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?

Posse (1993)

Review #2180: Posse.

Cast: 

Mario Van Peebles (Jesse Lee), Stephen Baldwin (Jimmy J. "Little J" Teeters), Billy Zane (Colonel Graham), Tone-Lōc (Angel), Melvin Van Peebles (Joe "Papa Joe"), Tom Lister Jr (Obobo), Big Daddy Kane ("Father Time"), Reginald VelJohnson (Preston), Blair Underwood (Sheriff Carver), Isaac Hayes (Cable), Charles Lane ("Weezie"), Robert Hooks (David "King David" Lee), Richard Jordan (Sheriff Bates), Pam Grier (Phoebe), Nipsey Russell (Snopes), Paul Bartel (Mayor Bigwood), Salli Richardson (Lana), and Woody Strode (The Storyteller) Directed by Mario Van Peebles (#1978 - New Jack City)

Review: 

Oh sure, "revisionist Western" isn't exactly the newest thing for the 1990s, but, hey, I dig action Westerns or ones with interesting ensembles, and I had this film in mind for last February, so screw it. This was the second film directed by Mario Van Peebles, following the resounding success of New Jack City (1991), and it perhaps makes sense to make a big spectacle Western film and have yourself as the star. Hell, if Eastwood or Poitier can do it...anyway, the film was written by rookie screenwriters Sy Richardson and Dario Scardapane. The film was a modest hit with audiences at the time, at least on a reported budget of $3 million. Strode, who had previously been featured in a variety of Westerns alongside documentaries such as Black Rodeo (1972), is featured for parts in the beginning and end, which also includes a clip from Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) to go with clips from older black cowboys such as The Bronze Buckaroo (1939). Of course, like Buck and the Preacher, it never hurts to have something to jog interest in actual historical things, such as with Buffalo Soldiers, the U.S. Army regiments consisting of African Americans that served on the frontier for the latter years of the 19th century and early 20th century. In 1997, Van Peebles wrote and starred in a made-for-TV/video film called Los Locos, which was directed by Jean-Marc Vallée (director of future films such as Dallas Buyers Club), which was billed in some places as "Posse Rides Again", even though it really isn't related to this film. Van Peebles has kept busy over the years in directing (sometimes in television), whether that involves television or his latest film, which appropriately or not, is titled Outlaw Posse (2024).

It is a frantic film that seems like a tribute to the energetic Spaghetti Westerns along with blaxploitation features, which means one has a film that sometimes looks like it is going to collapse under its overwhelming nature. Is it overproduced and underdeveloped in characters? Maybe, but if you throw a bunch of likeable folks and a few cute moments together, then why not? What, one has to say they are a serious Western in order to be thought of as such? Fun indulgence when it comes to spinning a "town defense" story generally wins most of the time. This is a film with dueling narratives of "revenge and perseverance" that flashes off for start and end of 111 minutes with a bit of flabbiness in the middle. The persistent flashbacks remind me of High Plains Drifter (1973), which I can see as both interesting and slightly overproduced by the time one sees a sepia tone sequence involving folks you know are responsible again (which is where you see Hooks at any point of the film). The strong silent type works fine for Van Peebles, because in a film of generally familiar roles, he doesn't strain himself one bit, unless one finds macho posturing to be some sort of bad thing (one isn't exactly expecting a comedy Western like Blazing Saddles). Of the folks around him in the "posse", probably Baldwin does best when it comes to conniving relief, although Kane's relaxed composure is close at hand. If one accepts the array of appearances that might as well be cameos, it is fine to see folks like Hayes appear briefly (and yes, one does get a scene or so with father and son of Van Peebles, which I would expect for indulgences). Zane chomps the screen from time to time in general skullduggery that is totally in line with a fun Western outlook (complete with eyepatch and ridiculous final scene), while Jordan (in his penultimate film role prior to his death in 1993) strikes at the heart of venom and malice that is also fair to appreciate in acting. As a whole, the film is frenzied and probably a bit slipshod when it comes to doing anything particularly new with the genre, but I appreciate the attempt to make a black cowboy film on one's own terms. It was fun enough to watch once and get a few kicks out of the execution of action, and it might work out just as well for you if one is the mindset for what it is selling. 

Overall, I give it 7 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.