Club Dread.

Review #2425: Club Dread.

Cast: 

Broken Lizard [Kevin Heffernan (Lars Bronkhorst), Erik Stolhanske (Sam), Steve Lemme (Juan Castillo), Jay Chandrasekhar (Putman Livingston), Paul Soter (Dave "DJ Dave/DJ Drugs" Conable)], Brittany Daniel (Jenny), Bill Paxton (Pete "Coconut Pete" Wabash), M. C. Gainey (Hank), Lindsay Price (Yu), Julio Bekhor (Carlos), Dan Montgomery Jr (Rollo), Elena Lyons (Stacy), Tanja Reichert (Kellie), Richard Perello (Cliff), Ryan Falkner (Marcel), Greg Cipes (Trevor), Michael Weaver (Roy), Nat Faxon (Manny), Samm Levine (Dirk), and Jordan Ladd (Penelope) Directed by Jay Chandrasekhar (#1121 - Super Troopers, #1122 - Beerfest)

Review: 

"Yeah, I think the key was to try to keep the tone consistent...Often with comedies you kind of drift off into things that couldn't happen, so we tried to sort of keep a cap on things and make sure they all fit in the same movie."

A comedy horror movie might as well have had a lightning rod attached to it for folks to not exactly gravitate to it. This was the third film from the comedy troupe Broken Lizard, which you might remember had done two previous films: Puddle Cruiser (1996) and, well, Super Troopers (2001), which like this film was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures. Sure, maybe there was something already familiar with "referential" horror like Scream or with "parody" in Scary Movie [2000] (or Student Bodies [1981], a movie I totally didn't pull out of my-*). But since I didn't care to actually see Scary Movie, Club Dread doesn't exactly have the problem of being pale in comparison to some other comedy horror movie. But I guess some people might wonder if it actually is a horror movie with comedic elements - oh who cares? The important part is having fun with a movie that tries to ride with the hit-or-miss elements that come with its ensemble. Either you go with the schtick in its various characters that come and go (as one does when slashed) or you just don't because, oh no, a movie with thin characters is a hell of a thing to swallow: horror, comedy, or whatever. Made on a budget of just under $10 million, the movie was not a major success at the time of release in February of 2004. There apparently was an unrated cut of the movie released on DVD that made the movie run nearly two hours long (118 minutes) that basically is just there to extend scenes without being a "director's cut". Chandrasekhar was brought in to direct the film adaptation of The Dukes of Hazzard in 2005 for his next film, while Broken Lizard returned together for Beerfest (2006).

Sure, the jokes can be hit or miss, and sure, it does have a bit of a problem in actually getting to where it wants to go for a 103-minute runtime that isn't quite a whodunit. Compared to what the troupe did before and after this film, Dread is firmly in the middle between Troopers and Beerfest, but I would call this one a winner over the latter mainly because it proved a charming enough ride in goofy slasher meandering. This time, the lead presence is mostly in the hands of Heffernan, who makes for an affable presence to try and carry a movie that tries to hold up on a few one-note jokes (hey, everybody gets one accent try) and mostly gets away with it. Stolhanske plays it straight enough that being the one behind the whodunit isn't too far of a stretch to goof it up. Hit-or-miss stuff needs at least one fun presence, and Paxton basically makes it a ride worth being on for as long as he plays the schtick of basically doing a riff off Jimmy Buffett (apparently, at Paxton's request, they showed the movie to Buffett, who got a kick out of it). There is an infectious charm that comes out in playing a washout that you might wish made it to the end. If you dig the routine that it sets out in goofy slasher hokum (a sequence involving costumes comes to mind alongside the climax in splitting ridiculousness), you can roll with the movie just fine, but I totally get that it won't exactly inspire the pants to be scared or laughing at every nook and cranny.  As a whole, it won't be for everyone, but I dug the end result of having a goofy R-rated time with just enough chuckles with at least some enthusiasm for the slasher genre that might make for a worthy recommendation if you're up for a casual time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*butt. Well, if it make you feel better, October will give me plenty of chances to look for horror movies out of the blue.

Slipstream (1989).

Review #2379: Slipstream (1989).

Cast: 

Mark Hamill (Will Tasker), Kitty Aldridge (Belitski), Bill Paxton (Matt Owens), Bob Peck (Byron), Eleanor David (Ariel), with Robbie Coltrane (Montclaire), Ben Kingsley (Avatar), and F. Murray Abraham (Cornelius) Directed by Steven Lisberger (#098 - Tron)

Review:

"It’s hackneyed to say this but I liked SLIPSTREAM because it was character oriented. And so few films can find a balance between character and effects. Great directors like Peter Yates say "I'll show them how to do it properly,’ and KRULL is the result! 1 can’t get excited over WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT for the same reason in terms of its special effects breakthroughs.”

What's in a name? You may or may not wonder just what exactly this movie is, particularly with a poster that bills itself as from the "producer of Star Wars and the director of Tron". Famously, Gary Kurtz had worked with George Lucas on American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars (1977), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) before he split with Lucas to do his own ventures. He served as co-producer alongside Jim Henson on The Dark Crystal (1982), which was a mild hit with audiences. He got involved for a time in producing the American production side of trying to make a film of Little Nemo in Slumberland that he left after it went nowhere, but Kurtz served as an executive producer with Return to Oz (1985), a movie considered a flop at the time*. And then there was this movie. Apparently, the original script was written by Charles Edward Pogue in the wake of the success of Mad Max (1979). Kurtz liked the basic idea but found it "far too violent" and "heavily exploitation oriented". Enter Steven Lisberger. Fresh off Animalympics, a sports comedy TV movie that spoofed the Olympics but with animals that came out in 1980, Lisberger followed that with Tron (1982), an idea he had developed for years. The movie received better notices in the years to come, and Lisberger would return to direct five years later with Hot Pursuit (1987), a movie that came and went with, well, some money made? He was hired in Autumn of 1987 to help reshape the script, which he described as: "based on an outline from another producer’s ramblings back in the early ’80s. Pogue worked from a Huckleberry Finn travelogue base—a 14-year-old’s encounter with an android as he journeyed in the future, a coming-of-age saga mixed with sci-fi. But Mark Twain’s brand of narrative sarcasm was missing.” Lisberger called it in simple terms as "a futuristic western". Tony Kayden was hired to shore up the script and apparently had issues getting the script through the demands of both producers and Kurtz, who seemed to tussle over what they wanted in the script. Apparently, the movie was supposed to be more violent to help make the movie more coherent, but these scenes were not shot. Bill Bauer was credited for "based on story material" while Pogue either asked for or did not receive credit. Made for a budget of $15 million for "Entertainment Film" in February 1989...no one saw the movie. It received a brief release in the United Kingdom and Australia while managing the dubious distinction of having name actors for a movie that never was released in the USA and leading Kurtz to apparently go bankrupt; he produced two other movies in his lifetime that are even more obscure than this one. Lisberger has never directed another movie since this one (but you can read scripts of his on the Internet), which you can apparently find anywhere on the Web, along with a "making of video".**

Let's be real here: This is not a cult movie. There is no trumpeting for this movie to be re-discovered as some sort of sneaky good movie or one that has scenes worth looking into again. This is the kind of movie you find at the bottom of the barrel with nothing better to do that just happens to have a couple of familiar names involved...and man, that is sad. Really sad. The biggest sin of this movie is that for all the tropes the movie aims for as a wannabee sci-fi movie that might as well have cribbed elements of the Western while they are churning in desperation...it is boring. Sure, there are bits and pieces that are interesting to see in its execution (good or bad), but as a whole, there is not enough here to make one want to see it again or even show it to others. It died a quiet death in theaters because nobody could justify saying more than 50 words on why you would want to show it to a group of people. Lisberger can say the movie grows complex with the whole "android goes to Christ figure" thing, but it seems to be more a movie that you would only like if you have never seen a plane in your life. Slipstream doesn't even sound like a sci-fi title, it sounds like a name you would reject for a minor league team. The territory never feels tough enough to justify the tension, and you might as well call it a precursor to a bigger budgeted flop of the future in wannabee post apocalyptic films such as Waterworld. 

Now, let's get this out of the way: I like Bill Paxton, he was a good character presence in a handful of movies people love now and then...he gets the short stick here. Sure, it is nice to see his attempts at charm in a role that might as well have been ripped out of the dime-store Han Solo / Jack Burton playbook, but there is not nearly enough here to justify the eventual road set out by the climax. It just isn't as involving as it sounds to follow him in a movie that yearns to be a road movie but meanders. Feasible or not, it just seems like the role was meant for someone younger, but then maybe I just have, say, A Boy and His Dog on the mind. Peck was actually best known for his work in television such as Edge of Darkness (1985). And to be fair, his performance here is fairly interesting enough to make things watchable beyond just calling it a wannabee wanderer type. There are flashes of curiosity and yearning for someone who is adrift and, well, the movie really does have you thinking he is an android before it wants too. At least you can say Hamill tried. Hell, he apparently believed that if the movie was a hit, he could use it to play a Bond villain rather than doing stuff that was basically a take on Luke Skywalker. Ironically, Hamill ended up playing more noted villains in the form of voiceover work than stuff like this, and I can see why: it just isn't an interesting role to chew on. Sure, a good villain can involve folks that believe they are in the right, and we have a self-righteous person that wouldn't be too off from The Searchers, but, well, it just isn't a compelling threat to really watch. Its a pursuit movie where he just shows up and then boom, he's off for a bit. The climax screws him over. One minute he and Peck are in the plane fighting over control of it, then he's trying to quote the works of Byron to, well, the guy mistakenly referred to as Byron, then he seems to be hopeful the plane can make it out of turbulence, and then, boom, he's dead. Hell, Byron I guess is just one of those "explosion-proof androids", so he just moseys on out, as if barely anything's happened. Aldridge and David equally have little to really do to make anyone want to go forward with adventuring, suffice to say; rounding it out, the cameos from Coltrane (and two Academy Award winners with Abraham and Kingsley!) are, well, short and not exactly helpful for a film bereft of actual edge. As a whole, Slipstream aimed to be an adventure, but instead it flounders to the ground with a whimper. You might find something here with the names involved or just groan at the missed opportunities. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Well, if you want to call a movie "too dark", you might need a head check. Hell, they apparently said that (in lighter numbers) with The Dark Crystal, but eh, people like that movie too.

**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WdIRsBks8

Streets of Fire.

Review #2218: Streets of Fire.

Cast: 

Michael Paré (Tom Cody), Diane Lane (Ellen Aim), Rick Moranis (Billy Fish), Amy Madigan (McCoy), Willem Dafoe (Raven Shaddock), Deborah Van Valkenburgh (Reva Cody), Richard Lawson (Ed Price), Rick Rossovich (Officer Cooley), Bill Paxton (Clyde), Lee Ving (Greer), and Stoney Jackson (Bird) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders, #1728 - Another 48 Hrs, #2217 - The Warriors)

Review: 

Paramount Pictures really liked 48 Hrs (1982), as directed by Walter Hill. He had co-written it with Larry Gross as a production that had Lawrence Gordon as one of the key producers. So, two years later, here they all are for a film again. And so, Hill wanted to make a film that he thought would be a perfect one for his teenage self that would have things he still loved even now: "custom cars, kissing in the rain, neon, trains in the night, high-speed pursuit, rumbles, rock stars, motorcycles, jokes in tough situations, leather jackets and questions of honor". Of course, in the words of Gross, Hill wanted to do a movie that basically was his "own comic book movie", which might sound a tiny bit like the inspirations for The Warriors. Casting hiccups (i.e. wanting Tom Cruise but getting beaten to the punch) and a sudden inspiration during writing...led Gross and Hill to take the success of Flashdance (1983) as a way to make the film as basically a musical, since, well, if one "stylized movie" can get going, why not this? Did I forget that one other inspiration for the type of reality depicted for the film was John Hughes? Yes, Hill not only wanted to make a movie that was something that could be great for his teenage self as a high school flick, a comic book-type film and also a musical. The film, meant to be the first of a planned trilogy (all with Pare tapped to star, naturally)...did not work out well, filing to make back its $14.5 million budget. Gross has gone on record stating that the film did have influence when it came to ones that were (in his words) "completely saturated in...iconography", such as RoboCop and Se7en, with his theory being that those films did stylization with a balance of gore that hooked the audience in ways that were not done with Streets of Fire. In 2008, Paré and Van Valkenburgh participated in Road to Hell (as directed by Albert Pyun), a sort-of follow-up.

I wish I could love it. I really do. The film is wonderfully shot by cinematographer Andy Laszlo when it comes to that weird world of another time and place that makes for a fruitfully interesting vibe and such for 93 minutes. To me, it just comes off as a more average rendition of The Warriors (1979), complete with an even less interesting idea behind its main duo because dear god, it focuses on the wrong two! I swear, one has more fun with the cheesy retort between Pare and Madigan than the attempts of trying to make me care about him and Lane (oh look, an ex-boyfriend encountering his ex-girlfriend in a rescue operation, makes one want to slip on Casablanca). Hell, according to Madigan, when she read for the film (for the part played by Van Valkenburgh), she apparently found the nomad soldier-for-hire the more interesting one. With the charm of someone seemingly ripped out of a Howard Hawks film, she steals the show away from Pare, who plays it all too cool that really only works if one is Clint Eastwood. Lane (present in a handful of films such as Coppola's two 1983 films in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish) may have a suitable presence when it comes to singing, but I think I actually found her more interested in chemistry with her lead...in A Little Romance, five years earlier. One just has to view the film around them as if it was one of those cheesy teen films where the action matters more than if the sucker gets the girl. Of course, Dafoe wearing a leather...apron (?) is far more belonging to the vibe of goofball adventure, complete with a casually weird vibe that would make a fascinating comparison with The Loveless. There is something oddly amusing about Moranis not getting to do schtick with this role, which is staid but kinda funny. It is a lean movie of pretty simple Western values that has an axe-fight in the middle of a crowd before closing its mish-mash of vibes and a song naturally named "Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young". As a whole, it is a film that looks nice and has a few moments of good-natured fun within its fable elements of rock and roll to clash with mediocre leads and stuff that only scratches the surface of being more than just "okay" entertainment. It might be among Hill's ambitious ideas for filmmaking, which therefore makes it more than just calling it one of his average productions of his heyday. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Near Dark.

Review #2188: Near Dark.

Cast: 

Adrian Pasdar (Caleb Colton), Jenny Wright (Mae), Lance Henriksen (Jesse Hooker), Bill Paxton (Severen), Jenette Goldstein (Diamondback), Joshua John Miller (Homer), Marcie Leeds (Sarah Colton), and Tim Thomerson (Loy Colton) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless)

Review: 

I'm sure you can see the familiar tropes here: one wants to make a certain kind of genre movie but when they can't get the funding or interest for it, they find themselves framing it a different way. Eric Red (writer of one previous film with 1986's The Hitcher) and Kathryn Bigelow wanted to do a Western, but they found a lack of interest in making that sort of genre film, which eventually led them to the idea of think outside the box to make a horror-Western graft that attracted attention. The script was done on spec, which helped in having Bigelow to be the one to direct it rather than anyone else. It was made on a budget of $5 million but had considerably less attention paid to it when compared to that other movie about vampires in a small town for 1987 in The Lost Boys (incidentally, that film also featured a son of Jason Miller in Jason Patric). It was distributed by the DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group (as headlined by Dino De Laurentiis that had a place in North Carolina), which went under two years after the release of this film. While Bigelow went six years between The Loveless and this film, her next film would come out in less time with Blue Steel (1990), which she wrote with Red.

This is the kind of film that strips the vampire to the most basic of elements, ones that you don't see fangs or them being affected by religious objects (guns seem more like pellets to them) because the sun and the consequences of love and attraction is more than enough. One won't find anything Gothic here, unless one finds music by Tangerine Dream in that array (no). The vampires are basically gunslingers that happen to love the night while harassing would-be prey. It is a lean 95-minute runtime, packed with entertainment value when it comes to the clashes of a would-be father figure and reality. Honestly, it seems like a toss-up to say whether this one is the better vampire film of its year, but one can at least enjoy either film with their sense of handling the clash of communities, with our lead not exactly being the clear hero type (really one wouldn't be too off to be reminded of The Searchers, albeit in a smaller timeframe). One is watching a wolf pack of grimy people that would be grimy regardless of the vampirism. And it all starts because of one act of being bit by a woman. Pasdar thus has the interesting double-act of being a focus that wants as little to do with vampirism as one could possibly do because, well, it isn't his way as a country boy in a den of experienced bloodsuckers. Pasdar and Wright make for a shaky pairing because of course they would be shaky when it comes to coercions and trying to live down certain choices that grow bigger throughout the film. That scene of Pasdar trying to run down to the van with a cover, flames and all, is quite breathtaking to see when it comes to making choices and sticking with them. Apparently, Henriksen, in costume, would go around picking up hitchhikers to prepare for the role, which is meant to be a vampire old enough to fight for the Confederacy. He chews up this role for all of the charismatic menace possible, a "father of the night" that would fit the most within horror or the Western genres. Of course, the other big presence is Paxton, who is having a ball as a vampire could possibly have when it comes to practically playing with his food, such as the scene where he gets into a momentary fight with a tough guy that has him "choking" before he takes the time to steal some sunglasses and muse about hating eating folks who are unshaved. He just knows the buttons to push when it comes to conniving century-old presences that don't need much backstory to convey chaos. Rounding out the cast is Goldstein and Miller, with the latter indeed being a child actor playing a vampire that is quite creepy. I appreciate the film for maintaining steady pacing in the tension in trying to affirm just where they belong and making the choice of where to stand when the sun is about to rise. Bigelow's second effort as a filmmaker is a solid one, packed with a few thrills for the horror and western parameters that deserved better for its time - no better time to see some frontier terror in the dark.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Edge of Tomorrow.

Review #1569: Edge of Tomorrow.

Cast:

Tom Cruise (Major William Cage), Emily Blunt (Sergeant Rita Vrataski), Bill Paxton (Master Sergeant Farell), Brendan Gleeson (General Brigham), Noah Taylor (Dr. Noah Carter), Jonas Armstrong (Skinner), Tony Way (Kimmel), Kick Gurry (Griff), Charlotte Riley (Nance), Franz Drameh (Ford), Dragomir Mrsic (Kuntz), and Masayoshi Haneda (Takeda) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008) and #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

Review:

"I never want to repeat myself. I can’t imagine anything else as upsetting as realizing I’m redoing something I did before. For some reason, when it comes to film, I’m very good at not repeating myself. Even though in the rest of my life, I’m constantly repeating my mistakes."

It is a strange thing to note this as one of Doug Liman's best features, since he has made a steady career for himself over nearly three decades of work, primarily in action or comedy. The son of a painter and a lawyer, Liman found himself interested in film at a young age, which led to study at the International Center of Photography and Brown University before studying at the University of Southern California and their school of Cinematic Arts. He started with small-scale features that resulted in notice such as Swingers (1996) before moving on to bigger budgets with The Bourne Identity (2002) and other various features. The film is adapted from a Japanese sci-fi novel named All You Need Is Kill, written by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and illustrated by Yoshitoshi ABe originally published in 2004, with subsequent adaptation into manga and graphic novel; one can only imagine how they might find inspiration from playing a video game and dying over again and make their own story from that, as was the case of inspiration for Sakurazaka. The film (which Warner Brothers mandated have their title rather than the title of the novel or Liman's preference for the tagline as the title) had gestated in pre-production for years, starting with a spec script done by Dante Harper in 2010, although this would be discarded for reworking by other writers such as Joby Harold. Before filming started, Harper's script was mostly discarded by Liman, and the resulting screenplay that eventually came out was done by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (which did not have a set ending at first).

What an interesting time one could spend with this film. It is a neat little action film, finding an edge in terms of making repetition involving action come across as useful entertainment with amusement. Is it more than just "Groundhog Day (1993) but with killing aliens"? In parts, sure. It proves to be a fun one, particularly for those who desire some sci-fi thrills with a light story that is right to follow along with for 113 minutes without becoming stuck in a loop. Cruise does fairly well with this role, one that invites curiosity for the challenges needed in playing a hero who has to fail over and over again and grow with the feature in capability and charm. Blunt proves efficient here, just as capable in handling action without hitting a false note, who makes her time of tough heroism roll along with guidance with enjoyment that never wavers from our attention once properly introduced to us. In other words, they make for a good team together in beat-by-beat training. Paxton and Gleeson make up useful support, generating some wry amusement when Cruise shares the screen with either of them (since each seem right at home with action fare like this). Taylor and the others do fine in parts, since the main threat is making sure to handle bulky suits and effects-driven adversaries, which is useful to follow along with. The ending does fine for what is needed in closing the loop for an action film without short-changing itself too much, relying on its effects to carry through without being too murky or unclear to follow (although novel fans will note its clear departure with its ending). The film was a modest success for its lofty budget (because one needs to spend over $100 million for either action movies or in marketing), and it isn't hard to appreciate the film as a useful example of an action movie that bets on itself in captivating the audience with flair and a degree of intelligence to it. In any case, there are supposedly plans to do another film (called Live Die Repeat and Repeat, because words fail me), but who knows how intriguing that could be? As a whole, while it certainly seems more polished for its first half over the second, it generally works out well in capturing the challenge of trying to make a breezy film with thrills that weaves a decently conceived idea together with a useful cast and visuals to go alongside it for a useful time to have time and time again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Titanic (1997).

Review #1515: Titanic.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose Dewitt Bukater), Billy Zane (Cal Hockley), Kathy Bates (Molly Brown), Frances Fisher (Ruth Dewitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Old Rose), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett), Bernard Hill (Captain Smith), David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy), Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews), Jonathan Hyde (J. Bruce Ismay), Suzy Amis (Lizzy Calvert), Lewis Abernathy (Lewis Bodine), Nicholas Cascone (Bobby Buell), and Anatoly M. Sagalevitch (Anatoly Milkailavich) Written and Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, and #606 - True Lies)

Review:
"People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing."

Having particular interests and a particular way of wanting to do them can prove for a resilient director, and James Cameron certainly has proved one of the more memorably resilient directors in ambition. While growing up in Chippewa, Cameron had an interest in building things and in art, although he later expressed interest in doing 8mm home movies after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). He had an interest in building and physics in his brief time in Fullerton College, but he moved on to small-time jobs such as truck driving with writing on the side. However, he decided to get himself into films because of the excitement of seeing Star Wars (1977). The following year, he raised funds to do a short film in Xenogenesis (1978). Over the next few years, he worked on a few films in effects and assistant work (such as Battle Beyond the Stars and Galaxy of Terror) before being hired to direct for the first time with Piranha II: The Spawning (1982). Although it was a flop, his next film brought him into prominence within science fiction entertainment with The Terminator (1984). Cameron has ventured beyond filmmaking in subsequent years, such as sea exploring and documentary filmmaking alongside activist work.

What can one expect from a film that is actually longer than the sinking of the ship the film is named after? Director/writer/co-producer/co-editor Cameron spent a great deal of time in research while pitching it as "Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic" to 20th Century Fox, with Cameron taking numerous diving trips with a miniature remotely operated vessels to view the wreckage of the Titanic. The film was a tremendous financial venture, with 20th Century Fox handling the international rights while Paramount Pictures handled the North America distribution for a total $200 million budget upon release...and you know the rest. What's there to say that isn't already known or stated already by someone else? It certainly handles itself well in spectacle and trappings of the period in detail. Once it gets to the wreck, you can't stop the freight train of chaos. Of course the film also quibbles itself with a mediocre love story that bloats itself in woodenness that will either inspire fluster in its audience or snickers at just being a slightly-better version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) while somehow not being as rewarding as Cameron's previous works. One can make two billion dollars with a movie and still come out of it feeling like they only got 80 cents on the dollar, I suppose.

There proves to be an interesting mix of acting, trying their best in a period drama that also has to not become lost within effects and occasional stilted moments. DiCaprio certainly has an instinctive everyman quality to him, certainly proving idea in resonating charm out of simple things, whether that means first seeing the ship for the first time or his high society dinner act with others. Winslet proves just as resounding, wrapped with resourceful grace that makes the star-crossed romance come across without too many obstacles. They click well and likely prove enough in interest to make the inevitability all the more bittersweet to see play out in a climax effects ride. Zane proves quite enjoyable as the default adversary of the film, surprisingly enough. He is quite hammy in the right places needed when it comes to arrogance and anti-chemistry with Winslet that chews scenery quite handily, and the only quibble I have is that his fate is told to us rather than being shown, because one does need one more hammy last moments with Zane, honestly. Bates proves ready in small moments when it comes to clear-cut contrast with stuffier companions. Fisher comes and goes with inevitable parental conflict over romance that is decent for those fleeting moments needed. Stuart and Paxton bridge the beginning and end with proper fitting in clear perspectives when it comes to the ship and the story that is weaved from it.

For all the expense spared in making one feel like they really are on the Titanic, there are still little details that inevitably spring up. Was it really so hard to depict a mix of fictional and real-life characters without tarnishing reputation? What is the point of perpetuating the myth and lie that J. Bruce Ismay was a coward? While he had his part in the reduction of lifeboats on the ship (which could have had sixty but had barely a third of that), he most certainly did not force the ship to go faster. Perceptions can be everything, and press coverage of Ismay was extremely negative to the point that subsequent film adaptations (including the famed A Night to Remember (1958), which the film apparently shares a few moments of similarity with in terms of arrangement) included this in their portrayals of him (this can be said in a different light about Captain Smith in regards to how history recorded him and his actions before going down with the ship). One depiction was controversial enough to literally inspire an apology to the relatives of William Murdoch (first officer), who is depicted shooting two people before dying himself (the circumstances of his death are disputed, and his body was never found). The enjoyment comes from the obvious for me: the great and wonderfully re-created ship that makes one really experience this ship and the time that comes from it with finesse - and then of course the splitting of said ship that goes from growing waters to panicky escape attempts. This was a pure technical winner for those involved, with Academy Awards ranging from cinematography to visual effects to costume design to other awards like music (score and song) while Cameron would win three Academy Awards. Perhaps this really is just a film that people just love because they love the emotions it can inspire, particularly in crying. If one really wants to judge movies on how well they make you cry, all power to you, but crying at something isn't exactly my thing, and the idea of crying at this almost seems hysterical. To some, it is a great experience, capable of inspiring tears and quotable moments, while others might find it as pure pablum. I recognize its scope and semi-effective touch as enough to win me over on a casual level, where I may roll my eyes at some of its moments while knowing full well it still ranks as good enough to be worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Apollo 13.

Review #1509: Apollo 13.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Jim Lovell), Bill Paxton (Fred Haise), Kevin Bacon (Jack Swigert), Gary Sinise (Ken Mattingly), Ed Harris (Gene Kranz), Kathleen Quinlan (Marilyn Lovell), Mary Kate Schellhardt (Barbara Lovell), Emily Ann Lloyd (Susan Lovell), Miko Hughes (Jeffrey Lovell), Max Elliott Slade (Jay Lovell), Jean Speegle Howard (Blanch Lovell), Tracy Reiner (Mary Haise), David Andrews (Pete Conrad), Michele Little (Jane Conrad), and Chris Ellis (Deke Slayton) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, and #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story)

Review: 
"I've acted with all types, I've directed all types. What you want to understand as a director, is what actors have to offer. They'll get at it however they get at it. If you can understand that, you can get your work done."

When it comes to well-established directors in entertainment for over four decades, one key figure of versatility is Ron Howard. He was very familiar with show business from a young age, owing to his parents both being actors and his younger brother Clint also became a child actor (all three would appear in several of his films). Howard began acting from the age of five, and his first major role was in The Andy Griffith Show beginning in 1960, which ran for several years. Howard would credit the friendly environment of the production in allowing participation and curiosity over the role of the director's role in making the show what it was for getting him interested in becoming a director. Howard continued to act in his growing years in film and television (such as The Music Man, American Graffiti, and Happy Days) before venturing his way into making a film with the low-budget Grand Theft Auto (1977), which he starred in and co-wrote with his dad Rance. Since his breakthrough with Night Shift (1982), Howard has gone on to directing a variety of genres in a four-decade career, including comedy, adventure, and thrillers.

Howard became interested in doing the film when reading about the facts of the mission and realizing the interest sprang not so much in just making the audience experience space but also making a story of human triumph. The film first came into interest with the non-fiction account of the mission by its commander Jim Lovell that he co-wrote with Jeffrey Kluger in Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, published in 1994. William Broyles Jr and Al Reinert would be behind the screenplay (with un-credited rewrites from John Sayles). What a fascinating film we have here, both on how it treats its subject matter and as an experience in entertainment. Its depiction of the "successful failure" of the Apollo 13 is one that has endured for over two decades because of how Howard and his crew managed to cultivate meaningful drama and spectacle into 140 minutes with near-perfect precision for what makes exploration and resilience so interesting. We look upon the Apollo missions with wonder for how they did those missions from the Earth to space and beyond with the technology of the time while not forgetting that the Apollo missions rode and fell in popularity over the years that followed landing on the Moon, as if one could see travel away from home as just typical, but this particular mission showed the resilience of people under pressure on Earth and off it to maintain themselves with failure not being an option.

Hanks, an affirmed lover of the space program, is naturally perfect here, having a natural charm and spirit that we care to see in his pursuit of travel with curiosity and nuance. Paxton follows him with well-followed spirit and a vivid presence worth viewing in the ship in the struggles that came for the mission. Bacon finishes the main trio of shipmates with earnest interest, while Sinise stands firm on the ground with conviction through those moments used in spurts throughout. Harris reins in respect and determination with a well-rounded performance that exudes confidence and professionalism each time he is on screen within Mission Control. Quinlan certainly seems right in her instinct for what is needed, with the real Lovell praising her as being fairly authentic to her own thoughts and feelings of the time. The others fill in the seams with no problem in keeping the interest and docudrama on the level. The interest in looking at history told through the lens of a film is where the accuracies and inaccuracies blend in with each other. In this case, there are certain quibbles that come with making a drama (such as for example Mattingly being more of a composite for several astronauts and engineers with regards to solving the power consumption problem for re-entry or the neglection of Glynn Lunney and his team in those crucial first hours of doom), but nothing comes across as contrived or illogical to ruin what is a fairly accurate movie, particularly in its look (noted in several parts by crew members, such as the Mission Control set). Think about this: this is a film that did not utilize documentary footage, rather instead going for re-creation of the whole experience through effects and sets, which would include the KC-135 (a fixed-wing aircraft that is used to train astronauts for weightlessness), which they could only use for filming in zero gravity for very brief intervals (25 seconds at a time). On the whole, one can find themselves wholly invested into the proceedings without needing much familiarity with the Apollo missions, and even those who know it will still find plenty to take interest in without seeming inevitable. It wins most of its moments in sentiment and tension with a clear-cut cast and well-done technique to make a solid enough winner for the era that remains timeless then as now as a portrait of the people that stood up when failure was not an option.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tombstone.

Review #1177: Tombstone.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp), Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday), Sam Elliott (Virgil Earp), Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp), Powers Boothe ("Curly Bill" Brocius), Michael Biehn (Johnny Ringo), Charlton Heston (Henry Hooker), Jason Priestley (Billy Breakenridge), Jon Tenney (Sheriff Johnny Behan), Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (Billy Clanton), Dana Delany (Josephine Marcus), and Paula Malcomson (Allie Earp), with narration by Robert Mitchum. Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II)

Review: 
On October 26, 1881, a shooutout occurred between lawmen and outlaws near the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, resulting in three deaths. It later became known as one of the most famous shooutouts of the Wild West, in part due to Stuart Lake's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, written in 1931 that told the tale of one of the participants. Although it is now known as largely fictional by researchers, it served the basis for films such as My Darling Clementine (1946) while helping to elevate Earp into a mythic icon. In any case, Kevin Jarre was slated to write and direct this film to tell the tale of the gunfight alongside the people involved in the shootout. However, a month into production he was fired from the directing chair due to falling behind in the shooting schedule. Cosmatos was hired to replace him, while scriptdoctor John Fasano helped in trimming the story to focus more on the Wyatt-Doc dynamic. It may interest you to know that six months after the release of the film came Wyatt Earp (1994), which starred Kevin Costner that wasn't as successful. The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it has plenty of entertainment value for a Western, having a good balance of action and story to make a solid experience. The ensemble cast is up to the task of making these characters come alive without feeling generic or getting lost in the shuffle. The music from Bruce Broughton (composer of a film previously covered in Silverado) also stands to the task of swift adventure. Russell shines fairly well, being quite capable at giving his role a fair sense of depth that makes him feel more than just a lawman, particularly when conversing with his on-screen brothers (Elliot and Paxton, who are efficient) or with Kilmer. I particularly like the sequence when he deals with an unruly gambler (played by Billy Bob Thornton) without even having to shoot a gun. Kilmer (complete with a Southern drawl) is quite excellent as well, being quite watchable with plenty of charm to go around. Boothe shines well as one of the adversaries the movie presents, but it is Biehn who also proves efficient in making a worthy opponent for the final showdown. The supporting cast is fine, although the movie's key strength relies more on Earp in action than when he is sharing time with either of the women in his life. The film works well before and after the Corral gunfight, keeping interest through its 130 minute runtime with minimal moments of tedium. The film seems to have plenty of craftsmanship and effort done to make something that doesn't feel like a manufactured tale made for a cheap thrill, having a finely told story with plenty of interesting things to go around. It isn't a great Western classic, but it is a well made and well done movie that can work for anyone looking for an old legend put to film.

Happy New Year folks. Hoping 2019 is just as productive as 2018 was.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Weird Science.

Review #1116: Weird Science.

Cast: 
Anthony Michael Hall (Gary Wallace), Ilan Mitchell-Smith (Wyatt Donnelly), Kelly LeBrock (Lisa), Bill Paxton (Chet Donnelly), Robert Downey Jr. (Ian), Robert Rusler (Max), Suzanne Snyder (Deb), Judie Aronson (Hilly), Vernon Wells (Lord General), Britt Leach (Al Wallace), and Barbara Lang (Lucy Wallace) Directed by John Hughes (#046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles, #643 - Uncle Buck, and #879 - Planes, Trains and Automobiles)

Review: 
Weird Science was the third film directed by John Hughes, along with the eighth that he wrote (which he reportedly did in two days), released nearly five months after The Breakfast Club on August 2, 1985. The title comes from the anthology comic book series of the same name published by William Gaines and edited by Al Feldstein that was part of EC Comics, for which producer Joel Silver had acquired the film rights to earlier in the decade; the plot is loosely based off the story "Made of the Future" from Feldstein. The film would also inspire a show of the same name that lasted from 1994 to 1998, although certainly the most enduring aspect from the film in the decades that followed is the title song from Oingo Boingo, written by Danny Elfman. In any case, it isn't hard to say that this isn't as good as other Hughes efforts, but there is still an element of fun to be had here, even with something as weirdly built as this. This is a goofy movie through and through, with a silly premise straight out of science fiction, while also being a teenage comedy that will likely hit the mark just enough for its audience target that doesn't take itself too seriously. Hall makes for a fairly likable lead to follow, having the type of timing and wide expressions that you might expect that certainly click at times. Mitchell-Smith does okay, playing the shy wiz kid type that certainly take a bit of time to get used to - but he gets some laughs eventually. LeBrock (a model turned actress in her second feature role after The Woman in Red the previous year) does pretty well, having charm and wit that makes her interesting to watch in getting some laughs and joy that plays well to the movie's advantage. Paxton proves to be a highlight, playing the obnoxious heel with relish and conviction that proves efficient. Downey Jr and Rusler have brief moments on screen, but they do their part well, which could apply to the other castmates, such as Wells and his biker role reminiscent of the one from his part in Mad Max 2. The film, in its 94 minute run-time, manages to play itself neatly with trying to balance its characters with wish-fulfilling and a few choice special effects - some of which work and some of it feeling a bit dated. It isn't too hard to see why it can apply as a cult classic, but it certainly can be a bit of dilemma to wonder if the film really does work. On its own level and terms, that may prove true for people in the right mood for it, proving to be fair entertainment for ones who want to seek it out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Twister.

Review #812: Twister.

Cast
Bill Paxton (Bill Harding), Helen Hunt (Dr. Jo Harding), Jami Gertz (Dr. Melissa Reeves), Cary Elwes (Dr. Jonas Miller), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Dusty Davis), Alan Ruck (Robert Nurick), Jeremy Davies (Brian Laurence), Joey Slotnick (Joey), and Sean Whalen (Alan Sanders) Directed by Jan de Bont.

Review

Truth be told...This made Independence Day (#193, which also happened to be released 20 years ago) seem like less of a chore compared to this. Simply put, Twister is a popcorn movie, solely entertaining for the destruction set forth by the tornadoes. If you go into it looking for some sort of enjoyment from these characters or plot, you won't really get much from it, save for Hoffman, who certainly has enough quirky energy to stand out in a movie designed to just be a spectacle. Paxton is fine, but him and Hunt never really seem to have much chemistry that stands out among the tornadoes. Elwes is the "bad guy" of the movie (unless you count the tornado), complete with an accent that while not laughable is mildly entertaining. Let's put it this way: Giving the movie criticism for being what it aspired to be is tough, because it aimed for that goal and not much else. But for me, it was only mildly entertaining, because there comes to be a point when you get tired of tornadoes ripping stuff to shreds over and over again. The characters exist to give the movie a plot, barely registering as cliches. I guess something must be wrong (with either me or the movie) when only one major character dies in the whole movie, and it's the "corporate bad guy". If I don't care about the characters trying to get a research device into the vortex of a tornado (because they're bound to get at least one out of four), then why even bother with the movie? Because...the effects? I suppose so. It really is the ultimate take it or leave it movie. For me, it was just an average movie that wasn't as exciting as other movies designed to just do one certain thing, being just a movie that came and went as average as a weather report.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: True Lies.

Review #606: True Lies.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Harry Tasker), Jamie Lee Curtis (Helen Tasker), Tom Arnold (Albert Gibson), Bill Paxton (Simon), Tia Carrere (Juno Skinner), Art Malik (Salim Abu Aziz), Eliza Dushku (Dana Tasker), Grant Heslov (Faisal), and Charlton Heston (Spencer Trilby) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, and #574 - Aliens)

Review
It figures we end the month on Schwarzenegger, and it's no coincidence that in two weeks this movie will celebrate its 20th anniversary. True Lies is a good action film, but also a decent comedy film, and part of the fun delivered is from Schwarzenegger, who as always is effective at delivering one-liners, and he is generally fun to watch. This is actually a remake of a French film, named La Totale!, but I haven't seen it, so it barely matters in context. Curtis is enjoyable, she doesn't have a bad scene in the whole movie, and it's fun watching her, along with Schwarzenegger. It's sort of strange watching Tom Arnold in this movie (whether you've watched Roseanne or not), and he does provide some hilarity, so he's alright, though it still doesn't make me want to watch The Stupids. Paxton is noteworthy, and amusing as a faux spy. The villain isn't really anything special, but Malik does at least try to make something out of it, and him trying to deliver a speech as the camera battery runs out is mildly hilarious. The action is fun, it's enjoyable and certainly satisfying. Cameron knows what he's doing with this film, trying to balance the action with some drama/comedy, and it works just right. Tomorrow, we begin July off with Canada.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Aliens.

Review #574: Aliens.

Cast
Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Ripley), Michael Biehn (Corporal Dwayne Hicks), Jenette Goldstein (Private Jenette Vasquez), Carrie Henn (Rebecca "Newt" Jorden), Lance Henriksen (Bishop), Bill Paxton (Private William Hudson), Paul Reiser (Carter Burke), William Hope (Lieutenant William Gorman), Al Matthews (Sergeant Al Apone), and Mark Rolston (Private Mark Drake) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar)

Review
Back when I first reviewed the first film (#530 - Alien), I realized that if I ever managed to review the sequel, I had to answer the question that connects the first two films: Which one is better? Alien is a tense horror thriller that masterfully hides the alien for as long as it could to keep tension high. Aliens decides to use an alternate strategy. Aliens is an action-packed horror movie that still pulls a punch...and then some. We all know that trying to hide the aliens (A welcome change is to have multiple aliens) again is silly, so outright showing them all throughout is what Cameron does, more terror but also more awesomeness. Weaver is the big star and also the best character in the whole movie, right next to Bishop and Vasquez (You try to argue against an android who saves a character from dying while ripped in half; Vasquez is just fun to watch interact with the overconfident crew), the whole cast is great to watch interact with each other, the mood of the movie shifts from bravado to outright fear as the movie goes on, and everything works perfectly, especially the effects, which are still great. But here's the question: Is it better than the first movie?It all depends on what exactly you want, horror or action horror, but Aliens is the winner by a xenomorph egg. But we all can at least agree that the last two aren't up to par. Hopefully I'll get to the third movie sooner rather then forty reviews later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Predator 2.

Review #548: Predator 2.

Cast
Danny Glover (Mike Harrigan), Kevin Peter Hall (The Predator), Gary Busey (Peter Keyes), Ruben Blades (Danny Archuleta), María Conchita Alonso (Leona Cantrell), Bill Paxton (Jerry Lambert), and Robert Davi (Phil Heinemann) Directed by Stephen Hopkins.

Review
The first Predator was a fun action packed thriller that had a good setting, fun atmosphere that soon changes, and good action sequences. Then came the sequel. No Arnold Schwarzenegger, no jungle setting, the only thing linking the two is Kevin Peter Hall as the Predator. But at least Danny Glover tries his best, he certainly is an entertaining person to watch in a movie as mediocre as this. It's hard to define the biggest problem of the movie. Is it the okay action? The non memorable characters? The idea to move the Predator to the city? It's probably all three, given that while the movie doesn't do anything too awful, it also doesn't do anything good either. At least Hall does a good performance in the suit, though Busey is probably more entertaining with his interactions with Glover. The rest of the cast isn't bad, Paxton is mildly entertaining. While the movie could've been much worse, it isn't that bad, and if you want to skip it over for Predators, you're not missing too much, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.