Radioland Murders.

Review #2241: Radioland Murders.

Cast: 

Brian Benben (Roger Henderson), Mary Stuart Masterson (Penny Henderson), Scott Michael Campbell (Billy Budge), Michael Lerner (Lieutenant Cross), Ned Beatty (General Walt Whalen), Brion James (Bernie King), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max Applewhite), Michael McKean (Rick Rochester), Corbin Bernsen (Dexter Morris), Bobcat Goldthwait (Wild Writer), Anita Morris (Claudette Katzenback), Jeffrey Tambor (Walt Whalen Jr), Larry Miller (Herman Katzenback), Christopher Lloyd (Zoltan), Harvey Korman (Jules Cogley), and Dylan Baker (Detective Jasper) Directed by Mel Smith.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I have had this film very, very, very loosely on the radar for years. Here's a good question for you folks: would you believe that this film had George Lucas as a writer? Among the fifteen films where he has been credited as a writer (story or otherwise), it probably goes without saying this is the most obscure of the group. Lucas thought of the story for the film around the time he had developed American Graffiti, which if one remembers was released in 1973 (Lucas equated the friendship had in the film between the kids and the disc jockey to a phenomenon that Radioland would explore further when it comes to radio infused with fantasy). The co-writers of that film in Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck were asked by Lucas to work on the script for the film, which in the mind of Lucas was meant to be aimed as a homage to films such as Who Done It (the Abbott and Costello film from 1942); strangely enough, if one looks up this film on Wikipedia, it lists two other films involving murders at a radio station. The success of films such as Star Wars (1977) among other things kept Lucas busy, but eventually he came back to the idea of a film based on his interests in old-time radio, once stating that "You can trace radio back to the old storytellers around the fire. It's been lost over the years." By the time of the 1990s, one could utilize computer technology for their films, and this apparently is one that really used it to distinct usage, such as the sights in the exterior of the main building the film takes place to go along with select interior walls to go with a certain shot for the climax. Jeff Reno and Ron Osborn (best known for their work on the TV show Moonlighting) were hired to deliver re-writes to the script, evidently under the request of Universal Pictures. The director was Mel Smith, who had done plenty of work within sketch comedy in his native England prior to directing his first film with The Tall Guy (1989), which Lucas liked. The result was a production that had plenty of rushed work near its ending stages, with Lucas apparently doing some unit work alongside Smith. One description of the film was "cinematic pickup sticks." The film, once budgeted for $10 million that eventually rose to $15 million as a Lucasfilm production for Universal, came and went into theaters to incredibly small audience turnout. Smith directed three further films before his death in 2013 at the age of 60, most notably with Bean (1997).

Why don't we be a little nice for a moment when it comes to a movie now three decades old: there are gags in it that are worth a chuckle (heh, radio will never die...), and it is actually a bit interesting to figure what is an special effect in a movie that one wouldn't expect to need many effects, which make for a curious eye (or what have you) on the chase at times. It looks like a radio production for worthwhile decor. One gets a slight chuckle at seeing George Burns basically play himself for one last film bit (incidentally, Burns, playing a 100-year-old comedian for a bit, would die in 1996 at the age of 100). Now, where were we? You don't usually see it happen, but this is one of those sad, sad, sad times where you can see just where a film is about to die that makes one really understand the meaning of "death by a thousand cuts". I feared it would happen late in the 108-minute runtime but nope, this is a movie that either ropes you in with its barrage of slapstick and zany nature or makes you internally scream for it to shut up and breathe. It tries to be quick in pace with its 1939 setting that tries to make one interested in the workings of its radio trappings and the growing murder mystery...and it really strains credibility once you wonder why it couldn't just have been one or the other instead of this miserable mishmash. See, one really wants to like these people and the strange quirks that come with a soundman being played by the most lucid actor possible in Lloyd or the goofy military-stylings of Beatty...and then one gets to the leads and finds the charm levels are essentially right down the tube. It doesn't seem particularly fair to denigrate Masterson (then known for roles such as Immediate Family [1989]) and Benben (the then star of the HBO sitcom Dream On), because surely, they were at least game to do the gags with quick timing and the routine I'm sure you would expect of a once burning romance. But with Benben and his preening mugging in a role that is meant to be funny in its comedy of circumstance (get it? he happens to be around when murders keep happening? eh?!), you can't craft a winner when essentially stuck in a pit with a plastic spoon when Masterson is essentially left adrift to try and match. The sitcom-level dynamic just comes off as noise bereft of life. Even seeing Lerner there makes one sad because if you're going to see someone play a familiar role, you sure as hell want it to be in something more rewarding (Goldthwait somehow makes his performance in Scrooged seem subtle). Campbell isn't even on the level of a goofy Baker while poor Tobolowsky is merely ordinary until the film remembers it has a mystery to solve. By the time the film lumbers to the end of who did what and why to go with how and where it will go, you are gladder that it has ceased transmission. In trying to capture what one thinks the screwball was all about in the realm of rapid-fire construction, being outclassed by previous throwback attempts like Oscar (1991) is a sad state of mind to be in. With middling interest in characters that don't win one's attention for an overcooked script, one can only find pity within a film that never really had a chance.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Hell, come on down Dutch.

Flesh and Blood.

Review #2046: Flesh and Blood.

Cast: 

Rutger Hauer (Martin), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Agnes), Tom Burlinson (Steven), Jack Thompson (Hawkwood), Fernando Hilbeck (Arnolfini), Susan Tyrrell (Celine), Ronald Lacey (Cardinal), Brion James (Karsthans), Bruno Kirby (Orbec), Simon Andreu (Miel), John Dennis Johnston (Summer), Marina Saura (Polly), Kitty Courbois (Anna), Jake Wood (Little John), and Nancy Cartwright (Kathleen) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers)

Review: 

"The triangular relationship [of] Martin–Agnes–Steven is now the main story line, but in retrospect I think we should have stuck with Hawkwood and Martin. The failure of Flesh and Blood was a lesson for me: never again compromise on the main story line of a script."

Admittedly, it is probably easy to forget that the second phase of Paul Verhoeven's career that saw him leave his native Netherlands started with Flesh and Blood (1985). He started making films in the 1960s, with only a spell in the Royal Dutch Navy in between this, and it was his efforts in directing the television series Floris (featuring Rutger Hauer as the star) in 1969 that was set in the early 16th century during the country's Guelders Wars that took inspiration from earlier TV programs such as Ivanhoe. Business is Business (1971), his first feature, wasn't successful, but Turkish Delight (1973), featuring Hauer, still ranks among one of the most famous films made in the country. Hauer and Verhoeven would work together for three of the next four films that the latter made in the Netherlands, which included another famous film with Soldier of Orange (1977). Anyway, after 1984, Verhoeven had received offers from Hollywood to direct but was debating whether it was necessary to leave his native country. As such, he described this film as a "compromise", one that was shot in Europe that was a multi-country production with primary funding by Orion Pictures. Originally, the film was to be about the gradual disintegration of the friendship between the characters ultimately played by Hauer and Thompson. However, the producers pushed introducing a love interest within the character of Leigh that would create a love triangle (Hauer-Leigh-Burlinson), which he went with, much to later regret, although the ensuing troubled production did not help matters. Gerard Soeteman, who had developed the aforementioned Floris and had written a handful of scripts such as Turkish Delight, co-wrote the film with Verhoeven. Made on a budget of $6.5 million, an absolute shoddy promotion effort by Orion led to the film being a flop with audiences.

Wait a minute, people didn't go for this kind of film? A film set in the Middle Ages (1501) that is thrust with plenty of unwieldly characters involving swordplay and wonderful design? It might not have the most conventional of leads to follow, but who the hell cares? Granted, medieval fantasy can be one to favor in entertainment with good ol' swordplay, but with the right execution, you can lend a dose of reality to that hodgepodge, especially with Verhoeven and his approach to violence. In other words: death will happen in the Middle Ages, and it will rarely happen naturally. Well, that, and folks love God. This was the fifth and final film collaboration between Verhoeven and Hauer. During production, the two had such a disagreement with how the lead was supposed to be played that it led to a rift in which they never worked together again, because the former favored moral ambiguity while Hauer did not wish to play such a scoundrel given that he was just breaking into more mainstream features (such as The Osterman Weekend (1983), for example). While I can certainly see Hauer's point, time has clearly favored Verhoeven. The moral ambiguity that Verhoeven aims for when making a Middle Ages tale of such odd people is especially right for Hauer and his rough exterior to make a useful rogue rather than if he had tried to play it with any sort of heroic bent. He is supposed to lead this band of undesirables, and he leans into it with great conviction that is a brute through and through to the worthiest endgame. Verhoeven obviously had an interest in showing a confident woman with convictions that want to go anywhere to get their goal, as represented by Leigh. Consider how she handles her first scene where she consults her maid-in-waiting (Cartwright) about how one, well, has sex. She watches for a bit and then goes to hit her to put it to a stop. The way she deals with both Hauer and Burlinson is exquisite in its cat-and-mouse game of who ends up playing who, one who sells the act as more than a mere observer. Burlinson is undoubtedly the lesser of such a lofty triangle, but being warped by the mesh of trying to seek reason in a world that desires swift retribution does at least make for some sort of interest. I can't imagine the disappointment that could come from Thompson in going from a potential lead to basically support, but he at least makes a worthy character presence that obviously merits curiosity (I should mention his name happens to be the same as a 14th century mercenary leader). I enjoy the atmosphere of the film, because it never betrays the ambition in 126 minutes to make a suitable tale of, well, flesh and blood mixing for craven desires that deserved better marketing. The film doesn't skimp on the brutality that obviously had to happen in a time like this, and it reflects well that one enjoys the supporting cast for as long as they can. The real adversary is the ambition for the flesh to draw blood and not have it be their own, regardless of if the rich person happened to be sending someone off to do their battles for them or not. As a whole, it is a triumph of a movie in excruciating grit, one that dares to show the flesh and blood of the Middle Ages with wonderful design and devastating consistency for a brutally good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tango & Cash.

Review #1876: Tango & Cash.

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Raymond "Ray" Tango), Kurt Russell (Lieutenant Gabriel "Gabe" Cash), Jack Palance (Yves Perret), Teri Hatcher (Katherine "Kiki" Tango), Michael J. Pollard (Owen), Brion James (Requin), James Hong (Quan), Robert Z'Dar (Face), Marc Alaimo (Lopez), Roy Brocksmith (FBI Agent Davis), Phil Rubenstein (Matt Sokowski), Lewis Arquette (FBI Agent Wyler), Clint Howard (Slinky), Michael Jeter (Skinner), and Geoffrey Lewis (Captain Schroeder) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky and Albert Magnoli (#885 - Purple Rain)

Review: 

"Andrei was a real gentleman and I thought his take on "Tango and Cash" was very good and would've been infinitely more realistic had he been allowed to continue. His replacement was more attuned to comic pop culture, so the film had a dramatic shift into a more lighthearted direction."

The combination of director, producer, and star(s) for an action film has probably never seemed so surprising with a film like this. Yes, Konchalovsky was an established director, so consider his resume: an adaptation of Uncle Vanya (1970), a historical epic with Siberiade (1979), his venture into American cinema with the drama Maria's Lovers (1984)...and the action thriller Runaway Train (1985), which used a script from Akira Kurosawa. Born in Moscow, he studied for a decade at the Moscow Conservatory with the intent to be a pianist but encountering Andrei Tarkovsky led to him to working with him on the script that became Andrei Rublev (1966). Konchalovsky began his career as director with The First Teacher (1964) and did a handful of films before moving to the United States in 1980, where he resided before returning to Russia in the 1990s, with this film being his last full American production (his next film, The Inner Circle (1991), was a co-production between America, Italy, and the Soviet Union). Now, if you were wondering how this movie came about, it was based on a script by Randy Feldman, who in turn was doing it on an idea that Jon Peters and Peter Guber had thought of, with the intention of Sylvester Stallone and Patrick Swayze as the stars. But Swayze decided to do Road House (1989) instead, which served as one of many weird things to come. Konchalovsky would spend three months in the director's chair before arguments with Peters came to a boiling point because of disagreements with tone (believe it or not, Stallone was on the director's side) and budget problems. Peter MacDonald (who had directed Rambo III ironically after taking over for a director that Stallone had fired) and Stallone filled in temporarily before Albert Magnoli was hired to shoot the chase and fight scenes in the ending. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to try and do re-writes to the script but hated the final result so much that he didn't want credit. Remember that this was a film that started to shoot in June and end shooting in August of 1989...which ended up needing re-shoots for two weeks in October before intending to be released in December. It barely met its goal, thanks to editing from three people, including Stuart Baird, who had edited countless movies such as Lethal Weapon and its sequel (incidentally, he would be brought in to fix further troubled movies such as The Last Boy Scout), with the film being released on December 22, serving alongside Always) as the last movies released in the 1980s.

Wait, people didn't care for this film in 1989? What exactly did they expect? It wasn't exactly a great commercial hit, but there is a tinge of appreciation for it after over 30 years. Honestly, I enjoyed it just fine, as it is a movie that does exactly what it wants to do in macho action flair. A sillier person could possibly make the argument that this is a play on the action genre, one that is as goofy and beefed up as possible with the most obvious lead stars to accomplish this goal. My god, it's a movie that starts with someone shooting a vehicle to reveal cocaine, continues with a guy using rats to demonstrate his complicated scheme, and ends with monster trucks and tank-like SUVs - who would resist? I understand the potential for a serious buddy cop type of movie, but sometimes going for broke really is the better option. For someone who is fascinated at seeing both Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell on screen like I am, this is basically the ideal bait. That doesn't mean that it is infallible in being good (because, trust me, Stallone has had made a few duds worth talking about), but it does mean that the curiosity factor went up far more than if it was just a strait-laced attempt at buddy cop stuff. Call me a junk connoisseur, but I do enjoy movies with a bit of bombast and confidence to just go on the beat of its own drum in action, winking eyes or not (my problems are more if someone tries to bullshit their movie into "up their own ass" territory"). Calling it a bastardized Lethal Weapon only serves to make the interest go up, not down, considering the impending mediocrity of movies that tried to hone in buddy cop cliches in obligation or bewildering confusion with 1990's Another 48 Hrs. or The Rookie.

Honestly, I understand where Stallone was coming from with the character, he tries to play here in this offbeat take on the action cop type with glasses (actual ones used by Stallone) and a banker attire...but Stallone is Stallone. Making a chuckle with "Rambo is a pussy" is cute, but one knows that the best way to contain the ever-growing ego of Stallone (when you created Rocky, you get slack) is to just let him be himself. He has the schlock factor of someone who would've been "man in a suit" for a certain type of older movies, but he does it with a certain charm that you go along with what he tries to pull here. Besides, Russell has always been a favorite with me, in that he can basically walk through a role with no trouble, which I would expect from someone who went from Disney child star to a guy who can pass for both comedy and drama. He passes through here with casual charm, one who knows what kind of movie he is in without thinking they are above it all, smirking his way through with the kind of stubborn tenacity I would expect to see play out when playing out this intense dunderhead chemistry shared with Stallone that plays in the vein of The Odd Couple at times. Of course, in the middle of this is James, whose went from having two scenes turned into more when they liked his "Cockney" accent (he was an American with plenty of experience playing bad guys). He overshadows Palance (who even manages to turn a role of watching things happen into a ham) to the benefit of the movie when it comes to casual derangement. Hatcher would obviously find better material to hone in her charms (besides TV anyway) while Pollard breezes through with light amusement. The climax is preposterous and exactly what one could expect without dull surprises. As a whole, it manages to rein enough out of 104 minutes for stupefying fun that I believe make it a worthy curiosity, one with the general action sought by audiences with corny liners and general engagement from two likable stars to carry it despite plenty of clear faults and excesses. If you've seen one, you've seen plenty, but the folks that enjoy what they like to enjoy will be right at home here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Another 48 Hrs.

Review #1728: Another 48 Hrs. 

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), Nick Nolte (Inspector Jack Cates), Brion James (Inspector Ben Kehoe), Kevin Tighe (Lieutenant Blake Wilson), Ed O'Ross (Inspector Frank Cruise), David Anthony Marshall (Willie Hickok), Andrew Divoff (Richard "Cherry" Ganz), Bernie Casey (Kirkland Smith), Brent Jennings (Tyrone Burroughs), Ted Markland (Malcolm Price), and Tisha Campbell (Amy Smith) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember 48 Hrs (1982). That movie was the brainchild of one Lawrence Gordon, at least in the original idea, which somehow involved a kidnapped daughter of the Governor of Louisiana within a team-up of a mean cop and the cellmate of the kidnapper. Somehow, over the course of a decade, it evolved into what you saw on screen, with the result being that four writers were credited (Roger Spottiswoode, Walter Hill, Larry Gross, Steven E. de Souza) for a movie once described by Hill in pre-production as a "a shaggy dog story. Defiant Ones plus chuckles." While it wasn't exactly the first buddy cop movie ever made, it certainly was the one that helped to popularize the genre, and the credit for success can go to its main pair in Nolte and Murphy (making his film debut after years on Saturday Night Live), who certainly play off each other well enough in terms of tense interest that made a worthy action comedy. Despite fears from folks at Paramount Pictures to the viability of the movie (including threats that Hill would never work there again)...you already know it was a success, because who else would try to make a sequel eight years later? Well, it turns out it was Murphy who lit the match to do a sequel, as it was he (under the "name" of Fred Braughton) who wrote the initial story while later approaching Hill to do the sequel under the idea of wanting to get the spirit of the first one with "a lot of street energy and the hard edges of the original" (as quoted by Hill); it also might be a coincidence that he was near the end of his contract obligations with Paramount Pictures for films. John Fasano, Jeb Stuart, and Larry Gross were tasked with writing the screenplay. With a budget of $50 million, the movie made around three times its budget back at the box office, although it was felt to be a disappointment; Murphy and Paramount ended up not being happy with each other in regard to how each promoted the film.

Would you believe this film was a hack-job? Somehow, the original workprint was 145 minutes long, and even more strangely the original cut was 120 minutes long. Undeniably, that version might seem a bit long, but it also might seem a bit interesting...instead the film was cut again right before release to 95 minutes, apparently to make for a faster paced action comedy (Brion James was quoted as saying that most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor). I do wonder what is more prevalent: sequels with the same star and director that end up just as good as the original or ones that prove to be a disappointment. This is one clearly on the latter side, one that hobbles all the way through in attempts at honing memories from what we saw the first time around without having the charm to back it up. Hill may be an interesting director, but this certainly is not his finest hour, unless one counts shooting a few decent action scenes a worthy distraction. Now, perhaps that is unfair, because it is the script that seems to have failed the movie most, one that is built on coincidences and clichés: outlaw bikers, guys going as "The Iceman", an Internal Affairs story that I'm sure you've heard before, and a sequence past the middle put there solely to explain what is going on. If one wanted to watch 48 Hrs again, they would simply do better just watching that movie instead of a sequel that just tries to coast on the fumes of before. Nolte and Murphy are fine here, but they seem privy to just going through the motions of what we saw from before, which involves grousing and charm under the idea of being loopier than before (of course, there's also a scene where one of them points out the clichés of a fight at a bar right before it happens, so...). The editing clearly has effected James, since one might not even remember he was in the last film too, and he only shows up from time to time before the clichés creep in; Marshall and Divoff have little to work with besides shooting and screaming, and it doesn't help matters if one has taken a guess as to who the real threat is early to go with Jennings seeming more interesting in a bemused state (i.e. one who wants to see a simple hitjob done right) with even less time. Tighe smirks through a thankless role, while Casey gets to grouse at Murphy and explain the plot at one point, so there's that. As a whole, one wonders why they even bothered to make this movie at all, since it seems more like an obligation rather than something done for fun and excitement. It is a very average movie that proves for disappointment for anyone looking for something fresh or interesting within the lines of a director and its lead stars that should know better. If one wants to see more of the same from what happened before with 48 Hrs, I guess this would work. Or, perhaps, one could just watch the first film instead. A decent duo and director do not, in the end, mean a good sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

48 Hrs.

Review #1072: 48 Hrs.

Cast: 
Nick Nolte (Jack Cates), Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), James Remar (Albert Ganz), David Patrick Kelly (Luther), Sonny Landham (Billy Bear), Brion James (Ben Kehoe), Annette O'Toole (Elaine Marshall), and Frank McRae (Captain Haden) Directed by Walter Hill.

Review: 
Admittedly, the buddy cop genre is not something that came out of thin air for entertainment. Pairing two people together with differing personalities to work together has been done numerous times over the past few decades, whether involving cops paired with each other in some sort of mismatch (such as the Lethal Weapon series or the Rush Hour trilogy), or even parodying the genre (such as in Last Action Hero). In any case, 48 Hrs is considered one of the films that formed a blueprint for the genre that manages to succeed due to its chemistry between its main two leads, Nolte and Murphy. Whenever they are on-screen together, they just click together in their raw quirky nature, contentious but compelling to watch. Nolte sells his rough and cynical character well, a grouch that isn't grating as it could've been. This was the screen debut for Murphy, who had been starring on Saturday Night Live since 1980, and he manages to do a great job, selling this confident and clever role with the right sense of conviction and timing (interestingly, he was nominated for a Golden Globe for New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture, although he lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi). They are a fun duo to watch mess around with each other, with my particular favorite being the scene in a bar in which Murphy intimidates the rowdy customers in order to get some useful information, mostly because of how amusing he plays his hand to the patrons. Remar is a decent villain, fairly slimy and not too much of an evil cliche, and Landham makes for an adequate second-fiddle. The other members of the cast aren't too involved with the plot much, but they are at least decent sidepieces for the film. The action sequences are neatly done, riveting in their execution and satisfactory for ones looking for excitement. The plot isn't anything revolutionary, but the film goes at an energetic pace that makes for quality entertainment that never really drags itself out at a brisk length of 96 minutes that will click at the right moments (such as with its action and main duo) to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fifth Element.

Review #027: The Fifth Element.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Korban Dallas), Gary Oldman (Zorg), Mila Jovovich (Leeloo), Ian Holm (Vito Corneilus), Chris Tucker (Euby Rhod), Charlie Creed-Miles (David), Brion James (General Munro), Tricky (Right Arm), and Tom Lister Jr. (President Lindberg) Directed by Luc Besson.

Review
This film is not like other Science Fiction films, like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (#113), 2001: A Space Odysesy (#93), Alien, and many others. It's a weird breed with flying cars and more in a futuristic tale (Not like another one with cars that fly. But that had some sort of organic robots) It's a strange plot, but it's a little creative, and the acting (Save for Chris Tucker, who gets the award for least subtle preformance ever) One odd end to mention is that the main hero and villian never meet. Overall, the movie is a weird breed, but it all works in the end, making this a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars..