Gordon's War.

Review #1973: Gordon's War.

Cast: 

Paul Winfield (Gordon Hudson), Carl Lee (Bee Bishop), David Downing (Otis Russell), Tony King (Roy Green), Gilbert Lewis (Harry "Spanish Harry" Martinez), Carl Gordon (Luther "The Pimp"), Nathan Heard ("Big Pink"), Grace Jones (Mary), Jackie Page (Bedroom Girl), Chuck Bergansky (White Hitman), and Adam Wade (Hustler) Directed by Ossie Davis (#1635 - Cotton Comes to Harlem and #1802 - Black Girl)

Review: 

"Directing calls for a vision and an itch, a dedicated focus, energy, the ability to be mean and stubborn if you have to, and at times, a little devious. Qualities I thoroughly understand, but do not have."

Gordon's War was the third feature film directed by Ossie Davis, who you might remember from films as interesting as Cotton Comes to Harlem (1970) and Black Girl (1972). As was the case with his other efforts, he directed it with a different studio, with this production being released by 20th Century Fox. Technically this is a blaxploitation film, in that it does involve folks literally declaring war on drug pushers. But it is also a film about what urban decay can do to a community along with seeing just how much commitment means to sticking to a mission regardless of the costs if the leader is strong enough. The movie was written by Howard Friedlander and Ed Spielman (I recognize him due to having seen the TV show Kung Fu, which he co-created). The movie was shot in Harlem and Davis allowed the actors to choose their own wardrobe. Davis directed two other films: Kongi's Harvest, a semi-obscure 1970s Nigerian film based on a play of the same name by Wole Soyinka (who starred in the production), and Countdown at Kusini (1976), an American-Nigerian production that he served as star along with his wife Ruby Dee.

Man do I wish I enjoyed this film more. It almost looks like a film ready to burst out of the seams in weirdness. This is a movie where one guy recruits three other guys to turn their prior experience in the green jungle of Vietnam into a fight of the concrete jungle, but somehow it all comes off as just very average material, one that doesn't quite reach the heights of the aforementioned Cotton film. However, being the possible lesser of three features made by an actor/director isn't the worst thing in the world, because there is still fairly solid ideas here for entertainment. Winfield, fresh off showcases of his talent in films such as Sounder, does quite well in making a captivating lead character in terms of "Nothing to lose", one clearly interesting enough to lead people on a crusade without turning it into fanatical hammy acting. Lee, Downing, and King play the accomplices (read: devotees) to our lead with interesting patience that is semi-interesting, albeit not exactly on the level of The Dirty Dozen (or something), but mostly on the level to what is needed. Grace Jones made her film debut here (years before she became noted for her music), albeit a small role as a "drug mule". The movie doesn't have enough juice to justify lacking a quality adversary, since Gordon and Lewis can't quite cut it when the movie tries to play "the real threat" that seems ripped from a silly formulaic crime book. Yes, it is a movie that talks about the decay of a town that comes with drugs, and one at least sees it in a movie that isn't reeking of "After-school Special", albeit on a small scale, one that shows a bleak mood. A chase scene ripe in inspiration from The French Connection and cardboard predictability is not quite enough to make a fun movie, but I at least understand the appeal for those interested in overlooked movies, since it took several years to even garner a DVD release. As a whole, it is an inconclusive film, one that can't quite hold itself to doing anything grand with a vigilante film due to it lacking a center to hold things together despite a suitable lead. But hey, some movies work better than others in having a good time in action, so pick carefully.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Human Tornado.

Candyman (1992).

Review #1746: Candyman.

Cast: 

Virginia Madsen (Helen Lyle), Tony Todd (Candyman), Xander Berkeley (Trevor Lyle), Vanessa Estelle Williams (Anne-Marie McCoy), Kasi Lemmons (Bernadette "Bernie" Walsh), DeJuan Guy (Jake), Gilbert Lewis (Det. Frank Valento), Carolyn Lowery (Stacey), Stanley DeSantis (Dr. Burke), and Michael Culkin (Phillip Purcell) Directed and Written by Bernard Rose.

Review: 

"One of the things I like about making horror films is that there's a certain amount of freedom about them - people don't have to hug and kiss each other at the end, and say 'I love you Mom', it doesn't have to have a positive message. You hear people saying movies should be responsible; I think they should be irresponsible. It's always seemed to me monstrous arrogance that people are going to see your movie and come out the better for it. I'd rather they came out worse."

As Bernard Rose stated, one just has the freedom to do what they can when it comes to horror, mostly because it seems to be the easiest genre that one can make a captivating and eerie experience that doesn't have to be cornered into one spot for everyone. It is strange to consider that this is the film most might know Rose best for, since he has had a lengthy career in his native England in filmmaking, which started from a young age in super 8 mm before working in television and music videos; he made his debut with Smart Money (1986), but his third effort in Paperhouse (1988) gave him his first bits of notice. At any rate, he has continued to direct (while occasionally writing and serving as his own editor and cinematographer). It was a chance meeting with fellow Brit Clive Barker, fresh off trying to direct an adaptation of his own work with Nightbreed (1990) that would lead to Candyman, since Rose had an interest in one of Barker's stories to make into a film. Barker agreed to license the rights to that story: "The Forbidden", which was set in his native Liverpool. There are a few differences from turning a narrative published in an anthology collection into a feature film, such as the fact that the only details about the title character that are told involve the hook, bees, and a few skin details (such as wild glittering eyes), and Rose allowed Todd and Madsen to flesh out their character stories with a bit of free rein for the creative process. The film was a mild success upon release, making a bit over three times its $8 million budget. As such, it was followed by two sequels in the decade: Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995) and Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999) featured Todd as the key lead (with only Culkin returning for one of the films), although neither were as successful. After failed attempts  in the early 21st century to make another film, a new one finally was released in 2021 (titled...Candyman, because we have moved into an illogical era of sequels using the same title as before), which featured a handful of returning actors from the first film.

What we have here is a film at the epicenter of myths and creeping dread, one that re-invents the romantic monster. Think about it: Rose intended the title character as more of a romantic figure rather than a terrifying villain, one that while being a boogeyman is also one with elegance to spare in terror that has his own gothic design in a lair made by folks that believe in the legend (each of these examples could spring to mind works such as Dracula or The Phantom of the Opera, although Rose noted it is more similar to the tale of Samson); of course, being based on legends such as the Hook and the Bloody Mary probably help in that regard as well. Fear and superstition go a long way towards making a curious film in fear, whether that involves one of ghouls with hooks or urban crime. It also is a film that makes its setting seem like a character in its own right (as reflective of the focus on segregation in the poor areas of Liverpool in the story): A select amount of days were shot at Cabrini-Green Homes, a public housing project in the city of Chicago that had an infamous reputation for its construction and violence; just a few years later, the projects would be demolished and re-developed; folks in the city might recognize certain elements from real life details about life in the projects in the film, since journalist Steve Bogira noted similarities between the film and certain elements of his report "They Came in Through the Bathroom Mirror" (written in 1987), which detailed the life and death of a woman from a robber that came into her apartment from a hole in the bathroom medicine cabinet. At any rate, the other key step involves balancing terror with a title character that doesn't appear until nearly halfway through the 101 minute movie. In that sense, we have a fairly game cast to make it all count. Madsen is the key to the film working out besides what one knows and needs in Todd, mostly because she has to maintain sensibility for a role that could have been fairy forgettable with a quieter presence or one without as much curiosity. Todd is exactly what you would expect with a distinct voice and aided by effects and certain shots, which results in an eerie and involving performance that stands on its own in distinctiveness within the slasher genre. They make for a useful pairing in their tête-à-tête with each other that involves a bit of hypnotic movement (albeit one playing on a particularly cliché that may or may not reach). The others in the cast follow fine in their own ways, such as a stoic Berkeley or well-placed timing with Williams or Lemmons (because how else would one react to circumstances with a curious observer that likes to in urban corners with scary legends?). The score by Philip Glass only serves to keep one on their toes with an appropriately eerie sound. If you think about it, a movie involving a killer ghost that comes around if you say their name five times could be a ridiculous idea, particularly if it is one that doesn't have a measure of what it means to make a gripping horror movie beyond just cheap slasher thrills. And yet, here we are with a movie that utilizes its setting and viewpoint on the nature of superstitions to make a worthwhile classic, touching upon issues such as racism with fair execution that likely makes this one of the most interesting horror movies from the 1990s. Nearly three decades later, there probably is no time like the present to check this one out for yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next-No, wait a minute.

...

THE HOUSTON ASTROS ARE GOING TO THE WORLD SERIES! AGAIN! A week remains on A Month of Horror, but I'm saying this now to make sure my resources are properly focused on what needs to be done...or so I think. Hell, this is the 17th review of the month, so I would say we are on the right track. 

Houston vs. Atlanta? Hell yeah.

Next Time: Ring (1998).