Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

Review #2552: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Lieutenant Casey Ryback), Eric Bogosian (Travis Dane), Everett McGill (Marcus Penn), Katherine Heigl (Sarah Ryback), Morris Chestnut (Bobby Zachs), Nick Mancuso (Tom Breaker), Brenda Bakke (Captain Linda Gilder), Peter Greene (Mercenary #1), Patrick Kilpatrick (Mercenary #2), Scott Sowers (Mercenary #3), Afifi Alaouie (Fatima), Andy Romano (Admiral Bates), Dale Dye (Captain Nick Garza), Kurtwood Smith (Major General Stanley Cooper), and David Gianopoulos (Captain David Trilling) Directed by Geoff Murphy.

Review: 

"Films have a mind of their own, they are living entities. You discover them. I made a [Steven] Seagal film [Under Siege 2: Dark Territory] in America. It was a very dreary process and very highly contentious at the time - lots of arguments and stuff. There was a point during the editing where I observed this incredibly high energy beast emerging, and I didn't know where it had come from, because there wasn't any of that energy on the set. It seemed to grow out of the editing process. Whereas others, if you finish a shoot and think 'we've just shot a real beauty', then you're probably in trouble. Because they can jump up and bite you."

Yes, there was a second Under Siege movie. This was the seventh film with Steven Seagal as a star but the first one to come out after the ridiculously overblown On Deadly Ground (1994). You remember Under Siege (1992), right? The original script had been done by Matt Reeves and his college friend Richard Hatem, as they wanted to break into the market of spec scripts with action, with the script (with a working title of "Dark Territory", since, well, it refers to running track not controlled by signals) being described as "meant to be very much like a Die Hard movie". The market crashed for scripts, but it eventually was optioned and converted to what you see, with various script doctors such as Brian Helgeland delivering un-credited work. According to Chestnut, a good deal of the film was improvised, specifically when Seagal was on screen, which basically went, “Okay, this is what’s going to happen. You’re going to say this, I’m going to say this, then I’m going to do that and then you’re going to do that.” This was the last major production for its director Geoff Murphy, who had moved to Hollywood filmmaking after making films in his native New Zealand such as Goodbye Pork Pie (1981), Utu (1983) and The Quiet Earth (1985) that resulted in films such as Young Guns II (1990), Freejack (1992), and, well, this. He kept a busy profile with work in TV, smaller-scale stuff such as Race Against Time (2000) along with second-unit work on The Lord of the Rings. He died in 2018 at the age of 80. Made on a budget of $60 million (double the original), the movie was a mild box office hit, albeit not on the level of the original. Seagal's* next two films the following year were Executive Decision (a supporting role where he took a backseat plane ride to Kurt Russell) and The Glimmer Man. 

Is it unnecessary? Maybe. Is it not as good as the previous Under Siege? Mostly, yea. Is it worth it? Well, you know, I think so. I suppose this is where the apex of Seagal as a "star" has hit, complete with using a Apple Newton MessagePad 100 to really make this a high-tech thriller. But hey, a movie based in tension about trying to take a top-secret weapon looming in space with a hacker and multiple keyboards? This happened to be released a few months before Goldeneye, by the way. Sure, this is a movie that doesn't have the magic of two villains like before with Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey, but Bogosian, combined with the company of a cast that clearly is acting around Seagal, does hold the movie up enough to at least make the movie worth a check. Seagal, well, he mainly is there to lumber around and kick, with ounces of fun only really coming from seeing this guy seemingly try to hide the urge to say/do insane stuff when not engaged in the concentration of being the one-man army (okay, not always one-man, because Chestnut is there at times). He outruns a train crash, for God's sake. Bogosian saw Alan Rickman play a villain in Die Hard (1988) and decided, no I'm not kidding, that he wanted to play "a big, old fat villain in a big action movie". Sure, the end result had a bit of silliness due to the encouragement of Murphy to do so, but he apparently is quite satisfied with how it turned out with a crazed hacker wanting plenty of $ that quotes Louis Pasteur. And I agree with him! He is delightfully fun in this movie, managing to evoke menace with a jagged edge of wit. Then you have folks like McGill (a few years removed from being warmly cool in Twin Peaks*) trying to act tough (as one does when not being foiled by pepper spray) that amuses me greatly in his stature and the eventual result (nobody gets a long fight in this dojo). Chestnut provides a few chuckles as basically the Argyle equivalent that gets to trek across a train and throw people off helicopters while Heigl, well, there's always room to be a character in a different movie. It's an efficient movie for 100 minutes that fiddles in the ride of knowing what you are getting into with goofy scenarios (dropping people off helicopters, big ticking clocks) that you either appreciate or dismiss when it concludes. I liked it fine, and I'll accept the confusion over saying a movie with a middling lead does in fact work enough with the support under him to make it one to recommend. 

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

song of the day!

*If one goes by what Heigl said or Jenny McCarthy said about auditioning (link here), it was definitely a strange experience being around Seagal.

*I'm still in the second season. We shall see about the movie. Also, he ruled in Licence to Kill.

Assassins (1995).

Review #2546: Assassins (1995).

Cast:

Sylvester Stallone (Robert Rath / Joseph Rath), Antonio Banderas (Miguel Bain), Julianne Moore (Electra / Anna), Anatoly Davydov (Nicolai Tashlinkov), Muse Watson (Ketcham), Steve Kahan (Alan Branch), Kai Wulff (Remy), Mark Coates (Jereme Kyle), Kelly Rowan (Jennifer), and Reed Diamond (Bob) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, and #1542 - 16 Blocks, #1700 - The Goonies)

Review: 

"Assassins, I thought Stallone did one of the best jobs he’s ever done. He totally underplayed, he was quiet, he found the character and he went with it. I thought Antonio Banderas was wonderful. The picture came out, and it did not do very well at all. Sure, it hurts and you know why you wish it would do better? The studio gave you a lot of money and you want them to make their money back so that other people can make movies...And I thought we did a good job and they thought we did a good job, but the audiences and critics didn’t like it. Did I feel bad? Sure. Did it get me down? Nope, nope, nope — too lucky to be in this business to be down in the dumps."

Admittedly, I picked this movie because I felt it was time to look at another Richard Donner movie. So why not go with this one, a movie released near the tail-end (16th of 20*) of a fairly interesting career? You might think the film credit for the writing is interesting because it lists the Wachowskis for the story and a co-credit with Brian Helgeland (who at the point had worked on the scripts for the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street film, 976-EVIL, and Highway to Hell) for the screenplay. When Donner got the script from Joel Silver (who had bought the spec script along with The Matrix), he had re-writes done to it (which namely involved toning down the violence along with emphasizing the Rath-Electra storyline while not having a certain character included for the climax), which the Wachowskis did not like to the point where they tried to get their name removed from it, but the Writers Guild of America refused. Interestingly, both screenplays are available for viewing (the Wachowskis one is seen here, while the modified shooting script is seen here). Made on a reported budget for $50 million, the movie was not a huge success with audiences or critics at the time. Probably the only thing the movie ended up being noted for was a reaction shot by Banderas that became a "meme" on the Internet.

 

In some ways, it feels like a movie that is desperate to be liked. With such a limited cast of basically three (with one further person being shoehorned in for the start and end), you might be forgiven for wondering if there was a tiny bit of a Western yearning to come out (an old gunfighter wanting to retire, only to encounter one more gunfight could be seen in say, The Shootist [1976]). And there are moments that are fascinating in Stallone trying to play an understated hero to go along with a colorful Banderas. Of course, the sinking feeling of watching the film unravel around the backstretch of setting up the final  act combines with a middling Moore and an unwieldy runtime of 133 minutes for a sad disappointment that I cannot really defend beyond saying "I like the people* in it but not the vehicle they are driving." Banderas basically steals the show in the theatrics that come in "trying to be No. 1" for basic one-upmanship that desperately needs a funnier or tighter movie to really let him do his thing besides a listless one that seems to accidentally stumble into anything. He's fun, if only because it is Banderas, not so much the script or direction. Stallone could do things other than action movies, the righteous ones know that from Oscar (1991), but I do get why "subdued" isn't exactly an easy sell. Some of the time feels like doddering to try and make him sound more interesting than he needs to be, because really it could've just been a hard-lined silent type and that would work better than trying to play type with Moore, who just seems adrift in "hacker" cliches and little humor to really make for a connection beyond one you might see when stuck at the self-checkout lane at the supermarket. You would think a movie where a guy is chasing someone around in the craven pursuit of being "number one", complete with various "conversations" spent on the computer (as one does as a hired guy, talking with a supervisor) would be more interesting, but no, it's just generic stuff. For a movie with an alleged polish, it just seems all too sluggish to actually get anywhere in staging the action, particularly with a climax that relies on the adversary having to sweat out waiting to shoot a dude leaving a bank (see, because that guy did the same years ago, so it is...tasteful imitation) only to get frustrated to go the bank to confront said guy (which in turn leads to sneaking around the creaky hideout), because, yeah, okay. The twist for the end is just lazy and leads to an even lamer resolution because, screw it, we forgot to have a body count worth updating regardless of how silly it looks. As a whole, Assassins is just a bit too lazy to excel as anything other than a mediocre effort from people who can't override the feeling of watching an undercooked movie that never rises all the way above the bare minimum. It just doesn't have the milage to do better than picking any other action film of its ilk, which is a shame. It's an autopilot movie that you may or may not see some interest in if you really, really, really need to see a certain director or star all the way through. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*21 if you want to include Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

*What can I say, Sylvester Stallone is a fascinating person to see in movies? Sure, I doubt I would agree  with him on say, a certain political topic, but really, how can I turn away from seeing whatever ridiculous stuff he starred/directed? And Moore, well, I love women.

Tank Girl.

Review #2516: Tank Girl.

Cast: 

Lori Petty (Tank Girl), Ice-T (T-Saint), Naomi Watts (Jet Girl), Malcolm McDowell (Kesslee), Don Harvey (Sgt. Small), Jeff Kober (Booga), Reg E. Cathey (Deetee), Scott Coffey (Donner), Stacy Linn Ramsower (Sam), Ann Cusack (Sub Girl), Brian Wimmer (Richard), Iggy Pop (Rat Face), Ann Magnuson (The Madam), Dawn Robinson (Model), Billy L. Sullivan (Max), James Hong (Che'tsai), Charles Lucia (Capt. Derouche), with Harlan Clark (Additional Ripper), Doug Jones (Ripper), Ata Scanlan (Additional Ripper), Alvarez Wortham (Additional Ripper), and Roz Witt (Dr. Nikita) Directed by Rachel Talalay (#1144 - Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare)

Review: 

"It’s such an iconic image. I think all strong women react in the same way to this outspoken crazed female icon. I was such a punk warrior. When I went in to pitch it – I mean, all you had to do was show the image. And when we sent the script out, the cover page was a comic book page. Even now when I talk to people who design for video games they say that there’s never a pitch for a female character that doesn’t include an image from Tank Girl. She’s the tough, punk warrior woman. She’s the icon of that. And every tough, interesting woman I know wants to be her."

I will admit that I had vaguely heard of this movie for years but was just lazy to see it (I first heard of this movie from the Nostalgia Critic* many years ago). Apparently, Rachel Talalay was given a Tank Girl comic to read by her stepdaughter when shooting her first film with Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991). Tank Girl first appeared in print in 1988 in Deadline (a British comic magazine) that was developed by Alan Martin and artist Jamie Hewlett; you might be interested to know that Hewlett, whose drawings were extracted for use in the title sequence of the film, later moved into a place with Blur's Damon Albarn that led to them being involved with the virtual band Gorillaz in 1998*. Talalay (the unpaid production assistant-turned-accountant-turned-producer-turned-director) got interested in doing a movie and found the Deadline publisher was already trying to find a studio. Eventually, MGM/United Artists became involved with doing the film (Talalay apparently rejected an offer from Disney, believing that they would not allow the amount of violence/sexual references required). Talalay then picked Catherine Hardwicke to be the production designer, while Tedi Sarafian wrote the screenplay. Made on a budget of $25 million in New Mexico and Arizona (mostly in an abandoned open-pit mine), there were considerable edits made by the studio that ranged from a "naked Ripper suit", edits to the torture scene, edits to one role in particular, and, naturally, the original ending where Tank Girl burps as it starts to rain. The animated sequences (as done by Mike Smith) were put in because they didn't have the money to do the action sequences (apparently the tank wasn't particularly fast). Martin and Hewlett did not like the finished product, believing in a subsequent interview that nobody could really make a successful movie of the character (as for Tank Girl, it went through a hiatus before returning for an on-and-off basis since 2007). Talalay and Petty were proud enough of the film that they did a live viewing party of the film in 2020.

Imagine: it's the year 2033 and all the water is gone. It's a freewheeling, bratty, odd little movie...and I can't help but like it. It's strange too, because a good chunk of the critiques of the film could just as easily be spun around for people (like me, only I probably won't go into detail about feminism, because, well, good luck with that*) that praise the film as a zany and free-spirited mess. There is a certain type of charm that appeals to me for most of its 104-minute runtime in its energy that is infectious. Apparently, the production team did not expect to get the services of Stan Winston but go figure, they were so enthusiastic that they cut their usual rates in half to meet the budget for the Rippers you see on screen: articulated ears and tails activated remotely and, well, no puppetry. Suffice to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but hey, half man/kangaroo, I can roll with it for a movie that likes to lurk in a offbeat wasteland (your milage may vary over how it would've gone if the film had not been edited down to, uh, take out the prosthetic penis). Petty (cast after consideration to go with Emily Lloyd) is delightfully loony enough to make for an entertaining antihero, one who has their own kinks and interests that could turn anything to make a crack at. Far be it from a movie that asks about power or the circumstances of what a wasteland looks like, you just get an unruly movie that has time to have a music interlude of "Let's Do It". Evidently, McDowell had a few decent memories making the movie, and, yes, this seems right up his alley to play a villain that loves water so much that he stabs people with a device that sucks the water right out of their body. How could one not enjoy him here? The rest of the cast roll along with causal engagement with a movie that moves to its own beat, for better or worse. As a whole, Tank Girl is the kind of movie that clicked enough for me to have fun with, although I can understand where it didn't exactly rock the world back in 1995. Offbeat and anarchic in ways that can be off-putting to those with less patience

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*For a time, the Critic was my jam alongside Cinemassacre. And The Cinema Snob, eventually. 

*I used to know someone in college who dug them. The friendship didn't last at all, but at least Gorillaz is pretty decent.

*There was a discussion in a book, once, about talking about what cult films were "feminist" that called this film a "real feminist cult film" while labeling films by Kathryn Bigelow and Catherine Hardwicke as "too masculine", which honestly sounds like sour grapes more than anything.

Evidently, there was a mockumentary for the film, if you love it that much: Tank Girl Documentary 1995

Sudden Death.

Review #2510: Sudden Death.

Cast:

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Darren McCord), Powers Boothe (Joshua Foss), Raymond J. Barry (U.S. Vice President Daniel Bender), Dorian Harewood (Matthew Hallmark), Whittni Wright (Emily McCord), Ross Malinger (Tyler McCord), Michael Gaston (Hickey), Faith Minton (Carla), Paul Mochnick (Andrew Ferrara), Audra Lindley (Angeline Ferrara), and Jack Erdie (Scratch) Directed by Peter Hyams (#233 - 2010: The Year We Make Contact, #326 - Timecop, #2477 - A Sound of Thunder)

Review: 

"I was not a hockey fan. I had not been to a hockey game before. I started to do research, and then I started to watch the Penguins play. I began to realize the unbelievable athleticism involved, and the violence involved and the speed of that puck. Hockey is better in the arena than it is on television. It’s a phenomenal sport."

What better day to do a movie about hockey than a few days after the United States of America managed to beat the odds and win the gold medal in hockey (and in true gender equality: the men and women each won*)? What better time to see a movie that could basically be thought of as an ad for a hockey team? The original story came from Karen Baldwin, an aspiring actress who became part of a producing firm with her husband Howard, which basically came on the side of sports ownership, as the Baldwins were among the owners of the Pittsburgh Penguins (as was the case from 1992-1998*). At the time, the team played in the Civic Arena, and the unique roof of the venue that could open up apparently led to Karen thinking about the possibility of doing "something like Die Hard in a hockey arena", which also matched with a story the Baldwins had tried to do about a Soviet goaltender trying to defect because they were wearing a mask; Gene Quintano then wrote the screenplay. When Peter Hyams (not exactly a hockey fan at the time) was approached, he was astounded to see the Baldwins willing to do a movie with so much action in their own venue (he proceeded to suggest a fight scene with a killer dressed up as the team mascot). Of course, the 1994-95 league lockout hindered them in getting the proper filming for crowds, and a good variety of the hockey action ended up being the work of local hockey players (while Mike Lange and Paul Steigerwald provided commentary). As the second collaboration between Hyams and Jean-Claude Van Damme (after Timecop), the movie was a mild success at the time while becoming a rental favorite. 

It does kind of boggle the mind to have your hockey team be part of a movie that has the following: the team mascot getting into a fight with the lead hero (before getting brutally killed), team security basically being humiliated at all costs (mayhem after every period ends no less), and, to top it all, the lead villain wearing Penguins gear right before he dies in "death by helicopter stalling". Of course, the funniest thing is the movie just...ends, because I could only wonder how a hockey game continues after all that. For a movie that freely cribs from Die Hard, except with trying to disarm bombs, it is quite fascinating to see it all play out (right down to a henchman playing Doom), unless one doesn't like violence in their action movie - the body count on this film of people who die is actually considerable, jeez.. This was a movie that had both of its hero and villain cast because other people rejected it (Sylvester Stallone and James Woods, for example) and yet each manage to have a ball with the roles presented here, mostly in the case of Boothe, who has tremendous alacrity to engage with the mayhem without just having it mosey on by. Van Damme may never have really been a great action star in terms of variety, but he at least was still committed enough in physicality to at least make it worthwhile to see him kick the hell out of someone dressed up as a mascot. As much as it would be nice to have some presence from the hostages besides cursory interest from Barry, the movie doesn't hesitate in just going with the mayhem. The maneuvering of the plot does not exactly gel completely with reality (bomb detonations are to be delayed by the onset of overtime because, well, I guess even terrorists wanted to make sure they didn't miss the finale before blowing it up?), but the movie manages to move its machinery for 110 minutes without treating the audience as if they were entitled to be liked for the sake of being liked. You either buy what it is selling (complete with rooftop action for the climax) or you just wash it away quickly. As a whole, Hyams shot and directed a decent little film that basically maneuvers itself the way you would hope for a wind-up action movie in an era where cribbing from others was fine as long as you had some craftsmanship behind it. It's not a great movie, but being good enough is fine anyway.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night presents: Song of the day

*It should be noted that Howard Baldwin was behind the change of the iconic Penguins logo for, well, a loser logo that never won anything when it was around because...merchandising. Also he called the old logo a "pigeon". Just goes to show that rich people really do sometimes have no taste at all.

*I mean this with only a lit bit of venom towards the sore losers towards how the men's/women's hockey games went: Suck it Canada! 

Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

Tales from the Hood.

Review #2465: Tales from the Hood.

Cast:

Welcome to My Mortuary (framing segments): Clarence Williams III (Mr. Simms), Joe Torry ("Stack"), Samuel Monroe Jr. ("Bulldog"), and De'Aundre Bonds ("Ball")

"Rogue Cop Revelation" segment: Tom Wright (Martin Ezekiel Moorehouse), Anthony Griffith (Officer Clarence Smith), Wings Hauser (Officer Strom Richmond), Michael Massee (Officer Newton Hauser), and Duane Whitaker (Officer Billy Crumfield)

"Boys Do Get Bruised" segment: Brandon Hammond (Walter Johnson), Rusty Cundieff (Richard Garvey), Paula Jai Parker (Sissy Johnson), and David Alan Grier (Carl)

"KKK Comeuppance" segment: Corbin Bernsen (Duke Metger), Roger Guenveur Smith (Rhodie Willis), Art Evans (Eli), Tim Hutchinson (Councilman Rogers), Christina Cundieff (Miss Cobbs), John A. Cundieff (Funeral Priest), and Erika Hansen (Anchorwoman)

"Hard-Core Convert" segment: Lamont Bentley (Jerome "Crazy K" Johns), Rosalind Cash (Dr. Cushing), Ricky Harris ("Lil' Deke"), and Rick Dean (Racist Inmate)

Directed by Rusty Cundieff.

Review: 

"The title, Tales From the Hood, seemed to be the automatic way to put across the idea that it was an anthology, and also related to the black experience, whatever that was at the time. I wanted to make sure that the there was something socially relevant within each piece, and also create a situation where the horror and supernatural forces were things that you were rooting for as opposed to against. We didn’t have young co-eds who you wanted to stay alive. All the humans in Tales from the Hood do bad things and the supernatural is their comeuppance."

The movie's anniversary did slip past by me, but there's always time to redeem oneself. Rusty Cundieff was born and raised in Pittsburgh with an interest in the entertainment business from a young age, with horror being a genre he liked from his days watching Chiller Theatre on late Saturday nights going hand in hand with him participating in plays as a youth that had him liking comedy, and he started doing stand-up in his junior year of high school. He attended Loyola University for his freshman year at college before transferring to USC with an interest in their film and television department, although its lack of great features meant that he took filmmaking courses on the side; he graduated with degrees in philosophy of religion, journalism, and drama. He did a bit of acting and found the experience in working on School Daze (1988) to make him want to direct and write. In 1993, Cundieff wrote and directed his first film with the rap mockumentary Fear of a Black Hat. The basis for his second film came from a one-act play he performed called The Black Horror Show: Blackanthropy. Cundieff and Darin Scott co-wrote the film, which was made with Lee's 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks. The movie had a mild impact with audiences but for whatever reason, it had a prolonged release on home media in the 21st century, where a DVD release occurred in 1998 that subsequently went out of print before a Blu-Ray release finally came out in 2017. Cundieff has directed for a variety of television shows (most notably Chappelle's Show) and a few films over the prevailing decades and was behind two sequels to Tales from the Hood in 2018 and 2020.

Within a 98-minute runtime features an eight-minute opening to set the stage of what is to come that might remind you of Tales from the Crypt (1972) or The House of the Dead (1978) in coffins and mislaid belief colliding together with a stranger (in this case a group trying to score some drugs); each of the four stories have its own length, with "KKK Comeuppance" running the shortest at roughly 18 minutes while the longest story is the last one at "Hard-Core Convert", which goes 27 minutes. It is clear pretty early that Cundieff wanted to make a movie that actually touched upon issues one could find in their community without being done for cheap scares or jokes that basically meant that the scariest things that could happen to someone if the human things that happen every day. Williams makes for a solid person to set up each of the stories in his daffy energy that is quite infectious and altogether entertaining. You get four pretty solid segments, all things considered. "Rogue Cop Revelation" deals with the fallout that arises when a Civil Rights activist is brutally murdered by a group of cops. It proves to be an interesting one for the eventual comeuppance for its key adversaries that are probably just as likely to exist in the real world as one thinks. Wright is a solid enough crusader from the grave (the best one is when he turns someone into a mural), and the overall endgame that comes from reckoning with action vs inaction is at least a curious one to end on. "Boys Do Get Bruised" deals with a young boy dealing with a monster in his closet that leads the teacher to learn what it really means to draw upon experiences at home. It probably fits the best in being a short segment when you consider that it is actually a segment about the perils of domestic violence, and Grier makes the most of a brief but terrifying enough role. Apparently, the movie was going to get an X rating until a chunk of the domestic violence scene near the end was trimmed. At any rate, it has a neat little ending. "KKK Comeuppance" (as "absolutely informed" by 1975's TV movie Trilogy of Terror) deals with an aspiring politician (and white supremacist) that deals with a few historical dolls. Coincidence or not, when actual racist-turned-politician David Duke ran for Governor of Louisiana in 1992, someone did an anti-Duke voodoo doll on display in New Orleans and a photo was taken of it. Bernsen makes for a delightfully hammy performance in extolling just the type of person that could have confidence in themselves to say what they say and not expect it to boomerang back to them. Sure, you know what is going to happen pretty early on, but it is still fun. Apparently, the last sequence, as done by the Chiodo Brothers in stop-motion animation, was only done because test audiences were not satisfied at the original ending. Clearly, they made the right decision. "Hard-Core Convert" deals with a murderer being given a chance to cure himself by seeing the consequences of his actions literally thrown at him. Amid the gang violence of the time that was depicted in movies such as Boyz n the Hood (1992) is a look upon a violent person seeing both a racist that wants to bond with him because of their apparent shared hatred of black people and then a montage of actual public lynchings and beatings. It probably is the standout segment of the four for how Bentley handles the scenario thrust upon him in all of its bravado and vulnerability as a murderer. In total, what we have is four pretty interesting segments that all want to look upon actual things that happen in people's lives (black or not), whether that involves domestic violence or a lust for violence and make it compelling to see it intersect with the supernatural for macabre effectiveness. In that regard, it is a nice little film that may be right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: the match made for the Devil itself: Exorcist: The Beginning vs. Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

Vampire in Brooklyn.

Review #2455: Vampire in Brooklyn.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Maximillian / Preacher Pauly / Guido), Angela Bassett (Detective Rita Veder), Allen Payne (Detective Justice), Kadeem Hardison (Julius Jones), John Witherspoon (Silas Green), Zakes Mokae (Dr. Zeko), Joanna Cassidy (Captain Dewey), W. Earl Brown (Police Officer), and Simbi Khali (Nikki) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes)

Review: 

"I don't think it's so unusual. Horror is very close to humor. The thing is I wanted the humor in `Vampire in Brooklyn' to come from the story - from the plot, not from Eddie. I wanted Eddie to be essentially a serious character. What I didn't want was just a black version of `Love at First Bite.' I didn't think `Love at First Bite' was very funny. I didn't want the comedy to be nearly that broad. Maybe my sense of humor is a little dry, or subtle, or whatever, but people seem to get it. I kept encouraging Eddie to play it straight.''

On October 27, 1995, a strange curiosity came into theaters: a Wes Craven movie with Eddie Murphy as the star. The story goes that Eddie Murphy was looking for something to just end his contract with Paramount Pictures and he apparently landed on a script that had been written by his brother Charlie alongside Vernon Lynch. Michael Lucker and Chris Parker were called to work on the script (ironically, they had written an Old West script that had intrigued Murphy but not Paramount). Hired to pitch it to Craven before pitching it to Paramount Pictures and then Murphy, they successfully got it greenlit in a matter of weeks. In an interview about the making of the film, Parker stated that the studio, in the first meeting about the movie, told them they wanted the movie to be funny but that Murphy didn't want to be funny and therefore they had to "trick him into being funny", while Lucker speculated that Craven had a tough time getting Murphy to be serious rather than falling back on doing jokes. The studio apparently cut the budget of the film during shooting to where they could not film the intended action scene for the climax. Amidst a production that its shares of troubles* (some from its star), the movie was only a mild success with audiences at the time, only just making double of its reported $14 million budget.* In 2011, Murphy (who at one point labeled the movie as a transitional one in his career) tried to lay blame on the sight of him with long-haired wig (as designed by makeup artist Toy Van Lierop) that was used in the film and reflected that he had to do something to get to do The Nutty Professor (1996). and later jokingly wondered if there was even an "Appreciation Club" for the film. For his part, Craven found it to be an "interesting experience" despite obvious difficulties and the limited potential that came from script/production challenges; Craven bounced back with his next film as a director with Scream (1996).

I will admit that Vampire in Brooklyn had been a longshot candidate for featuring in the past few years, but the chance to talk about a movie that is now three decades old did sound entertaining. And you know what? I liked this movie. Actually, I liked this misfit type of comedy-horror quite a bit, mainly because there is an odd frenzy to how the movie maneuvers itself that is off-putting yet always involving. Horror movies sometimes get a bum rap for being a bit too vicious and comedies sometimes get the "too low" rap, so it is a bit hard to really win with a horror comedy that has some chuckles to go along with vicious little moments that probably play to the cliches you see from certain vampire movies, which I should've seen coming from the name dropping of Blacula (1972). It starts out with a mysterious boat entering a port with seemingly nobody present, for one. The movie might seem confused for those who assume it will go straight horror or, well, comedy - a riff is fine by me (admittedly, it probably is a bit odd that one needs to get the girl before the full moon as a supposed last of his kind because I assumed you could just convert anyone to a vampire, although I guess maybe he's in the killing business instead anyway). It doesn't even take long for our title character to play puns with literally ripping a person's heart out because why not. The setup to eventually getting Murphy and Bassett in the same place just amuses me mostly because (intentionally or not), the vampire picked one of the worst folks to employ as a ghoul buddy, one who decides to resort to using a mannequin hand by the halfway point. I fail to see the problem with Murphy's hair. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was the far more egregious one, mainly because I still think about that stupid beehive thing from time to time. I just see a cone-shape of hair, focus back to Murphy and move on, to be honest. Besides, the vampire effects utilized from time to time are pretty fascinating to eventually see play out (after the movie shows the various vampire habits, ranging from the wolf thing in the intro to...renovating messy rooms). And then of course there is Murphy and Bassett, who each do pretty well with what they interpret the film to be. Murphy might have had a bit of trepidation of what he really wanted to do with this film, as evidenced by a movie that has him do an opening narration to go along with playing multiple characters (for separate gags). Love it or hate it, you basically get a compromise that has peaks and valleys of humor with some interest in playing a quality villain that I like just fine. 

Bassett holds her own with the clash that arises in oneself being challenged in who they really are beyond what the flesh shows that makes for compelling vulnerability beyond just having her be an object to be moved around. Her parts of the film are basically not too far off from what you might see in a gaslighting thriller, and she makes that count for something, arguably. Hardison and his rapid decay as the toadie fit for the streets is pretty funny in what you can show for a suck-up not too far off from old Renfield, and Witherspoon pops in occasionally to pair off for coarse amusement. Payne makes a fine ordinary performance. In general, I took the movie as just having fun playing with the audience about where it really wants to go in one trying to escape the fate of a doomed race vs having situations as ridiculous as impersonating an Italian to rob a place only to shoot down a cat. I don't even hate the climax, mainly because sure, let's end it in an apartment rather than going all out on a bridge or a church like seemingly any other vampire movie just to really curve things to an offbeat angle. I particularly like the ending, in which you can interpret as playfully saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same, even for creatures of the night. As a whole, Vampire in Brooklyn is a delightfully strange little movie, managing to evoke a sense of joy in its macabre aspects that I thought was a neat ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Of sadder note is the loss of stuntwoman Sonja Davis, who suffered a horrific accident in November 1994 that saw her die from her injuries during a stunt.

*For reference, more people on opening weekend went to see Powder [1995], a movie made by an actual convicted child sex offender, than Vampire in Brooklyn. 

Not to editorialize, but the Ineligible List includes Jeepers Creepers 1-3 because a pedophile directed those movies.

Demon Knight.

Review #2441: Demon Knight.

Cast: 

Billy Zane (The Collector), William Sadler (Frank Brayker), Jada Pinkett (Jeryline), Thomas Haden Church (Roach), C. C. H. Pounder (Irene), John Kassir (voice of The Crypt Keeper; Brock Winkless as puppeteer), Brenda Bakke (Cordelia), Dick Miller (Uncle Willy), Gary Farmer (Deputy Bob), Ryan O'Donohue (Danny), Charles Fleischer (Wally), John Schuck (Sheriff Tupper), and Sherrie Rose (Wanda) Directed by Ernest Dickerson (#1641 - Juice) 

Review: 

"I’ve always enjoyed Demon Knight. I love horror films, and I had a lot of fun creating a horror mythology. It was a great cast. I was also happy to do the first film where an African American woman saves the world. That was a good project to be involved with."

Hey, remember Tales from the Crypt? In 1989, a television series was created based on the bi-monthly horror comic anthology series that was created by Bill Gaines and Al Feldstein. By the 1980s, one was long past whiny parents and even whinier doctors having fears that horror comics were making kids illiterate and/or juvenile delinquents*, now you could mine old stuff for movies and premium TV (complete with sex and violence, the hallmark of horror movies and probably America too). The show ran on HBO until 1996 and it probably makes sense that movies were coming. Plans for three of them, in fact. The other ones were tentatively called "Dead Easy" and "Body Count". The screenplay was credited to Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris, and Mark Bishop, although it should be noted that the script for the film had been languishing around for several years and at one point there was a version scripted around not having demons being shown but instead a legion of Bible salesman clad in suits and sunglasses that just happen to be revealed as demons later. Demon Knight, a movie released in January of 1995 because they pushed it back from Halloween 1994, was a mild success with audiences (not with critics, but do you trust mainstream critics about horror?), and a post-credits scene states the next film of the Crypt would be Dead E-nope, the second film "presented by Tales from the Crypt" was quickly retooled into Bordello of Blood in 1996 (funny enough, that was also a movie involving an old script being retooled). A hastily made segment with the Cryptkeper character was done for a movie called Ritual (2002), which remade I Walked With a Zombie of all movies (seriously?), although that movie barely had a release in theaters.

So, does it compare well to the 1972 Tales from the Crypt movie? Eh, sort of. If you accept the movie as a little ride through varied conversations about lore (well, something involving religion I guess) and familiar ground for a siege movie, you will be totally fine with what you get here. 92 minutes sounds like they could've just packaged a few episodes for video but it makes for a mostly paint-by-numbers movie, but...it is up the alley. If you thought the show could show promise when not just being a [name actor is here for 20 minutes]* episode, the movie will probably satisfy some of the expectations you may have in entertainment. Maybe it could have been more unsettling, but it at least makes up for it with a few solid moments, in particular because of the presence of Billy Zane, who is delightful in menace. He manages to be unsettling in the sequences of temptation because it ends up sounding pretty believable to walk along his path, which is a hard road when one scene has him drop the pretense of being a cop to just punch straight through a guy's head.  He just has an aura of energy and capability to make you want to listen to what the hell is coming up next that I almost wish would've made it all the way to the end. Sadler may be strapped with an understated type of hero role, but I see it more as an appropriately weary performance that is enjoyable to see play out, mainly because Sadler just seems reliable to take seriously. For a movie that invites you to the idea of a key filled with many, many people's blood (and Christ) in it, anyway. Pinkett makes a worthy participant to the proceedings around her, quirky yet eventually endearing enough to root for, at least when compared to the delightfully adversarial presence of Church* or the always on-time Pounder and Miller. In general, the movie sets its body count early and has a few fine moments with the effects and chuckles, although it definitely feels more a casual ride for those who've seen Assault on Precinct 13 (1980) a few too many times more than a truly original ride. But I like hokum like this when it is presented with likable people or a few little moments of gore to make me want to see it all the way to the ending, which might be a bit too cozy (even the lesser Crypt episodes tried sticking a twist in like a knife for the end). But as a whole, Demon Knight manages to have a few entertaining moments to ride through the obvious bumps that come with trying to turn 30-minute spine-tinglers into a full-edged movie for a moderate ride of success.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Why can't people focus their attention on asking aloud why certain people are weird like Taylor Swift superfans?

*Remember when Morton Downey Jr appeared in an episode about haunted ghosts on live TV? The one I probably remember best is the one with Joe Pantoliano about remembering just how many times he has died. Or the one about being trapped in one's own body.

*A Harlingen High School graduate, don't ya know?

Desperado.

Review #2415: Desperado.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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

Safe (1995).

Review #2340: Safe.

Cast: 

Julianne Moore (Carol White), Peter Friedman (Peter Dunning), Xander Berkeley (Greg White), James LeGros (Chris), Martha Velez (Fulvia), Susan Norman (Linda), Kate McGregor-Stewart (Claire), Mary Carver (Nell), Steven Gilborn (Dr. Hubbard), and Peter Crombie (Dr. Reynolds) Written and Directed by Todd Haynes.

Review: 

"There’s a history of inexplicable illnesses, that established medicine can’t confirm as absolutely physiological, that have affected women. I think they are diseases of identity that force you to see that identity is a fragile and basically an imaginary construct that we pretend to carry around. The more unexamined it is, the more vulnerable you are."

Admittedly, it took a few years to get to a director who actually started his career with a movie involving Barbie dolls. Born in Los Angeles, Todd Haynes studied art and semiotics at Brown University and yet had been influenced by his high school teacher, who taught him a lesson about reality "can't be a criterion of judging the success or failure of a film or its effect on you". Haynes made his first short film in 1978 but it was his work on a short in 1987 while studying at Bard College that garnered considerable attention in more ways than one: Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987) was a chronicle (43 minutes) of the life of the pop singer but with Barbie dolls as actors (with, well, one being chipped away gradually to reflect anorexia) to make for an "experimental film" to go along with archive and stop motion footage that had music from The Carpenters...which generated controversy from Richard Carpenter because the music was not licensed for the film. The result is that one can only see the film in bootleg form. Haynes' feature debut with the sci-fi drama horror movie Poison (1991) had its own brand of scrutiny, because its partial funding by the National Endowment of the Arts stoked controversy because of certain moments in the film ("explicit porno" is an actual phrase used by the babies who complained at the time). Haynes wrote the script for Safe fairly quickly after Poison but it took time to raise money ($1 million) for the film, which among other inspirations, found interest in "environmental illness". In over three decades, Haynes has directed eleven films (and one TV miniseries), which has included such movies as Far from Heaven (2002), Carol (2015), and his most recent movie, May December (2023).

It is interesting to hear "The Yellow Wallpaper" mentioned. As one might know from say, high school reading, that short story was written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in 1892. That's the short story where a husband imposes a "rest cure" to his wife because she is afflicted with something after giving birth (okay, the disease in that story is basically what people know now as postpartum depression but stay with me), with Gilman being influenced by her own experiences of having been in a "rest cure" Think how that woman is gradually revealed to, well, have various descriptions of the wallpaper of the room that basically imprisons her. Now think about a movie that took inspiration from Louise Hay's self-help books that once had a quote saying that "almost anything can be healed" if one is willing to do the mental work for a narrative (set in 1987, at the height of a certain disease that obviously led to plenty of questions about therapy and recovery treatments, gay person or not) that involves a married woman with a family that finds something has afflicted her. The film starts in a place where one really sees the bare minimum of nature and manages to burrow further in that basically serves as facsimile of the conventional movie. It strikes to the core with a lead character that Haynes once described as having "the most vulnerable part of identity, the most uncertain and fragile part of myself." Time has seemingly made the movie seem even more prescient when it comes to that weird thing that arises in modern society when it comes to what "safe" really is in a land of hollow people that repress themselves (this especially leans politically, where I am reminded of how many people seem to believe things were just better in the old pictures/movies they seem to revere as gospel). Whether it involves psychotherapy, or New-Age mumbo jumbo, people just use something to strike at being "alone". Moore pretty much plays the role with a weightless type of quality in voice and approach that basically dominates the movie in a way that is beautifully horrific, as if she was a ripped wallpaper trying to get back to some sort of wall. Her vulnerability at the uncertain grasp that comes with identity and community is one that leaves you at a curious distance that has us examine ourselves for what we think about when it comes to the cycle of illness and what we think about in "recovery" through the lens of burden or strength. We see the sick, but do we actually hear them? Whether by circumstances of their own control or through the cruel nature of the unknown, the world we live in makes for a very strange process to see people and communities. It's interesting to see the contrast between her interactions with Berkeley (totally staid for the hollow-men, as one sees from the sex scene from above) as compared to Friedman and his ideal persona of feel-goodness. It is a slow burn of unsettling strangeness that leaves one at the very least unsettled at what has been sprung on them for its climax in terms of defining love in the eyes of oneself. In the end, we all yearn to be "safe" from something, where we wrap ourselves in a bubble and just believe in that decision in the face of all things. Whether taken as melodrama or horror, what we have here is a well-done film in the art of isolation and the delusions that come with misplaced beliefs and burdens that all come to roost at some point in our very lives.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sunday night: be ready and Go Bills.

Showgirls.

Review #2246: Showgirls.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berkley (Nomi Malone/Polly Ann Costello), Kyle MacLachlan (Zack Carey), Gina Gershon (Cristal Connors), Glenn Plummer (James Smith), Robert Davi (Al Torres), Alan Rachins (Tony Moss), Gina Ravera (Molly Abrams), Lin Tucci (Henrietta "Mama" Bazoom), Greg Travis (Phil Newkirk), Al Ruscio (Sam Karlman), Patrick Bristow (Marty Jacobsen), William Shockley (Andrew Carver), Michelle Johnston (Gay Carpenter), Dewey Weber (Jeff), and Rena Riffel (Penny/Hope)  Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers, #2046 - Flesh and Blood, #2069 - Turkish Delight)

Cast: 

"I always felt that it was what you might call a hyperbolic approach to filmmaking. Yes, it was over the top. And that was on purpose. The environments were very flashy. There were too many lights, too many idiotic things, and too much Vegas — not only in the surroundings, but “Vegas” in the way the people behaved, in the dialogue, in the acting. As for the finished product: I thought it was perfect. Otherwise I would have changed it. I had time to change it. I could change whatever was there. Even now, when I see the movie, I think it’s shot in an extremely elegant way." - Paul Verhoeven

“I’m not going to spend a lot of time on that moment, because why do that? We don’t live in the past. But I found my own resiliency and my power and my confidence – not only through what I had to find out, but because of you guys. I want to thank you guys for giving me this gift of truly getting a full-circle moment of experiencing the joy with you. You guys and the love you have for this movie have made this the cult film that it is.” - Elizabeth Berkley

Undeniably, I have been waiting to find the best time to finally do (no pun intended) this movie. How could one resist the first and only film with the NC-17 rating to be given a wide release in all the big theaters. A long time ago, one could think of the X rating and think, okay, sure, its unsuitable for kids, but it could be good for the rest of the public to think about watching. But it did not take long for others to use the X rating as a way for certain type of films...ones related to skin flicks. This would work out in the favor of films such as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989), which the filmmakers decided was better off released "unrated" rather than accept the MPA's X-rating. As such, the MPA was spurred on to get rid of the X and go with a NC-17 rating for "No children under 17 admitted" (a few years later, they changed it to "No one 17 and under"). Henry & June (1990) was the first film to get the rating, but Showgirls got a release in over 1,000 theaters. I think I mentioned all of this first because I didn't really feel like talking about Joe Eszterhas. He had his first filmed screenplay was F.I.S.T. (1978) on the way to a steady career of scripts that ranged from the known such as Flashdance (1983), Big Shots (1987), and, well, Basic Instinct (1992), which was directed by Paul Verhoeven. While they didn't exactly get along in making that film, they reconciled and eventually came onto an idea of doing a film in the "world of Vegas" (Verhoeven stated that the debates with the MPA on Instinct spurred him make Showgirls with an intended N-17 rating). The fact that Carolco Pictures decided to drop Verhoeven's Crusade project helped in spurring him along to work with Eszterhas in doing stuff such as going to Vegas and talking to people around the sex industry that spurred some of the storyline (that, and a bit of All About Eve). Interestingly, the $40 million dollar project was not a major success with audiences, but it attracted quite a following on the home video market. No, I mean it was really popular on the home video market (first with a slightly edited R-rated cut by Verhoeven), complete with a "V.I.P Edition" that reminds one that DVDs used to have collector things...of things not related to dolls or shirts, because what else could have suction-cup pasties.

Generally, one worries about films that have some sort of camp appeal on the level of Rocky Horror, because sometimes it could subject you to insufferable mediocrity in the name of "attempted satire" or "something deep". And since I found little to really hold in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, the worry/curiosity was considerable. And we have an over-the-top lead performance (acting, dancing, nudity) that had considerable influence by Verhoeven (to get the "element of style" he thought would work for the film). He aimed for hyperboiic over-the-top stuff, not camp. To understand the movie is that the cult status that arose from it comes in people that either enjoyed it as irony, drag performers/midnight movie people, or, well, guilty pleasures. Eszterhas stated that the film was intended to be something dark in amusement. But really, this is a movie with little eroticism (but plenty of flesh), and, well, the ethics of a soap opera that is totally not surprising from the guy who directed Turkish Delight (1973), which had dream sequences and thrusting frustrations. Satire this, camp that, I actually had fun watching the movie as a heightened piece of exploitation. By the halfway point, the question on my mind, was, well who gives a shit if the film "is what it is" on purpose or not? Who cares if it is some sort of "satire" or something to do re-thinking on? It is a silly movie that basically takes All About Eve and throttles it right into the gutter in a way that would make Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) proud. Granted, it isn't as *entertaining* as the aforementioned Dolls film, but it sure has the guts to go where it thinks it needs to go. It really is an elegant type of movie when it comes to presentation of its numbers beyond just being a vehicle of skin that, well, you just don't see in movies today.

Berkley had Saved by the Bell as her big credit prior to this film, which basically killed off her chances to be a leading star in mainstream stuff. It is a pity too, because her abrupt timing is actually pretty cut-rate in entertainment value. One is watching a viper that simply believes they can dive right into a pit and not get something left on them. Is it really so bad to be so goofy just because one is showing a bit of skin? Far be it from me to criticize her performance for being what it aimed to be: a riff on the "star is born" trope that should be watched with clear interest rather than just lumping it as just one-note. Her passion is to not have the seams unravel on her little act, and there is something amusing about her attempt at trying to look like a good dancer along with tough that hides a hollowed-out soul. Undeniably though, Gershon (who thought the role was from the get-go as, well, was something fun) is devilishly charming in a role that could've just been fodder for cheap jokes, because only a person of her caliber could handle lines involving the good ol' days of Doggy Chow or the duality that really is apparent between her and Berkley in terms of opportunistic people wrapped in a meat market (known as show business). Her allure carries the film in a way that is easy to see why she received good marks for her role back then. MacLachlan (best known as the star of Twin Peaks that happened to receive less than 1/10th the slams of Berkley for this) apparently chose this film because, well, Verhoeven. Sure, he might call the film "inadvertently funny" now, but I think there is something quite amusing about his performance when it comes to the cascade of devious artificiality (particularly with that mop-hair he wears). If the women re-invent themselves to stay alive, surely the men have their own "re-inventions" in store (bribery, extortion, etc.). Consider how one would see the scenes of the unerotic eroticism (as one might put it) between him and Berkley in the club (which has the eyes of Gershon right there) and the one by themselves at the pool before it all ends with an "intended compliment"  Really though, I fail to see how people took a film seriously that has a character played by Tucci that basically plays a mentor to strippers that does an act with popping..skin or having Davi basically play a wisecracking pervert saying lines like "It must be weird not having anybody...on you". Ravera is seemingly the only normal one of the whole bunch, which is only more amusing to see her continue to interact with Berkley (because again, gotta have a friend to a would-be star). Plummer's opportunistic wisecracks (a sort of chorus when saying everyone "got AIDS and shit") pop up from time to time with amusement, particularly with the last punchline involving his intended choreographed dance.

Admittedly, the most controversial scene in the film probably will affect the mood of those who watch it because, well, the rape scene comes out of nowhere. It may serve the point that no one really can just claw innocence in a place of sin, but it surely won't be the easiest thing to try and stomach. The fact that it serves as the impetus for both a soap opera-twist alongside a pretty quick resolution that may or may not ring true in the last marks of elegant exploitation is surely a strange one. While the hint of a sequel (supposedly set in Hollywood) did not come to pass, Showgirls is a surprise to the viewer who dares to see it, regardless of if they expect something with "camp" or for supposed terrible quality. I see a strangely alluring exploitation film that shows that some people really, really, really, should not take themselves that seriously. If you watch the film with an open mind for elegant exploitation rather than just going on a checklist, you might find a strange gem worth holding up. Sleazy and absurd, I find no shame in calling this a winner for those with the interest in skin-deep elegance. Lord knows if I come back to it sometime and like it (or don't like it) as much or even more the second time around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Okay this one is not quite on the theme, but Alien: Romulus was anticipated by me anyway.