Rose noted it is more similar to the tale of Samson); of course, being based on legends such as the Hook and the Bloody Mary probably help in that regard as well. Fear and superstition go a long way towards making a curious film in fear, whether that involves one of ghouls with hooks or urban crime. It also is a film that makes its setting seem like a character in its own right (as reflective of the focus on segregation in the poor areas of Liverpool in the story): A select amount of days were shot at Cabrini-Green Homes, a public housing project in the city of Chicago that had an infamous reputation for its construction and violence; just a few years later, the projects would be demolished and re-developed; folks in the city might recognize certain elements from real life details about life in the projects in the film, since journalist Steve Bogira noted similarities between the film and certain elements of his report "They Came in Through the Bathroom Mirror" (written in 1987), which detailed the life and death of a woman from a robber that came into her apartment from a hole in the bathroom medicine cabinet. At any rate, the other key step involves balancing terror with a title character that doesn't appear until nearly halfway through the 101 minute movie. In that sense, we have a fairly game cast to make it all count. Madsen is the key to the film working out besides what one knows and needs in Todd, mostly because she has to maintain sensibility for a role that could have been fairy forgettable with a quieter presence or one without as much curiosity. Todd is exactly what you would expect with a distinct voice and aided by effects and certain shots, which results in an eerie and involving performance that stands on its own in distinctiveness within the slasher genre. They make for a useful pairing in their tête-à-tête with each other that involves a bit of hypnotic movement (albeit one playing on a particularly cliché that may or may not reach). The others in the cast follow fine in their own ways, such as a stoic Berkeley or well-placed timing with Williams or Lemmons (because how else would one react to circumstances with a curious observer that likes to in urban corners with scary legends?). The score by Philip Glass only serves to keep one on their toes with an appropriately eerie sound. If you think about it, a movie involving a killer ghost that comes around if you say their name five times could be a ridiculous idea, particularly if it is one that doesn't have a measure of what it means to make a gripping horror movie beyond just cheap slasher thrills. And yet, here we are with a movie that utilizes its setting and viewpoint on the nature of superstitions to make a worthwhile classic, touching upon issues such as racism with fair execution that likely makes this one of the most interesting horror movies from the 1990s. Nearly three decades later, there probably is no time like the present to check this one out for yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next-No, wait a minute.

...

THE HOUSTON ASTROS ARE GOING TO THE WORLD SERIES! AGAIN! A week remains on A Month of Horror, but I'm saying this now to make sure my resources are properly focused on what needs to be done...or so I think. Hell, this is the 17th review of the month, so I would say we are on the right track. 

Houston vs. Atlanta? Hell yeah.

Next Time: Ring (1998).

Honeymoon in Vegas.

Review #1717: Honeymoon in Vegas.

Cast: 

James Caan (Tommy Korman), Nicolas Cage (Jack Singer), Sarah Jessica Parker (Betsy Nolan Singer/Donna Korman), Peter Boyle (Chief Orman), Seymour Cassel (Tony Cataracts), Pat Morita (Mahi Mahi), Johnny Williams (Johnny Sandwich), John Capodice (Sally Molars), and Robert Costanzo (Sidney Tomashefsky) Written and Directed by Andrew Bergman.

Review: 

"It wasn't based on anything. I wanted to do a boy-girl story, and in my perverse fashion, it turned out to be this."

One should have no real expectations with a movie that looks like a screwball comedy and moves exactly the way you might think it does. Does being a movie full of silly moments ripe for a romantic comedy excuse the easy lingering flaw that comes with just trying to be a silly little experience? This was the third directorial effort for Andrew Bergman. Once called the "The Unknown King of Comedy", Bergman (who had studied American history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) was the originator of the script that became the film Blazing Saddles (1974), which went from a story outline meant to be developed by just himself into a collaboration with Mel Brooks and other writers. He continued to write while getting into directing with So Fine (1981), following it with scripts for stuff such as Fletch (1985) and Big Trouble (done in 1986 while having the dubious distinction of being replaced by John Cassavetes as director). Striptease (1996), for better or worse, is likely the most notable film of the six that he directed from 1981 to 2000.

Honestly, the quality of the movie depends on how much of its 96 minute run-time lands with a flimsy (but fairly human) premise (I mean the whole "son promises mom to not get married", not the "guy offers to pay someone to borrow their significant other for a while", which strangely was done again in a serious light with Indecent Proposal the following year). Besides, what honeymoon isn't complete with a plethora of Elvis Presley references and Elvis cover songs? Do you ever watch a movie and realize the quality in one's memory of it later on changed after you saw it? Work with me on this - sometimes a movie seems better or worse when one thinks about it after time passes from actually seeing it. Begrudgingly, I will admit this usually is more a negative sign than anything, as sometimes one thinks a movie was "not as good" as it originally seemed (hence why one should always take an opinion with a grain of salt). The funny thing is that sometimes it goes the other way around (depending, probably, if one likes to watch a movie with a triggered pause button or not). What I am trying to say is that eventually this movie won me over. Granted, I cannot in good conscience recommend it as any kind of great "hidden gem" or anything, but I can say that if one sees it they will likely be eventually convinced it is a worthy use of their time. Besides, with a dynamic trio like this, one can't go too far off the deep end of despair.

In a sense, you could argue that Cage was suited for comedy. He has a fluid presence that takes on a movie as if the role is a juicy piece of steak waiting to be devoured. Hell, how many of his action roles are just ones begging to be turned into comedies? Actually, while he does decent here in a role plagued by neurosis, one can't help but compare it to the other, more notable love triangle romcom with him in Moonstruck (1987), but that might be me just thinking out loud. At least when he starts shifting from neurotic to impatient it becomes a more interesting movie, because it also strangely times right to the point where the movie is trying to become interesting, such as venting about a long line at the airport. Caan might have picked a wide variety of movies to hit or miss with, but at least one can't see the desperation here (i.e. self-parody in annoying awareness). He makes a decent riff of the tough guy conman type with a brief amount of good humor that makes a worthy guy to contrast Cage. Sure, it eventually becomes a bit easy to see where it will really go (aside from the "look alike" thing, which seems like a gimmick ripped from something else), but at least it seems semi-interesting to sit with. Parker is exactly the warm presence required to balance these two folks out with fair chemistry between each that at least makes the momentum not stop as easily as it could. With a lesser actress (or perhaps one trying to hone on the sitcom touch), one would just see a mild one-sided romance. But she has the patience and spunk required to keep interest there without boredom, so that means there isn't a weak member of the main trio. Honestly, with all of the Elvis stuff (because if an Asian Elvis isn't enough, how about a kid Elvis?), I wish there was a bit more from the actual supporting cast, but having goofy stuff from Morita and Boyle kind of helps in passing the time for atmosphere of attempts in zany stuff (again, having a grouchy Cage helps). By the time it gets to the inevitable climax, at least one can welcome the attempts at going for a zany time while seeing a few interesting sights from Vegas or Hawaii every now and then. I kid you not, the lasting legacy of the movie is the fact that the movie was later turned into a musical, with Bergman collaborating with Jason Robert Brown (Bergman decided to try and develop it after he had open-heart surgery in 2001), with a premiere on Broadway in 2014 (which had the Caan role played by Tony Danza, no seriously). In the end, it all depends on how much one believes in the material when it comes to a useful experience at the movies, and I guess this manages to slip by with enough support in the right places to make an ordinary average movie that you could pick and not regret it too much. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Come one, come all for the doubleheader to close out Anniversary in August, which you will get to see this Monday. We started with...an interesting one-two punch of movies not regarded well by folks of the time (and not much else since)...so how about bookending it with two further films with distinct reputations? Saddle up.

Malcolm X (1992).

Review #1643: Malcolm X.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Malcolm X), Angela Bassett (Betty Shabazz), Albert Hall (Baines), Al Freeman Jr. (Elijah Muhammad), Delroy Lindo (West Indian Archie), Spike Lee (Shorty), Theresa Randle (Laura), Kate Vernon (Sophia), with Lonette McKee (Louise Little), Tommy Hollis (Earl Little), James McDaniel (Brother Earl), Ernest Thomas (Sidney), Jean-Claude La Marre (Benjamin 2X), and Christopher Plummer (Chaplain Gill) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing, and #1543 - Inside Man)

Review: 

"We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” 

When it comes to biographical epics, the best of those type of films are the ones that have plenty of challenge to overcome to portray a human being with the right amount of detail and understanding required that will pack as much insight as it does interest in a depiction that will stand just as well as any documentary or book. This is more than necessary when it comes to the subject of Malcolm X, this much is true. It started with The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965), which was a collaboration between X and journalist Alex Haley in a series of interviews (for which there were more than 50 done) that were done between 1963 until X's assassination in 1965. Haley was considered at the time to be a ghostwriter for his contribution, but later years have noted his crucial role in discretion with handling the manuscript, and the epilogue was written specifically by Haley as comments of his own on X (three chapters excised from the final version were eventually found and put up for sale years later). Its publication led to a lasting influence on readers and writers alike as the first of numerous works involving the subject of Malcolm X, with a few biographies coming out in the next few decades. For example, one released in 2011 won a Pulitzer Prize but also inspired a response book aimed at correcting it, while a diary of Malcolm X's time in 1964 was released in 2014. The most recent biography was The Dead Are Arising, written by Les and Tamara Payne that was published to noted reviews in 2020.

It should not be surprising that a film was in the development stage as early as 1968 with the sale of rights to filming the novel going to producer Marvin Worth. He had met X long ago in the streets of New York and he would spend nearly 25 years trying to get a film about him to the big screen, which started by hiring novelist and playwright James Baldwin to develop the initial script. Screenwriter Arnold Perl would also be brought in to write for the screenplay, doing so until his death in 1971. The screenplay devised by Baldwin and Perl would ultimately falter into development struggles, although Baldwin would write about X various times over the next few years (such as No Name in the Street (1972), which depicted him from Baldwin's perspective) before his death in 1987 (he described the experience of trying to write a Hollywood adaptation as less than if one was horsewhipped or jailed in Bellevue); Baldwin would not be credited for his work when it came time for this film, as per requested by Baldwin's surviving family. Worth and Perl would work together for a documentary on X that was released in 1972 (done instead of a drama due to a lack of cooperation from close figures to speak on camera), which was mostly constructed of his speeches and interviews with occasional narration and newsreel footage. As was the case two decades later, Betty Shabazz served as a consultant to the filmmakers, and each was distributed by Warner Bros with voice-over work by Ossie Davis (reciting words spoken at X's eulogy). Several writers and directors were considered through a span of two decades (with one potential idea having Richard Pryor as X), and it was the argument over the qualifications of a white man directing in Norman Jewison (director of films like In the Heat of the Night) to direct that led to the ultimate pick in Lee, who had wanted to make a film of X since college (for his part, he received a bit of heat from black nationalists and others like Amiri Baraka that thought it would be a middle-class rendition of X, and more can be found about it in the book Lee wrote of his experiences making the film). 

Perhaps it was fate that Washington would play this role on film. Eleven years earlier, back when Washington was just a struggling actor, he was cast as Malcolm X in an Off Broadway production "When the Chickens Came Home to Roost"; when preparing for the role, he read the autobiography along with tapes and books and was struck by what he saw that he described as being like "heavy, mean stuff...helping me get some things off my chest." Even having Washington cast in the lead role and Lee as director didn't mean an easy production, which would experience immense pressure from community leaders (who feared a film with too much focus on his life before becoming X) to financiers (who aspired for a budget less than $30 million), for which donations were made by several prominent individuals that ranged from Michael Jordan to Prince. In essence, one could sum the feeling generated by the film through its last few spoken words, spoken through archival footage of X himself: "by whatever means necessary." It is the story of a man who forged a path of self-determination that lent clear expression to the frustrations expressed by crowds of people in America with a multi-faceted look at just who he was in the eyes of those who saw him (whether that meant the streets, jail, or on the podium) that makes a portrayal of legacy come through with fiery tension for all of what it wants to say in truths and about what endures about the man in the decades after his death. As X once stated, his life never stayed fixed in one place for too long, and this rings true here. Washington is asked to do a tremendous task of showing this one man go through the stages of life with diverse power that cannot waver, whether as "Red" or as the reborn X. He does a tremendous job here, towering over the other folks with mindset of eyes ready to open to speak of responsibility but also find his eyes open for himself to learn as well as teach as a man with no fear. Through the course of roughly two decades, we see the folks around him that make up three distinct periods of his life with varying effect and a distinct look from cinematographer Ernest B. Dickerson (in his last collaboration with Lee), and a student of history or knowing faces will see a few familiar ones along the way (such as Karen Allen or Bobby Seale, for example). The first spends time with Harlem and Boston with actors such as Lindo, Lee, Randle and Vernon. In those sequences, Washington sells the hustle and bustle of what is needed in tandem with Lindo, who is just as charismatic without having even half the time required, while Lee and the others do just fine. In the next time of focus, one focuses on Washington alongside Hall with a cameo from Plummer (playing self-righteousness with ease). Washington undergoes a new phase with awakening that is helped by Hall and his solemn conviction. The next one is distilled in two forms, involving Bassett and Freeman alongside supporting stuff from Thomas. Freeman does his part in wisdom alongside hypocrisy (a further look into him reveals more than just infidelity, let us say) while Bassett follows with Washington in well enough moments, and they have their part to play when it comes to that fateful climax.

Maneuvering the waters of adapting X to the screen meant a few moments of narrative reconciliation, even with a run time of 201 minutes. For instance, the character of Baines was actually a composite of X's siblings in respect to their role in the redemption of X while in prison. X's pilgrimage to Mecca (which was the first American feature to ever film there, although Lee had to hire a second unit crew to get permission...and Warner Bros actually thought of just doing it in New Jersey) was actually funded by his half sister Ella (also not mentioned), which is interesting considering that it is the last known surviving home of Malcolm in his childhood (he lived there with her for five years). There is one prominent figure absent in the story of the Nation of Islam, one with a legacy stoked with plenty of controversy (you might recognize him as the man behind the Million Man March alongside plenty of controversial remarks thought of as anti-Semitic or homophobic) that reportedly threatened Lee; it is disputed how much involvement the NOI may have had over the assassination even to this day. The film touches on the provocative from start to finish with its ties to the present day, most notably with the appearance of Nelson Mandela, reciting Malcolm's own words to a group of schoolchildren. In short, what we have is a film packed with a great deal of words to say about its subject then and now that generally hits the mark in stoking a statement about what he was to those that saw him in all of his forms, whether that means a kid born into tragedy, or a shaken upbringing into trouble, or a hardened man seeking light, or a man who found himself on a much bigger journey than himself. It could only end with the eulogy given by Davis, with his spoken words reaching ever still even with the passage of 27 years since he gave the words at X's funeral, one that described him as a prince that "didn't hesitate to die, because he loved us so." One could only aspire to live a life worth discussion over rhetoric and actions (controversy be damned) like X, and it is one's privilege to seek out the film for its shining performance in Washington that serves as one of his best alongside a director worthy of capturing it and everything that comes with it in all of its detail that makes it as worthy to see on one's shelf as much as something like Lawrence of Arabia (1962), where the three hours spent are good ones to spend with their eyes open.

Next Time: A television star goes to the director's chair with Once Upon a Time...When We Were Colored.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Boomerang (1992)

Review #1642: Boomerang.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Marcus Graham), Robin Givens (Jacqueline Broyer), Halle Berry (Angela Lewis), David Alan Grier (Gerard Jackson), Martin Lawrence (Tyler Hawkins), Grace Jones (Helen Strangé), Geoffrey Holder (Nelson), Eartha Kitt (Lady Eloise), Chris Rock (Bony T), Tisha Campbell (Yvonne), Lela Rochon (Christie), and John Witherspoon (Mr. Jackson) Directed by Reginald Hudlin.

Review: 

"We wanted to tell stories that hadn’t been told yet. And for black audiences, they were like, “Oh my god, this is crazy — this is my actual life, and I’ve never seen that [on screen] before!”

Not many films exist where one could split the cast in half and have two decent potential films. This is exactly one of those films, particularly with the trajectories to come for a significant portion of its cast, whether involving film stars, television regulars, and futures in between. Think about it: You have a prime star in Murphy, who hadn't had a failure yet with audiences (critics is a different story, but who's counting?), and you have folks that were near the point of stardom with Berry, which goes right with television players in Grier, Lawrence, and Rock. One can't forget about the director in all of this. This was the second film of Reginald Hudlin, who had started his pursuit of filmmaking with study at Harvard University, as his eventual first film came from his thesis project short film in House Party, based on his experiences growing up in Illinois. He made the film alongside his brother Warrington (an occasional documentary maker who served as producer), and House Party (1990) turned out to be a huge hit, one that Hudlin found to be a take on films like American Graffiti and Risky Business but with a black focus. Shortly after that, he was sent a script by Murphy that dealt with a playboy that gets involved with a man-eater just like him. He responded to it well from the very get-go, liking that type of romantic comedy that Murphy had yet to really do for himself (Coming to America sort of did this, but that one also had Murphy play a whole bunch of characters). In short, Murphy wanted someone to help him do a film where he could be his whole self, not just a persona. This was the fifth film that Murphy would contribute in the writing department. He wrote the story while David Sheffield and Barry W. Blaustein (who wrote for Saturday Night Live during Murphy's tenure) did the screenplay (which occurred before with Coming to America four years prior). Believe it or not, the film did not have its original ending in the script retained for the final finish. It was originally supposed to end after the scene with the three friends (Murphy, Grier, Lawrence) reconciling on a rooftop, with no closing sequence involving romance, but Hudlin was convinced to make an ending where there had to be a definitive decision (this is a rom-com after all).

With a budget of $42 million, the film managed to pull in audience returns that were triple of the budget. I sure can see why, because I found it to be a fairly enjoyable rom-com, one that while predictable is at the very least interested in making a breezy film involving love and friendship with a few gags in between. Between this and Harlem Nights, it might prove a worthy double-header of films I liked that don't have as much attention to them as they probably should - one was a bit understated in its attempts at crime comedy, while this has some raunchy moments without becoming a parody of itself that I found pretty interesting, even if its 117 minute run-time (which incidentally matches the other film) could be a bit too much. In this sense, I think Murphy pulls off a well-to-do performance, mostly because his self-satisfied charisma seems more interesting to sit through than if it was just a role to make faces and instead play a rendition of Cary Grant, albeit for the 1990s. He proves to be quite interesting his contrasting sequences of pursuit with Givens or Berry, showing tenderness in its varied forms when looking at the prism of love. Givens (whose biggest role to that point was five seasons on Head of the Class starting in 1986) proves a formidable match. She plays the role with carefree confidence, one that springs to mind similarity to her counterpart co-star with cool detached spirit that works to what is needed without being treated for a silly gag or a moral handwave. Berry (in her fourth film role, having entered show business in 1989) seals the triangle of romance with grace and warmth that resonates well for some charming little moments. When it comes to the triangle of friends, Murphy, Grier, and Lawrence do pretty well with what is needed, for which the latter two play foils in their own respective ways. Grier (best known for Streamers and In Living Color) plays the square aspect with reason and fair timing to go with interesting moments, one of which involving the typical (at least for some...) embarrassing family Thanksgiving dinner with one-scene wonder Witherspoon. Lawrence (who had been featured in House Party while having his own sitcom premiere a month after the release of this film) proves quite spry in parts, such as one sequence involving pool and racial nature due to the the color of the balls used in the game that is a pretty good rant. As for Jones, the role she plays is one written specifically for herself (with nobody else in mind for the role). With a chance to do a few wild things that start with a great entrance, she does quite well in showing commitment to the parody, never quite winking at the camera but also not missing a chance to have fun at the same time, and Kitt also reflects that side of the coin as well in smaller portions (she had accepted the role after the script toned down some of the bawdier aspects of the role). To top it off, you have a right-at-home Holder playing a Dali imitation while Rock and Campbell play peanut gallery jokes to Murphy that land fine. On the whole, one will know where they are going pretty quickly with a film involving a lesson about one's place in commitment and honesty between loved ones that makes it worth the ride. It certainly pulled a ride worthy enough for its own television series, which was created for airing on BET (with Berry as an executive producer) over two decades after the release of the film that ran for two seasons. On the whole, I found this to be a fair gem in the aisle of romantic comedies, packed with a game cast that clearly seems to be in their element that overrides any detours of overwrought narratives or outdated notions to make for a fine time for those in the mindset for a fresh director and an established star trying to branch out. 

Next Time - No introduction necessary. Malcolm X.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.