Making Mr. Right.

Review #2517: Making Mr. Right.

Cast: 

John Malkovich (Dr. Jeff Peters/Ulysses), Ann Magnuson (Frankie Stone), Glenne Headly (Trish), Ben Masters (Steve Marcus), Laurie Metcalf (Sandra "Sandy" McCleary), Polly Bergen (Estelle Stone), Harsh Nayyar (Dr. Ramdas), Hart Bochner (Don), Susan Berman (Ivy Stone), Polly Draper (Suzy Duncan), Christian Clemenson (Bruce), Merwin Goldsmith (Moe Glickstein) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens, #2186 - Desperately Seeking Susan)

Review: 

"I was so happy with the response to that screening, because, when a movie is a flop, people tend to not want to talk about it. I loved making “Making Mr. Right,” but people seem to not want to bring up the fact that it was a flop at the box-office or hurt my feelings. It was in theatres for such a short amount of time, and then it was never really pushed on DVD. So Metrograph was the first time I had seen it with an audience up on a big screen in thirty years. And I laughed! I always thought maybe people didn’t get the style. It’s an A.I. romantic comedy."

Admittedly, this is the kind of movie you might try out on the back end of a to-do list of movie packs and obligations. This was one of the six movies on a "6 Comedies [MGM]" collection (next to Honeymoon in Vegas, Overboard, Speechless, Baby Boom, and Real Men) that I bought many years ago, and, well, it finally dovetailed with Susan Seidelman. This was her third feature film as a director and she played some influence on the script that had been written by Floyd Byars and Laurie Frank in 1985, specifically in the shift in focus from a Frankenstein-type story to one resembling Pygmalion. For whatever reason, the main production company behind this was Barry & Enright Productions, a TV company originally formed by Jack Barry and Dan Enright in the 1940s that occasionally produced movies (most notably with Private Lessons [1981]). Distributed by Orion Pictures to minimal audience returns, Seidelman's next feature came with Cookie in 1989*; Seidelman has expressed no hard feelings about how the film went, even attending a Q&A screening for the film in recent years.

So, what's the movie about? Well, in the (presumably) near future, a scientist makes an android (which happens to look just like him) and is priming it for deep space exploration that dovetails right with a PR consultant (recently dumped) that is hired to help humanize the android for the project sponsors. It starts its attempts at capturing the vibe of someone who might fall for, say, a robot by having an opening that shows an old-fashioned dumping and shaving while going to work. For a 99-minute movie, it might wind up as light fare, but there is an earnest spirit about the movie (namely because it has a fairly neat style in terms of its setting and look that will surely inspire interest from those who know what retro-futurism is) that I like enough to at least say is at least a possible small gem as a comedy of errors. It just happens to have a bit of deference to those who might have an interest in something different from the perceived normal, particularly since most of the men in the film are, well, kooks (at least Robert Trebor* is delightfully smarmy for a small role), particularly in their feelings. So it isn't just "but is the robot fully functional?*", it's a comedy about people who really need to know what they want out of life, people, and, well, themselves. It might interest you to know that this was the one big role for Magnuson, who had dabbled in music and a few minor film roles (such as Desperately Seeking Susan). She apparently actually wanted the supporting role that ended up being cast for Headly but it seems Seidelman saw something worthwhile in her that comes out here. There is a certain type of moxie that comes through with her that I can't help but enjoy in a whimsical sense (besides, she has one line that is basically the lifeblood of the chaotic worker: "I'm always late; but, I'm worth it."). The make-or-break comes with Malkovich and his dual role as one who can't stand people and one who wants to understand things beyond what he was made for. So one side gets to play the hapless oddball and the other lumbers around with a ditzy sense of timing, and it generally works out for a few quirky moments. Whether it really is all that convincing is up to you (stranger people have fallen for stranger things), I suppose. The others in the cast have a few little moments of charm that spring for amusement in the crisscross of oddballs and Miami chic, whether that involves a brief interlude with the loopy Metcalf or the charming Headly. As a whole, Making Mr. Right just couldn't find the right audience when it really mattered for those who like some offbeat romantic comedies, suffice to say. But if you like the idea of a movie that pokes at the odd quirks that come with people that don't have everything figured out in their personal lives that happens to involve romance with a robot, you might have a hidden winner here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

 

*Cookie had Peter Falk and Dianne Wiest, but She-Devil (1991) which paired Meryl Streep (who I'm sure other people know pretty well, but...) with, and I'm not kidding: Roseanne. 

*Hey, I imagine people are still waiting (but obviously not saying out loud, on the internet, or in conversation) for sex robots, it isn't that hard of a question to ask if you can put your ding-dongs in 'em.

*I remember Trebor well from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, where he regularly appeared as Salmoneus - he was pretty funny in that show. He passed away just last year - RIP.

Supergirl.

Review #2397: Supergirl.

Cast: 

Helen Slater (Kara Zor-El / Linda Lee / Supergirl), Faye Dunaway (Selena), Peter O'Toole (Zaltar), Hart Bochner (Ethan), Mia Farrow (Alura In-Ze), Brenda Vaccaro (Bianca), Peter Cook (Nigel), Simon Ward (Zor-El), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Maureen Teefy (Lucy Lane), and David Healy (Mr. Danvers) Directed by Jeannot Szwarc (#555 - Jaws 2)

 

Review: 

“Physically it’s not at all the prototype of a superhero the way Superman is. Superman was the man of steel and he’s big, he’s got muscles et cetera…she has superpowers [that] are the same…but where Superman is power and strength, [Supergirl] is more like style and elegance.” 

You might wonder where Supergirl came from. Well, it only took a few years (read: 1959) for Otto Binder and Al Plastino (the two credited creators of the character as writer and illustrator, respectively) to introduce the original character to Action Comics that had a cousin to Superman arrive from a doomed place that ended up raised as "Linda Lee" (later adopted to add Danvers) in an orphanage. Basically, the character was created in the same headspace that created super-powered pets to accompany the hero. Anyway, you might remember that when the Salkinds (Alexander, Ilya) bought the film rights to Superman in 1975 by paying money to Warner Bros to license the intellectual property, it also included the character of Supergirl. The Salkinds actually wanted to use the character in Superman III to maybe make a spinoff movie....but Warner Bros. apparently vetoed it (pity, good luck settling with Richard Pryor). At any rate, the two announced their plans to do a Supergirl movie in 1982 and had ideas in mind to maybe have Christopher Reeve appear in a bit role to set up a quest...and then he didn't want to appear in the movie. At least he suggested Jeannot Szwarc (who he worked with on Somewhere in Time [1980]) should direct the movie, since the Salkinds couldn't even get Robert Wise to do the movie. The screenplay was written by David Odell (well, it was re-written heavily, but still), who had written for films such as The Dark Crystal (1982) and later Masters of the Universe (1987). There somehow exists three different versions of the film to consider. The original cut of the movie was 138 minutes long, but test audiences apparently thought it was a bit too long, necessitating cuts. So, you would think it would be settled at having 124 minutes for the runtime...but no! The 124-minute version was released internationally, but somehow, American audiences got a version that lasted just 105 minutes (namely by trimming more sequences from Argo City, Midvale, etc). By 2000, one could finally check out the director's cut and International Cut on home media. Made for roughly over $30 million (as distributed by Tri-Star Pictures, who bent to the Salkinds wishing to release the movie in the winter of 1984 rather than in the summer), the movie was a general flop with audiences. Interestingly, in the comic books, the character was killed off (for a number of years, anyway) in the famed series Crisis on Infinite Earths. Slater never played the character again on film, but she appeared in the Supergirl TV series a few decades later. This was the last hurrah for the Salkinds and Super-people on film, as they sold to the Cannon Group in 1985 for the disaster that became Superman IV in 1987*.

Basically, if you didn't care much for Superman III (1983), you will find the exact level of disinterest for Supergirl (1984). Both are tired efforts that show clear strain in all of its flabby flatness, which starts with the movie looking like a failed TV movie production and ends with a climax that does not exactly warrant further adventures. They clearly wanted to have their big-name stars lift up a young would-be name just like six year prior, but the cracks are apparent everywhere. Imitating how they cast Christopher Reeve years earlier in looking for an unknown, Helen Slater had quite the qualification of having been in exactly one TV episode and zero movies prior to Supergirl (hey, they also tested out folks like Demi Moore and Brooke Shields). Honestly, she does fine with the material that shows a naive but charming would-be hero that you could definitely like for other adventures (okay maybe not with the school stuff, that whole "changes hair color and costume" BS only works when stoned). Bochner, on the other hand, has nothing to work with as the romantic interest, and it doesn't help that a chunk of the time sees him under a love potion. Teefy and McClure (the only link to the Superman films) aren't worth talking about. Evidently, Dunaway must've loved Mommie Dearest (1982) so much that she decided eating the scenery in hammy acting needed seconds. Sure, we know she is a worthwhile actress, but the material she is given here is so weak that she has no choice but to ham it up to try and distract the viewer that is barely above the middling villainous comic book movie presence you saw in the aforementioned third Superman movie. She's supposed to be self-centered and a terror with what power can do to someone, but she just seems more man-hungry than anything, considering that she is first wrapped up in getting a man to drink some love potion and when her powers of persuasion fail, she needs the guy she ditched to do the job for her (oh but then she sends a woman into a phantom zone). Incidentally, she gets stopped only when a man intervenes (first when one of them fiddles with the magic ball thing and the second when the warlock that she decided to betray after getting his help in the first place tells our hero, who had to be told that she could go on *twice* beforehand, how to get the villain trapped). Honestly, they might've done better if Cook or O'Toole were the villains. It isn't even worth giving Vaccaro criticism beyond saying that Ned Beatty could've done this goon shtick in his sleep**. It's funny that Cook is supposed to be playing both a warlock and a teacher but looks like he would rather being doing a bit instead. In theory, Farrow was meant to be a big name to draw attention to the film and deliver drama to the movie...and she gets less time on screen than O'Toole, a far more talented actor even when he is phoning it in. The effects are okay, but in general, the movie looks too tired to be anything other than campy cheese. It might work out for those who love to view the films of camp or the old days of failed franchises, but it probably was for the best that it went by the wayside.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Interestingly, the Salkinds still had the chance to do other things away from Superman, they developed a television series based on the character of Superboy later in the decade.

**Beatty and Vaccaro were both nominated for Academy Awards, you know. But Beatty had a hell of a speech in Network (1976), so we salute him. And I guess we will find a worthy Mia Farrow movie to watch that isn't made by the overrated Woody Allen someday.

Redux: Die Hard.

Redux Review #014: Die Hard.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (John McClane), Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber), Alexander Godunov (Karl), Bonnie Bedelia (Holly Gennaro-McClane), Reginald VelJohnson (Al Powell), Paul Gleason (Dwayne T. Robinson), De'voreaux White (Argyle), William Atherton (Richard Thornburg), Clarence Gilyard (Theo), Hart Bochner (Harry Ellis), and James Shigeta (Joseph Takagi) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review: 

From my review on December 22, 2010: 

This film brings exuberant joy and all the fun and bang in a 2-hour action packed film set on Christmas Eve. The acting is alright considering this an action film an all, with fine action and some decent suspense. Willis is the standout with a decent performance that would jump-start his career. This film would begin a franchise, which I will attempt to cover soon.

It's one of the best action films ever made. How much is there to say about Die Hard in the 35 years that have passed since its release? How many times can one watch the film and find new ways and things to examine? Well, you would be surprised. I actually can't believe I only thought the film was just a 9/10 as a teenager, particularly since it was one of those films that endure in the memory for quite some time. Probably one thing that didn't come to mind the first time I saw it is that it was actually based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (a writer who also dabbled in a detective agency in his youth). The author had written the book as a follow-up to his previous procedural novel in The Detective, with this being inspired by a dream he had about men chasing each other through a building...after he had saw the 1974 film The Towering Inferno. I'm sure you can see those similarities and differences pop up: an aging ex-NYPD detective is being chased by terrorists (led by a man named "Tony the Red" Gruber) and tries to save his daughter (a Ms. Gennaro) through stunts such as crawling through ducts while LAPD cops can only listen to him on the radio (the book is told all in POV of the detective). Jeb Stuart was tasked to write a screenplay with that in mind (as proposed to him by Lloyd Levin, who had been trying to get development done for it at 20th Century Fox), which would be pitched as "Rambo in a building". Of course, for Stuart, the real big thing to making it a useful screenplay was as he put it, "about a thirty-year-old who should have said he’s sorry to his wife and something really bad happens.” Written with undertones of thriller and the Western genres, Fox went right in with this for a target of Summer 1988, although Steven E. de Souza was tasked with doing a few re-writes as an experienced writer of blending action and comedy. de Souza (a Philadelphia native) went from story editing in television to producing TV to film writing with stuff such as Arnold's Wrecking Co. (1973), 48 Hrs. (1982), and Commando (1985). Lawrence Gordon and Joel Silver produced the film and had such a good time with John McTiernan when he did Predator (1987) for them that he was brought in to direct this film, provided that he put "some joy in it". It was the third theatrical film for the director and a hit that he returned to for the third film of what became a franchise: Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).

Everywhere you look and listen with this film is a success on every level, particularly for its genre. 132 minutes never has seemed so swift for a fun thriller that is so crisp in its execution that it could be watched on any day of the year. You could just make a list of people to give credit for it being a success that would seem like a laundry list that goes from McTiernan to the cinematographer in Jan de Bont (himself a future action director) to music cues from Michael Kamen (who initially resisted the idea of McTiernan to have Beethoven's Symphony No. 9) to Stuart & de Souza to a well-rounded cast from top to bottom that grows upon every viewing. Willis (born in West Germany but raised in New Jersey) had exactly two film credits: Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988) to go with his most prominent role as an actor at that time in the TV show Moonlighting, which had run from 1985 to early 1989 (the production of the film and the last episodes of the show were an ordeal to film back-to-back for Willis, obviously). The laundry list of people who rejected the lead role before Willis could make its own comedy: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, etc, etc. Willis is basically playing a Western hero that would be right at home for those who like High Noon (1952), complete with that interesting sense of vulnerability that comes through in all of the obscenities and observations. He does kick ass, but he is also one man left to dig out of the mud, and this makes for a compelling action thriller. If it was only him, the film would be pretty good, but having Rickman there to counter Willis with his composed nature of cutting charm and style is the best thing imaginable. He was a Tony Award-nominated actor in his forties that had to get over his doubts of having this serve as his debut into film. Can you think of a better background to go with a film debut like this? I sure can't think of many. He walks through the film with such sharp timing and dress sense (standing out from the others, which includes a former ballet dancer-turned-actor in Godunov) that can even make a solid attempt at an American accent. The highlight scene is a tough one to nail down, because he maneuvers the thriller angle with no sense of drying away from what could've just been nailed-down cliches from lesser actors so well. I think the scene where he is listing "demands" involving freeing a bunch of prisoners as if he was reading them off a magazine that he happened to glance at is probably him at his peak in terms of commanding presence and illusion without turning it into just a routine. Sure, there are plenty of action films to enjoy when it comes to the routines of slam-bang things or choice phrases, but one cherishes those character-driven ones so much more when you really do care about how it all goes down in stakes and in execution. With such time spent to praise Willis and Rickman, it might be easy to say they dominate over the other cast members. But they prove just as special in support when it comes to that specific nature of balance with Willis (and because of the nature of filming and in general when it comes to the rewrites). VelJohnson and Gleason make watching the terror down below matter in perspective when it comes to doubts and fears. One needs those vocal interactions between VelJohnson and Willis to accentuate the struggle that comes in "one vs. the world" to make it all matter just as much as seeing Bedelia react to the dread building around her or a blowhard in relief with the immeasurable Gleason and Atherton. Simply put: you might be able to assemble an entertaining film of some kind even if you split the cast in two. Like an inferno, it burns to a fever pitch that can't be extinguished easily or copied so easily. The irony of a pitch of "Rambo in a building" for this film is that its success would see other films being likened as "Die Hard on a [X]" when it came to an everyman dealing with terror on say, a bus or a battleship. In the end, this is a wonderful film for the season of anytime because it is timeless and effective on every level required, from its lead actors to its director to its sense of scale and sense of timing that makes you remember why you find the need to go back to it every now and then as you would expect from a classic.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Movie Night: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

Review #269: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

Cast
Kevin Conroy (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Dana Delany (Andrea Beaumont), Mark Hamill (The Joker), Hart Bochner (Arthur Reeves), Stacy Keach (Carl Beaumont and Voice of the Phantasm), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Alfred Pennyworth), Abe Vigoda (Salvatore Valestra), Dick Miller (Charles "Chuckie" Sol), John P. Ryan (Buzz Bronski), Bob Hastings (Commissioner James Gordon), and Robert Costanzo (Harvey Bullock) Directed by Eric Radomski and Bruce Timm.

Review
This was directed by the creators of Batman: The Animated Series, which was a very well acclaimed show in the 1990's that would get a movie, which is this. This was the third (or fourth if you count the 1966 Batman film) Batman film released, though it was different from the first two (though released one year after Batman Returns and two years before Batman Forever.) Anyway, the film has a lot going for it, with a beautiful opening sequence showing Gotham City. The plot is alright, but I find that it is a bit hampered by the flashbacks in the beginning that while it gives important info for the rest of the film, it feels like a distraction. But the animation is good, with the animation of the show a bit improved to make it more like a film. The middle to the end get interesting as the Joker comes in. And he is...really good. Out of the 4 actors that have played him, he might just tie Nicholson and Ledger's performances for best Joker (although Romero isn't a bad Joker by any means) The rest of the actors including Conroy, are good. I wish the film could had been longer, as the run time is only 76 minutes. In the end, it's a good film that while not better then Batman or The Dark Knight, certainly beats the two films that followed this (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) by a long shot.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.