The First Omen.

Review #2198: The First Omen.

Cast: 

Nell Tiger Free (Margaret Daino), Sônia Braga (Sister Silvia), Ralph Ineson (Father Brennan), Bill Nighy (Cardinal Lawrence), Tawfeek Barhom (Father Gabriel), Maria Caballero (Luz Valez), Nicole Sorace (Carlita Scianna), Ishtar Currie-Wilson (Sister Anjelica), Andrea Arcangeli (Paolo), and Charles Dance (Father Harris) Directed by Arkasha Stevenson.

Review: 

You may recall that the idea for The Omen (1976) came about because producer Harvey Bernhard had a conversation with a friend involving the Bible and religion, which is where writer David Seltzer came in to eventually craft it into a screenplay (amusingly, Seltzer was first reluctant to do the screenplay because he did not have a belief in the devil). Richard Donner was picked to direct and, well, you know the rest. If you've seen a film with a possibly evil child and a worried mother such as, say, Rosemary’s Baby (1968) or The Exorcist (1973), well, of course it is the kind of thing to inspire a few follow-ups. This "First Omen" was first planned back in 2016, which followed long after the wake of sequel (Damien - Omen II [1978]) after sequel (Omen III: The Final Conflict [1981]) after attempted TV thing (an "Omen IV") after, well, a 2006 remake (which apparently barely changed anything). But here we are with a film set in 1971 that is the debut feature debut by Arkasha Stevenson, a former photojournalist-turned-director in her feature film debut. The screenplay was done by Tim Smith, Arkasha Stevenson, and Keith Thomas while the story was done by Ben Jacoby. There was an idea to have this be one of those films you encounter on streaming with Hulu, since this is a 20th Century (Fox) Studios distributed film, but these plans changed. Apparently, the movie almost had a rating of NC-17 because of one certain scene that had to have a few cuts made. Such is life.

Stevenson has professed herself as an Omen fan, which is a pretty good sign. Admittedly, trying to make fear enough to drive people back to church sounds about on par for a film that wants to go beat on beat to set up the original film (of course, if one remembers the original film, think back to what is found in a certain cemetery). The end result is a decent experience that isn't nearly as much of a cheap imitation as it could have turned out to be, which basically means that it is an average rendition of the original 1976 movie that was already pretty average to begin with. If wrapped with enough patience to go with the idea of something really, really spooky beyond a few weird nuns, well, you will be totally fine here because the performances generally help the film retain the believability of not making one desire to go for overt theatricality. Free in particular does well with the great vulnerability that arises in someone who is probably way over their head with handling not only the turmoil that comes in a cloudy age of doubt but the very idea that something may very well lurk within the blood. Pawn or no pawn, she is not merely there to be used as just as an object to go into the screaming night, which helps to sell the climax when it finally gets to a certain point of anticipation for dread. Sorace makes for a worthwhile pairing for that arrangement of vulnerability and shaken self that practically mirrors Free, which is an interesting task when the first scene of them involves, uh, licking. There is a certain type of confidence to admire in Ineson that does not waver or seem to be playing off as merely just someone who happens to be playing a role once inhabited by Patrick Troughton (if you recall the priest in the original, naturally). The threat presented is in the people that act as if all that is wrong is just, well, another thing among things in "Years of Lead" (okay, the film doesn't mention that term, but you get to hear historical terms pop up for films sometimes), which work in that stone-cold conviction of those who really see their way as the one and only for spirit and all, regardless of who happens to be lurking behind. Folks ready for something on the unsettling side (as opposed to gore) will be mostly on point with what the film sells. Honestly, it is the ending that probably makes the film shake a bit too much near the deep end. Regardless of the quality of the film before it, do I need anything to lay the hint further films when one is already bearing the cross of being "The First Omen". At any rate, this is a solidly decent time if one is interested in carefully placed blocks of dread that manages to utilize its 119-minute runtime to useful execution to make a solid pick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Review #1227: Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

Cast: 
Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Vera Farmiga (Dr. Emma Russell), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Bradley Whitford (Dr. Rick Stanton), Sally Hawkins (Dr. Vivienne Graham), Charles Dance (Colonel Alan Jonah), Thomas Middleditch (Dr. Sam Coleman), Aisha Hinds (Colonel Diane Foster), O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Jackson Barnes), David Strathairn (Admiral William Stenz), Ken Watanabe (Dr. Ishirō Serizawa), Zhang Ziyi (Dr. Ilene Chen and Dr. Ling), with T.J. Storm (Godzilla) Directed by Michael Dougherty.

Review: 
It's about time for this one. Perhaps this review may prove a bit too long - but I wanted to have some fun with saying as much as I could with a film I really did anticipate - after all, I didn't cover four Godzilla movies for nothing, so here's a Godzilla-sized review for the hell of it - 1,000 words for your enjoyment. 

Five years can certainly pass by when it comes to movies. Godzilla (2014) was a fine movie that worked to get out of the shadow of doubt that an American adaptation of Toho's monster franchise couldn't actually succeed. I really can't say I have too many memories of the film, but I might as well just snatch some words from way back when:

"The cast isn't bad (though I wish there was more Bryan Cranston in it), our main character is okay even though it seems the cast get more screen time then the monster himself, Godzilla. The movie seems to want to build tension and wait, so it cuts the first two monster fights (along with waiting an hour to show Godzilla) so we don't see much and then relents and shows the final fight, which is fantastic."

Of course, I also don't remember giving it a 9, but yet here we are. The only other Godzilla film that I had covered at the time was the original Gojira (1954). I hadn't (and still haven't) even touched the 1998 American attempt at Godzilla, with me just going in cold for some big monster action. Actually, I haven't returned to the 2014 Godzilla since I saw it in the theater all those years ago, perhaps since I don't usually re-visit each film I go see on the big screen. In the five years since its release, Toho re-started the series with Shin Godzilla (2016) while Legendary Pictures continued their pursuit of a "MonsterVerse" with Kong: Skull Island (2017). Just three cast members (Watanabe, Hawkins, Strathairn) return for this one, with a few references included throughout while doing a bit of ret-conning and changes in tone that make for a fairly decent if not perhaps as challenging monster movie. The first film had a screenplay by Max Borenstein and a story by David Callaham, while this one has director Dougherty as co-writer and co-screenwriter while retaining Borenstein for the screenplay once again alongside Zach Shields. It lingers a little too long at 132 minutes (eleven minutes longer than its predecessor), but I felt that I enjoyed a good majority of what I saw on screen, albeit more when it focused of its monsters than its cadre of characters. The quirk of the original having its only interesting character being wasted midway through is modified by this film having a quirk of having sprinkles of just mildly interesting characters. This film is basically a re-imagining of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964), albeit with a somewhat developed foundation of human characters that makes for a less silly experience. Honestly, as long as there is an entertaining monster mash somewhere in its run-time that isn't overshadowed by something else, you have my vote, and this one gains that vote for the most part. This is a $200 million CG spectacle with monsters that takes itself mildly seriously - once a year is just enough for my standards, really, even if I am aware of the prevailing tastes for other kinds of action films for the summer.

It is a loud and sometimes dumb movie, but I can't help but adore its ambition at spectacle. Each monster, from Godzilla to King Ghidorah, is rendered really well, looking quite crisp that retains the characteristics from before (like the latter and its three heads) while making sure they stand out in their own ways, which proves to be a fairly done strategy. While I do wish there was a bit more emphasis on shown spectacle of distraction (as opposed to just showing things already being destroyed), at least I can say that this one manages to retain most of the wrath that nature can bring onto us if not careful from the earlier movie. I never feel lectured or bored when it comes to trying to peddle some plot threads on me, with the parts involving specific frequencies for the monsters faring best over parts involving discussions in rooms over what to do. The cast does what they can, some faring better than others. Chandler is fine to follow around with, straight-laced yet completely willing to go along with what occurs on screen without seeming like a drag on what occurs in the basis of a monster movie. Farmiga does fine as well, with the focus on her and Brown being fairly subtle. Brown shines just as well when shown on screen. At least the family angle the film pushes is okay, since the film can't just be all on the monsters and their ties to myths and legends from yesteryear. Whitford and his attempts at being comic relief (by being the equivalent of someone on the Internet lecturing you on "uberscience lol" at 8am) come off as a bit tepid, although Middleditch doesn't fare too much better. Dance comes off as ridiculous as the human adversary - I don't care too much about the eco-terrorism angle, but the parts involving trying to restore a sense of balance in the world with Titans (as opposed to the previous film's classification of the monsters of MUTO)  Not having too much to do with Hawkins is a bit disappointing, although at least Watanabe gives the film some sense of emotional depth. Rounding out the cast is passable performances from Hinds, Jackson and Ziyi. With all of that mind, where else did I find time to show some joy besides seeing a bunch of occasionally creative fight sequences and a bunch of CGI in the dark? I found some fun within Bear McCreary and his music, taking some inspiration from previous music beats from the Godzilla series from Akira Ifukube - any time you do a cover of a Blue Oyster Cult song (particularly "Godzilla") gets a nod from me as well. With a looming sequel in Godzilla vs. Kong next year, this is a movie that succeeds in garnering interest to see some more monster mashing without regret. It proves as a worthy follow-up to its predecessor while also living up to the standards of other Godzilla films before it without too many stumbles yet having plenty of thrills to make one satisfied.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alien 3.

Review #586: Alien 3.

Cast
Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Ripley), Charles S. Dutton (Dillon), Charles Dance (Jonathan Clemens), Brian Glover (Harold Andrews), Ralph Brown (Aaron), Paul McGann (Golic), Danny Webb (Morse), Lance Henriksen (Bishop II), and Tom Woodruff, Jr. (The Alien) Directed by David Fincher.

Review
"No one hated it more than me; to this day, no one hates it more than me."
That quote came from the director himself, David Fincher, director of Alien 3, which is probably the unluckiest installment of the franchise. Where did all the trouble begin? Aliens was a massive success, and naturally the studio wanted a sequel, two in fact, but with Hicks the main focus instead of Ripley. The idea then fizzled out as an array of writers tried to deliver a satisfactory (to the studio) script, to the point where after all the scripts were rejected, the producers had to write the screenplay themselves, meshing parts of some of the other writers scripts (most notably the prison planet idea), and having to complete the script while filming started. Also there was interference by studio executives that meddled with the film, which made Fincher angry to the point where he has actually disowned the film.

So yeah, after all that trouble, how is the film itself? It's a sad mess of a movie, that's for sure. The first problem of the movie? How did the egg get onto the escape ship when there was no sign of any aliens on board? It's a plot hole that is quite literally made in the first minutes. Oh, and the characters you cared about in the last film? All dead. Yes, they are shamelessly killed off, without any sense of care, but on the plus side it sets the tone for an extremely depressing movie. The movie tries to set its own tone, trying to be its own. And it just doesn't help the movie much. The big problem is that all of the characters are disposable, Dutton is the only interesting new character, maybe because he lasts the longest, or because Paul McGann (insert your 8th Doctor reference here) isn't in it enough. It's not that we want the characters to die, we're just waiting for them to, which they do. It's not that I don't like the film because it's not like Aliens, I don't like it because it's just a slog of a movie to get through. Now granted it is hard to make a sequel to a franchise that has had two great movies already, but Alien 3 just doesn't cut it. It tries and fails at being something new. The deaths in the movie are not awful, but they certainly are predictable, and the four legged alien looks more silly then threatening, it's the movements that kill it. The shots with the motion camera as the alien chases the crew is ridiculous in its concept, only making you wonder how this franchise fell so far. Weaver isn't bad in this film, but not even she can save this train wreck. The movie at least knows when to end, and boy does it end spectacularly. There is an Assembly Cut for this movie that has more footage, but more doesn't necessarily mean better. Just stick to the first two, and watch this one if you want to be depressed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Last Action Hero.

Review #576: Last Action Hero.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Jack Slater/Himself), Austin O'Brien (Danny Madigan), Charles Dance (Benedict), Robert Prosky (Nick), Tom Noonan (The Ripper/Himself), Art Carney (Frank), Frank McRae (Lieutenant Dekker), Anthony Quinn (Tony Vivaldi), Bridgette Wilson (Whitney Slater and Meredith Caprice), F. Murray Abraham (John Practice), and Mercedes Ruehl (Irene Madigan) Directed by John McTiernan (#014 - Die Hard, #018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #080 - The Hunt for Red October, and #325 - Predator)

Review
Last Action Hero tries and nearly succeeds in its goals of action and comedy fun for all. It's a better action movie then a comedy, Arnold can be funny, but the movie just doesn't have enough comedy in it. feeling like more like a commentary on itself which while welcome, isn't exactly that funny (Though seeing Stallone as the Terminator in Slater's world amuses me), at least it tries. The cast is okay, but I find more enjoyment with Schwarzenegger then with O'Brien because at least he does something fun to watch, where O'Brien is just the second fiddle who could be easily disposable if he wasn't out main character. At least Art Carney is fun to watch in his final film role, he packs some energy and is certainly warming to watch. The movie doesn't really break any new ground and it isn't one of Arnold's best, but this is an okay movie that isn't hard to like if you want some good ol' Arnold and some good ol' fun. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.