Masters of the Universe (1987).

Review #2545: Masters of the Universe.

Cast: 

Dolph Lundgren (He-Man), Frank Langella (Skeletor), Meg Foster (Evil-Lyn), Billy Barty (Gwildor), Courteney Cox (Julie Winston), Robert Duncan McNeill (Kevin Corrigan), Jon Cypher (Man-At-Arms), Chelsea Field (Teela), James Tolkan (Hugh Lubic), Christina Pickles (Sorceress), Tony Carroll (the Beastman), Pons Maar (Saurod), Anthony De Longis (Blade), and Robert Towers (Karg) Directed by Gary Goddard.

Review: 

Hey, remember Masters of the Universe? The impetus for trying to make the toy line came from Mattel's drive to come up with something good enough to possibly forget their rejection to produce action figures for a little film called Star Wars [1977] (Kenner famously did it first instead). Various concepts came around from people such as Roger Sweet and Mark Taylor. Coincidentally, this happened around the same time that the rights holder for Conan the Barbarian tried to do a toy deal with Mattel that fell through (they later sued Mattel claiming infringement, but Mattel won out in their toy line being original). The figures first came out with mini comics in 1981 before further waves of toys and, well, your parents probably watched the Filmation animated shows, with He-Man and the Masters of the Universe running from 1983 to 1985 and a spinoff with She-Ra: Princess of Power running from 1985 to 1987 (with that show, The Secret of the Sword [1985] was the premiere, a compilation of the first five episodes that was in theaters). According to one source, the original script by David Odell (writer of films such as Supergirl) had significant time spent on Eternia and Snake Mountain but this later changed to what you see here with a fairly Earthbound adventure (apparently, the link between the two places was that He-Man's mother was born on Earth). Mattel decided to be as cloying as possible for production, reportedly not paying their half of the production budget on time and they didn't want to their title character doing anything morally wrong. The film was directed by Gary Goddard (with his one other film credit being the co-writer of Tarzan, the Ape-Man [1981]) in the only theatrical film he has done. He has done theater shows along with dark rides and 3D movies.* Released around the same time as Stakeout and The Living Daylights in August 1987, Masters of the Universe was a flop, with its failure (along others such as Superman IV) hindering Cannon Films. They had planned to do a sequel film with Albert Pyun as director and even made some costumes and sets only to renege on a deal with Mattel that led them to re-tool it for what became Cyborg [1989].

Honestly, I never really got into He-Man, because, I was born in 1996, Legos were just more interesting (and as for the animated show...no, sorry). You might say that could help when talking about a movie that probably has a special cheesy place for those who watched it back then. No, not really, this movie is a lazy, middling film, a Conan/Star Wars wannabee mired in a "fish out of water" plotline and a monosyllabic lead.  Goddard claimed that the film's storyline was inspired by various Jack Kirby comic books (namely The New Gods), and he wanted Kirby to be a conceptual artist for the movie. I feel like play-acting a comic book would be a more entertaining experience, especially since it would probably have violence against actual humanoid-looking people in it (after the first couple of totally not Stormtroopers get shot by lasers, how far can you go?). Lundgren (in his first starring role after Rocky IV [1985]) and his dialogue was re-recorded and dubbed over the original footage, which at least sounds better than Goddard wanting to re-dub the whole film with someone else's voice...in theory. For a character that goes around dallying without using a sword too much, Lundgren is left adrift to really say anything of meaningful substance (this is me trying to be nice in not just calling him wooden*). It probably is a bit of a casting coup to have a willing Langella (of films such as Dracula [1979], which I'm sure somebody liked*) go all-out, apparently because his son was big on the animated show. He hams it up a bit and basically steals the movie, which is a bit of an accomplishment when wrapped in so much makeup (as one does for a skeleton). It doesn't save the movie, but still. Cox and McNeill (future featured players in television*) just look lost in this corny movie with little to really make you care about them in a film that just meanders around with the bare minimum to offer (to say nothing of an ending that basically is wish fulfillment without really earning it). Barty, cast as a freshly created character because they could not make Orko, a floating magician for the screen...is okay, but it probably makes one appreciate stuff like Legend (1985) and Willow (1988) by comparison in the "comedy relief" aspect that only goes so far to distract from a movie that has folks going around confronting the new realities of a bucket of ribs. In a sea of attempts of support from Foster and Cypher (and those totally comfortable suits), at least you can say Tolkan was trying to be funny. For someone who really does have a varying bar of giving films a chance, this is a movie that is just too shallow to really garner that much care for what goes on in it (a sorceress being trapped has never felt so small). As a whole, the movie didn't reach its target audience in its day (people who either loved their toys and sure love PG-rated flicks), and there are oodles of people who will try to call it a cult movie, but I'm just not a fan to where I can't even call it a "just missed the mark" type of movie. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*He may also be a pervert, as detailed by articles such as this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-anthony-edwards-pens-powerful-essay-1510344160-htmlstory.html

*Unpopular and unrelated take: I suppose there's something to say about He-Man being a "gay icon" or something. No, not really. People will claim anything as an "icon" if it sounds "cool" enough. You can say "Fortunate Son" is an anti-war song but people will still put that song on full blast because...it sounds cool. 

*I still can't get over mediocre that Dracula movie was. Goddamnit. 

*folks would see Lundgren on the big screen a few more times in the next ten years (Red Scorpion [1988], The Punisher [1989 - although America got it direct-to-video], I Come in Peace [1990], Showdown in Little Tokyo [1991], Universal Soldier [1992], Johnny Mnemonic [1995]) sprinkled in with direct-to-video fare.

*Friends stinks. I'll watch Star Trek: Voyager all the way through once before I see Friends.

Legend (1985).

Review #2385: Legend (1985).

Cast:  

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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

The Undead.

Review #2113: The Undead.

Cast: 

Pamela Duncan (Diana Love/Helene), Richard Garland (Pendragon), Allison Hayes (Livia), Val Dufour (Quintus Ratcliff), Mel Welles (Smolkin), Dorothy Neumann (Meg-Maud), Billy Barty (The Imp), Bruno VeSota (Scroop), Aaron Saxon (Gobbo), Richard Devon (Satan), and Dick Miller (The Leper) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip)

Review: 

Somehow, I think I am a bit generous with Roger Corman. He managed to make films in a variety of genres as either a director or a producer that later saw him receive a variety of nicknames such as "The King of Cult". 1957 alone saw him direct/produce eight films. He was not above using a few familiar actors from film to film, as this and Attack of the Crab Monsters (released a month apart from each other) share three key actors (Duncan, Garland, Welles). Apparently, the inspiration for the film came in the wake of the Bridey Murphy craze, in which a series of articles written by William J. Barker told about a woman who was put in a trance of "hypnotic regression" that had her speak about her alleged past life. The hypnotist, Morey Bernstein, wrote a book that was published in 1956. That book would be turned into a film that very same year, but I'm sure you don't need me to invite mockery upon the idea of "past reincarnation". The film was written by Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna, with the former remarking that it was "in iambic pentameter" before having to rewrite it upon the time of shooting because Corman (who had sent it out to various people on the street) was worried that folks wouldn't  understand. Griffith was the co-writer on It Conquered the World (1956), Gunslinger (1956), Not of This Earth (1956), and Flesh and the Spur [1956], with all but the first being written with Hanna, and people familiar with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) will note that Hanna wrote the film that had the same star from this one. This sets of the film were done in a converted supermarket (along with a few things shot in a house nicknamed "The Witch's House" in Beverly Hills) and shot in less than two weeks. 

Okay, so here is how they get to the whole "past lives" thing: a psychic researcher is so damn curious about past lives that he hires a prostitute for $500 to undergo a trance (for 48 hours) to access her past life all while his former teacher stands there. This trip turns out to be one of the Middle Ages (an English-speaking place, specifically) in which her past self is set to die as one accused of being a witch, and the idea of escape attracts the attention of both good and bad witches and a few others such as, uh, Satan. It may all sound like a good deal of hooey, and, well, it kind of is, but if one knows what they are getting into with Corman and his crafty hands, you may actually have an odd and offbeat time with this to enjoy. This is the kind of movie that features a dance in a graveyard to go with an absolutely silly portrayal of Satan that might as well be fit for the dinner theater, where at least one expects a loose wall for a set. The film is loopy and just barely over an hour to throw whatever what one does to try and throw the book against lapses of logic that perhaps would make a wonky double feature with, say, The Terror (1963). Most of the people here have their foibles with this dialogue (or in the case of Barty, having a ball in playing it silly), but there is a sort of weird state to it all that seems entertaining regardless, as if acting on a cloud is more suitable than trying to lean all the way into iambic pentameter. Duncan at least makes the effort of worried tension, which only results in amusing sequences such as the one near the end about one should stay or go within an execution. At least Hayes seems suitably rough-and-tumble for the part. I'm not even sure what the deal is supposed to be with Dufour when it comes to the buildup to the climax, because even the best sci-fi mumbo jumbo probably wouldn't explain his motivations (perhaps you are curious: he goes back to the past under the same hypno-whatever as the prostitute had and in the commotion over whether the past girl will head to the chopping block didn't think to wonder what would happen that link to the past wound up dead with him still there). When it comes to ratings, eh, a 6/10 hereisnt a positive review, but it matches what I feel about the film. As a whole, it isn't a particularly good winner, but I did find some curiosity with the idea of doomed fates and weirdo motivations in half-baked hokum that comes out in the early years of Roger Corman and company trying to play trends to the masses. It barely ranks in horror, but it makes curious spectacle all the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Dracula 2000...and something else for Thursday.

UHF.

Review #1250: UHF.

Cast: 
"Weird Al" Yankovic (George Newman), Kevin McCarthy (R.J. Fletcher), Michael Richards (Stanley Spadowski), David Bowe (Bob Steckler/Bobbo the Clown), Victoria Jackson (Teri Campbell), Fran Drescher (Pamela Finklestein), Stanley Brock (Uncle Harvey Bilchik), Sue Ane Langdon (Aunt Esther Bilchik), Anthony Geary (Philo), Billy Barty (Noodles MacIntosh), Trinidad Silva (Raul Hernandez), and Gedde Watanabe (Kuni) Directed by Jay Levey.

Review:
Sometimes you really need something different in order to get a good laugh. What better way to enjoy the day than with a film featuring Weird Al Yankovic in his only leading role for something that has gradually become a cult classic since its release three decades ago. Yankovic has been doing music for over four decades, with his knack being humorous parody songs (with examples such as "Eat It" and "White & Nerdy") that I can attest to enjoying on occasion. The idea for a film came from Yankovic and his manager Jay Levey that would be based on the approach he made when doing music videos but with (in the words of Yankovic) "TV commercial parodies, movie trailer parodies, and obviously TV show parodies" - this episodic approach certainly seems familiar (with Airplane! (1980) coming to mind), and in the right hands this could work really well. Who could not resist shows such as practical jokes & bloopers, a weird clubhouse show, wheel of fish and commercials that range from spatula shops to "Gandhi II"? It did not prove to be a major success upon release; despite a $5 million budget, the film made just six million at the box office while receiving tepid reception in a month full of big movies (Licence to Kill, Lethal Weapon 2, and Weekend at Bernie's, for example). This is a wonderful gag-fest kind of film, happy to deliver weird humor to those who are curious for said fun with a fairly game cast that rises above a fairly predicable and fairly thin story. Yankovic plays a decent straight man, adept at rolling with the material (imagined or not) without too much difficulty, although the chemistry between him and Jackson (doing fine with a pleasant if not too big role) doesn't really register many big moments. McCarthy is enjoyable with such a hammy role that inspires dry gruffness for which he seems to be having fun doing. Richards, featured between his noted work on Fridays and Seinfeld, proves wonderful in delivering rapid laughs without caution - he seizes his moments with zest and keeps the film spinning. The others do fine jobs in their occasional moments on screen, such as Geary and his offbeat charm or Silva (who contributes one of my favorite puns about not needing badgers). The film lands more often than not with its barrage of jokes on numerous things that land fairly well now, and it could be argued that the film laid groundwork for the weird humor that can pop up in various forms on the Internet (the accident involving a saw seems especially ripe for someone to make a dark video to emulate). It never seems to run with ideas too half-baked - or at least it knows when to roll to its next show. A more seasoned filmmaker would've probably delivered a bit more depth with these characters before driving up with humor, although I wonder if it would have really made for a better experience overall. The film rolls along in its 97 minutes without too much trouble - it isn't hard to see where it goes to get from point to point besides it's humor, but at least it puts some sort of effort to carry along without becoming too eccentric or one dimensional. It freewheels with charm enough to make this a winner to recommend, one that suits well for the current times with a nudge and a weird grin on its face.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Willow.

Review #1085: Willow.

Cast: 
Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (The High Aldwin), Pat Roach (General Kael), Gavan O'Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Maria Holvöe (Cherlindrea), with Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton (Rool and Franjean), and Kate & Ruth Greenfield and Rebecca Bearman (Elora Danan) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man)

Review: 
It is strange to see this film 30 years after it came out, a high fantasy movie that certainly has its fans and detractors after all this time. The story was done by George Lucas, notable for his work on the original Star Wars trilogy, with the screenplay being done by Bob Dolman, who had done work in television such as SCTV Network 90 (for which he won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series). In any case, the idea for the movie was conceived by Lucas in the 1970s that had mythical qualities that was in some of the same vein as had been done with Star Wars, with Lucas once stating, "It was an idea that came to me in reading a lot of mythology and a lot of fairy tales and I realized that there hadn’t been very many feature films in that genre of just pure fantasy."

In any case, it is evident that there was a great deal of effort to really try to make something worthwhile as entertainment with this movie, but I don't think that it quite succeeds in its pursuit. By the time that this film came out, there had been numerous fantasy films that came and went in the decade, and I have covered a few of those in other reviews, such as Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, and Krull, but I think that the problem with this movie is that it isn't particularly on the level of either of those films in terms of adventure. There isn't much in its story elements that hasn't been done in other movies, such as its quest and prophecy elements, but I will admit that it isn't an excruciating adventure, just one that isn't as fun as it thinks it is. Davis does a fine job with this title role, giving it some passion and usefulness that helps keep the movie on some sort of track. Kilmer, in a role that likely reminds viewers of other films with rogues, does a decent job with what he's given, having a few moments of amusement and action that come off convincing enough times. Whalley leaves a faint impression, but nothing too particularly inspiring. Marsh does an okay job as the villain, but it isn't anything too particularly notable. The others are alright, although Pollak and Overton's characters prove to a bit grating at times. The film's best highlight might be its effects, done by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), with the most notable one being when Hayes' character is changed from being an animal to human, done by digital morphing. It's an interesting effect to see the gradual change to the end result (aided by computer programs) that has a fine payoff. The film certainly has a decent look and cinematography (as done by Adrian Biddle), but I find that there just isn't enough in what the movie is trying to push in its action or its story to really make big entertainment. It feels a bit slow at times, such as in its middle portion, punctuated by its 126-minute run-time and a story that feels a bit by the numbers at times. It isn't anything too unique, but it also isn't anything that merits much passion beyond a mild interest. I can understand its cult status and why some may find it enjoyable, but I can't particularly give it a ringing endorsement. Take it for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.